Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Passes Internet Copyright Legislation

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the pendulum-politics dept.

215

Turtlewind writes "According to the Peoples' Daily Online, the Chinese government has passed new legislation regarding copyright on the internet. As well as increasing the penalties for online infringement and forcing ISPs to remove illegal content if given written notice, the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection". While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?"

cancel ×

215 comments

Everyone? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427559)

I don't think that's quite true.

Re:Everyone? (4, Insightful)

Ithika (703697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427660)

Agreed. The poster assumes an awful lot in his blurb. No, we weren't all hanging around on the edge of our seats until China implemented stronger IP laws. In fact, I don't think anything has been further from my mind.

It has always been a good thing that poor and industrialising haven't assumed the same set of IP laws as, for example, the US. All countries doing things the same way creates an implicit assumption that that way is somehow superior. But that is not the case. China has a duty to its own citizens and not to foreign corporations. (Indeed, I don't think anyone has a duty to foreign corporations.)

This is just the first step in a Chinese implementation of the DMCA; and for all that the US isn't a very free place to live, I wouldn't like to see how transgressors are dealt with in China.

Banning devices (4, Interesting)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427919)

there's this bit:
banning "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".
Technically, wouldn't that ban the production, import and supply of computers? Note that it does not say "specifically designed"

This would open the door to all sorts of draconian enforcements of the law. This would fit the stereotype of a bureaucrat's paradise. I bet other countries are taking notes.

Re:Everyone? (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427693)

A wise man once said:

All generalities are false, including this one.

Re:Everyone? (5, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427744)

The real question has China any will to enforce the law? Would anyone there cooperate with RIAA/MPAA as much as they do in EU/US?

No doubt many (me included) see the passed law only as a step needed to please World Trade Organization.

Re:Everyone? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427834)

Of course they will cooperate. There are great profits to be made. The prison factories need more and more all the time. And Walmart will be able to offer better holiday discounts.

Re:Everyone? (1)

DRM_is_Stupid (954094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427851)

Oh, I get it. China has draconian law enforcement, except when said enforcement would make them look good in western eyes, because China is always evil, whenever they enforce or not enforce a law.

Re:Everyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427787)

I don't even know what IP rights are, do protocols have rights now? If the submitter meant copyright, he should have said so!

Insightful, not funny (4, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427810)

I'm waiting for a forward-thinking, high-profile country to stand up and say. "Hey, you know what, we thought about it and
-A twenty year copyright term provides enough incentive for the creation of works and the advancement of science and the useful arts
-Recent technology has made it quite easy for an author to recoup a hefty reward for a popular piece of writing/art over the course of twenty years.

It seems absurd to me that as the world gets more interconnected, making it easier for an author to find and sell to hisher market in a short time period, copyright terms are being extended

Re:Everyone? (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427815)

Damn right! It's not true. Up until I saw this, I considered China to be rather progressive about IP law. But, alas, the triumph of currency rules over all. Now they're just part of the problem. The chains are getting tighter. It is attitudes like this that just takes away the remaining value of life on what is becoming a prison planet. Oh well, here's hoping that we find a way to neutralize the weapons of the prison guards. Very depressing indeed.

Interesting. (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427560)

As many others have noted in this forum before, the US ignored copyright, patents & trademarks as an emerging economy, right until its elite started to benefit from the trade monopolies granted by such IP.

It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws.

On a slightly different note, it appears that Chinese journalists are more educated about internet copyright infringements than their western counterparts:
the uploading and downloading of Internet material without the copyright holder's permission. [emp mine]
Pity western journalists can't learn that. Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

Re:Interesting. (1, Insightful)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427570)

You have no rights in China. I'm not quite sure what this article is about, or what you're talking about. The government can and will freely profit from the IP rights of its citizens, yes, but it can strip those rights whenever and however it pleases for any reason whatsoever.

This isn't some emerging trend, or some candle to hold up so that Western states can rise to it. At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.

Re:Interesting. (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427662)

At least here, when our IP rights are corroded, or IP gets overbearing, we have recourse.

You do? Excellent - please go ahead and seek recourse, as your country and corporations are both lobbying and inspiring mine to their own excesses.

Re:Interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427743)

I think he meant to say "I hold in my hand a piece of paper".

I think you're recourse has run its course. (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427837)

If I understood Moglen's analysis [groklaw.net] of Eldred v Ashcroft correctly, the Supreme Court more or less said there is no Constitutional limit on how "overbearing" copyright laws can get. Anything Congress passes is presumed kosher.

You still have the recourse of finding new legislators to start repealing these bogus "intellectual property" laws. Good luck with that. The trend in 80% of (democratic) governments is to extend the scope and length of copyright coverage even more, and to have these extensions enforceable across international boundaries through WIPO etc.

Re:Interesting. (1, Troll)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428012)

The government can and will freely profit from the IP rights of its citizens, yes, but it can strip those rights whenever and however it pleases for any reason whatsoever.
The government can do that here, too. It uses the phrase "national security" instead of "any reason whatsoever," but it amounts to the same thing these days.

Re:Interesting. (1)

Alfred, Lord Tennyso (975342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427663)

no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.

Interesting-Farmer's market. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427672)

"It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws."

Is a market really a market, if there are no farmers? And is a farmer's market just a step above going to every individual farmer?

Misparse (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427698)

It's not that markets are artificial, it's that IP is artificial property. Literally: that ideas can be restricted in their domain of use is a human artifice.

Re:Interesting. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427719)

without the copyright holder's permission. [emp mine]
Pity western journalists can't learn that.


The same corporations that own the mainstream music and movie industries also own the newspapers. Killing P2P isn't about keeping you from downloading Britney. It's about keeping you from hearing the major labels' competitors, the indie and local bands that would dearly love you to hear their stuff. They know full well that the studies have shown that the more a person uses P2P the more music they buy. The trouble is, they don't buy it all from the majors.

Just for yuks, email your local dimwitted journalist and explain it to him. Enclose a copy of Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning as an attachment, just to show them how good a free, independant movie can be!

Re:Interesting. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427727)

That's because if you do anything but demonize copyright infringement and make it look worse than murder, you can be sure to receive a lawsuit from the powers-that-be on the grounds that you're promoting terrorism by encouraging piracy that funds them.
Welcome to America, land of the abuse of the legal system^W^W^W^W^W free.
Ironically enough, the CAPTCHA for this post was "Trusting".

Re: Interesting. (1)

gidds (56397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427767)

Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.

They don't need to mention it. If material is public domain, or you have the copyright holder's permission (e.g. under a suitable licence), then that's legally downloading music. So if you're talking about 'illegally downloading music', you're automatically excluding that.

But yes, I agree with the general point that far too many people tend to assume that all free downloading is illegal.

Re:Interesting. (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427814)

Just ask McCormick or the McCormick reaper. His patent was stripped by the US Government. So much for the Constitution.

Re:Interesting. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428052)

Where in the Constitution does it say that McCormick had any kind of "right" to a patent? (Hint: it doesn't.)

I think this will work as well as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427565)

As when they banned fireworks on chinese new year.

If by everyone, you mean some. (5, Insightful)

expro (597113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427567)

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?

If by everyone, you mean some, then you are right. You clearly do not speak for everyone or for me. There is great value in having diversity in laws in different areas of the world, it is sad to see freedoms lost, and it is obvious to me that China will borrow our worst policies, including DCMA-style anti-circumvention nonsense.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427647)

China will borrow our worst policies, including DCMA-style anti-circumvention nonsense.

If you think that's the worst thing going on in China, then you've got your head up your arse. I wouldn't consider it 'freedom lost' since that would imply there was a freedom to lose. China is just coming to grips with notions of Property (the 'P' in 'IP'.)
They are Communist, remember?

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (5, Insightful)

Ithika (703697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427671)

They are Communist, remember?

No, not really. Do you honestly think that the branches of McDonalds in Beijing are owned by the workers? Your naivete is touching.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428031)

i'm sure the franchises are owned by The Party. People have all this rosy notion about "communism" "never existing" "in practice," which mearly showes their predisposition towards the lies. Do you really, honestly think that anyone ever intends to get past the dictatorship of the proleteriat? Did Marx? Probably not. Marx and Engles were educated and wealthy. What would they gain by giving it away? Nothing. What would they gain by LYING to the masses in order that they would deliver themselves whole-heartedly into the hands of a system much, much more oppressive than Capitalism? Very high.

Communism is the biggest lie ever told, with Christianity being #2.

That's not communism, THIS is communism: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428055)

Communism doesn't mean "everything is owned by everyone", it means "everything is owned by the same entity that owns everyone"; the government. And with that attitude, it's easy to make some of the "decisions" they've made regarding "their" human's "rights"...

MOD UP! (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427764)

Man, you took the words right out of my mouth.

I was actually planning a comment along these lines in my head when I clicked on the story.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (4, Insightful)

dominator (61418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427871)

The way I look at things is that China has had unfettered access to our (relatively free) markets while it has severely limited Western ownership in and access to its markets. Their stance on human rights is awful. They wield draconian control over the Yuan. The balance of power has been relatively one-sided thus far. All this, even as they're in the midst of applying for membership in the WTO. At best, they pay lip-service to the WTO's (and thus, the West's) demands, including IP reform.

Anything that signals that China is becoming more willing to play the same game as the West is a welcome relief for me. Free trade must be reciprocal. That is, unless we wisen up and fully appreciate who it is we've been dumping dollars into all these years, to the detriment of our local manufacturing sectors.

It is not free trade. (1)

expro (597113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428053)

Free trade must be reciprocal.

Copyright is not about free trade, but about granting of monopoly. Anti-circumvention legislation is even less about free trade but about further restricting what consumers are permitted to do with their already restricted copyrights.

You may argue about whether it is good or bad, but free trade it will never be. However much Americans may like to claim the west is about freedom, often they are about restrictions and anti-freedom. China loves to copy our restrictions wherever it suits them. Copying our games only should be flattering to Americans where it is something good, but you know Americans: "They hate us for our Freedom"(TM) so lets banish more freedom and call it patriotic.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427928)

it is obvious to me that China will borrow our worst policies

The RIAA and PRC government go together like fugly at a Radcliffe party.

Re:If by everyone, you mean some. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427989)

It's seems the RIAA/MPAA have even made a poster about this great event. I think it says: "Put that pirated dvd down and your death will be quick."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Peop les_army.jpg [wikimedia.org]

China bans computers? (4, Insightful)

grimwell (141031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427573)

the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".

Doesn't that describe general purpose computers?

Re:China bans computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427594)

you beat me to it, I saw that clip and wondered, ok, what are they really talking about, do they even know what they are talking about? Clearly they are not going to ban computers.

Re:China bans computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427613)

Maybe their trying to stop people trafficing?

Re:China bans computers? (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427678)

Hell, by that wording they've banned DVD players, TV's, etc.

Buy a TV, hook it up to a DVD burner or VCR (yeah, one of those ancient devices), record a movie broadcast via cable or TV, and voila, you've violated the copyright.

Buy a DVD player and a DVD burner. Rent a movie, duplicate it, and again you're in violation.

Granted, the copies in both these cases wouldn't be 100% digital reproductions, but they'd still be violating copyright.

Re:China bans modchips? (1)

boron boy (858013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427702)

I think this could this mean no more Chinese sourced modchips. Better get them while you can.

Re:China bans computers? (1)

VoxCombo (782935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427828)

Do you see the little pair of curved lines before and after the sentence taken from the article? Those are called quotation marks, and they imply that the sentence has other stuff before and after it.........

So instead of jumping to a silly conclusion, try drawing a logical inference and assume there is language similar to the US "substantial non-infringing uses".

Hey everyone, don't panic (4, Interesting)

localroger (258128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427575)

Fortunately TFA doesn't say they have banned the production and export of devices that allow us to bypass DRM. Your supply of Chinese DVD players that can be hacked to skip the unskippable bits and disable Macrovision will not be affected.

Typo in summary (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427576)

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP human rights.

There, fixed it for you.

I couldn't give a damn about Chinese IP rights, but this action is rather indicative of where the pressure from the West is being directed. Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't getting ripped off.

Re:Typo in summary (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427587)

ooops. Guess <strike>IP</strike> doesn't work at slashdot...

Re:Typo in summary (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427651)

Scroll down a bit further:
Allowed HTML
<b> <i> <p> <br> <a> <ol> <ul> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <em> <strong> <tt> <blockquote> <div> <ecode>

Re:Typo in summary (-1, Offtopic)

Ithika (703697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427684)

It really pisses me off that I can never get <ecode> to work properly. Is it supposed to be like <pre>? It always seems to ignore space indents for me, so code is always bang up against the left. And entities are always a bit hit and miss.

Re:Typo in summary (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427758)

I have no mind but Google. I must copy and paste.

pre is a magic newline and space deal [hulver.com] , whereas ecode is a capricious beast [hulver.com] that I do not understand. Apparently it depends on the site owner's implementation.

Re:Typo in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427691)

That's why you see so much of this: ...its enforcement of IP^H^Hhuman rights.

Priorities (2, Informative)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427597)

I think you are dead-on with this ... I'd rather see the various oppressions easened-up than see some copyright crap passed. Frankly, China's loose stance on copyright/"IP"/etc is one of the few things I find redeeming about thier system.

Re:Typo in summary (1)

Ilex (261136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427752)

Sadly I have to agree that you are correct. Governments everywhere, not just China now uphold the privilege of the IP Monopoly that is Copyright and Patents over Human Rights like freedom of expression. Copyrights and Patents are now being abused to stifle the culture they were meant to protect.

The more the IP fascists buy new law's to persecute those who they deem to be infringing the more people will begin to resent the persecution. When enough peoples Children have been imprisoned or executed civil unrest will follow. Government will soon strip away these IP laws when enough people get angry enough. Remember governments only listen to those who can keep them in power.

Ironic that the biggest IP fascists are the entertainment industry. It is said that entertainment is the opiate of the masses. Lets see what happens when DRM and these IP laws prevent the masses from getting their fix.

Re:Typo in summary (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427946)

Our governments don't care if the Chinese people are oppresssed, as long as our corporations aren't prevented from ripping everyone off.

There, fixed it for you.

So china has banned computers? (1)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427583)

RE: law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection".
So the PRC has banned all PCs and other general use computers? SHHHHHHH!!! Stop giving ideas to the XIAAs ! ;-)

They already hold copyright on the word Tiananmen (4, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427585)

Let me guess what this will be used for.

Copyright on the AIDS prevalence reports in the China rural population after the massive infections produced by various "buy your blood for money" scam artists of the late 90-es.

Copyright on the documentation about the Three Gorges dam and its environmental assessment

Copyright on the studies about the history of Tibet

Copyright on the ...

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427614)

You forgot the history of Taiwan.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427741)

i thought taiwan didn't exist

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428039)

It doesn't -- it calls itself "China" too! It's just not the same China as the mainland.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (2, Insightful)

stubear (130454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427768)

You can't copyright a word, but then again, much of copyright law seems to elude your typical slashdot reader. Also, last I checked, copyright has nothing to do with government censorship of facts and information.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (2, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427838)

Oh, I dunno. I could see censorship done via IP law, even if not directly.

What if, for example, P2P programs caught on in China as a way to circumvent government censorship? Banning those programs as "subversive" (or words to that effect) would have political repercussions. Banning them in the name of IP law however would work fine - there would be less uproar, and as a bonus, the law would have the support of any media company operating in China. Plus, the government could claim they were complying with western law.

"Censorship? What censorship? We're merely protecting copyright materials. How is that different from what companies in America do?" -- Doesn't that seem a little convienient?

Not saying it will happen, but it's not that far fetched. And the only reason I see for it not happening is the fact that china really doesn't feel the need to justify it's actions internationally, or at least they haven't felt the need yet.

Re:They already hold copyright on the word Tiananm (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427996)

I could see censorship done via IP law, even if not directly.

If you follow the news at all, then you have seen censorship done [slashdot.org] via IP law [slashdot.org] . In case you haven't figured it out by now, this is what IP law is about. This is its purpose. As for China, They want some of that WTO action. And they'll do anything to get it.

Why Is This In Politics????!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427586)

According to the FAQ, [slashdot.org] the politics section is for stories "relevant to United States government politics."

I see no relevance to the US government over what the Chinese government does.

In fact, most of the stories in the "politics" section are about China, EU or other hodgepodge that have no relevance to the US government.

In short, all these stories are offtopic, and the editors don't even realize it.

MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ... (3, Insightful)

LordAbraxsis (945048) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427591)

ironclad Copyright laws in a country that would rather execute you than listen to what you have to say.

/Counts the days to a world wide boycott on Music/Movies following the first Copyright Infringement conviction that is followed by the person's execution.

Re:MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ... (1)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427649)

What a crazy idea, and even crazier because it seems more feasible every day.

Re:MPAA and RIAA get what they always wanted ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427914)

It's naive to think that american consumers would boycott music/movies because some guy in China got killed over it. The message the average consumer would take from that would be "China has dumb laws," rather than "the *IAA is bad."

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427596)

Remember everyone, this is legislation coming from a government that proclaims itself to be communist. According to the ideas set down long ago by Marx & Engels, there is no sense of private property--yet we're seeing laws protecting intellectual property. Doesn't make much sense. Then again, there isn't any idea of a market system in Communism yet China is rife and growing with rudimentary free markets and international business.

Why do we see the leader of the Communist Party [blackenterprise.com] arguing for strengthening stronger IP rights?

Could they at least change the name of their party? They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place. Seriously, what part of the original idea of Communism is left without these two things? They are picking a very odd way to abolish social classes. Perhaps they should be called Neo-Communists or just flat out trend-Communists.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1)

zymurgy_cat (627260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427624)

Could they at least change the name of their party? They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place.

The same could be same of just about any political party and/or political belief. For example, in the US, Republicans favor small government and despise government intrusion in people's lives....unless, of course, they're enforcing moral/religious viewpoints. Similar examples can be offered for Democrats.

No Strict Definitions for US Parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427634)

The same could be same of just about any political party and/or political belief. For example, in the US, Republicans favor small government and despise government intrusion in people's lives....unless, of course, they're enforcing moral/religious viewpoints. Similar examples can be offered for Democrats.
But there is no "Republican Manifesto" or "Democrat Manifesto" or even literature written to define precisely what Republican or Democrat mean. They're constantly changing parties that have gone 180 degrees and back again in the history of US politics. In fact, they're not really the "Grand Ole' Party" by name much anymore. My point is that Communism is a very concrete and established idea. The Chinese government has fewer and fewer traits and are now seemingly Communist only by name.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (4, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427661)

They're really giving way to a new form of Communism that only seems to select and use the parts that are useful to them given the time and place.

This has always been the way of China. In the long haul they have always been social pragmatists.

You may not be so different yourself. Have you adopted Germanic pagan tree worship, or do you just put up a "Christmas" tree because you like to?

KFG

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1, Funny)

RsG (809189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427700)

Bah, heathen. Keep insulting my tree gods, and I won't send you any mid-winter feast cards this year :-P

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428044)

Keep insulting my tree gods. . .

Quite the contrary, I was insulting Christians, because my name is Rex Cramer; Danger Seeker!

KFG

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427670)

You confuse intellectual "property" (a propaganda term) and real physical property. Copyright and patent monopolies are ANTI- free-market-capitalist, and seriously undermine physical property rights (e.g. despite having all the physical property to build a copy of a patented device (WITHOUT depriving anyone else of their physical property or the fruits of their labour - copying isn't theft) with your own time and materials, you are prohibited from doing so).

Strong enforcement of I"P" fits right in with the InfoFascist mentality of the Chinese Communists, just as much as with the InfoFascist mentality of the American Corporatists.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427688)

Why do we see the leader of the Communist Party [blackenterprise.com] arguing for strengthening stronger IP rights?

They're just doing this because of preasures put on them by the owners of the IP that's going over there - via our Government. That's all.

Maybe, in time, this will push their economy over more towards freer markets.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427721)

Could they at least change the name of their party?
Are you kidding? The cost to reprint the official stationery would bankrupt the country.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1)

benk81 (870685) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427742)

Next you'll be saying that the main conservative party in Australia should change its name from the Liberal party!

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427956)

Oh, you mean like in Marx and Engels' Manifesto of the Communist Party [wikimedia.org] -- first printed in London, thus granted copyright February 1848.

Re:Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428013)

Perhaps they should be called Neo-Communists or just flat out trend-Communists.

Nah, plain ol' fascist is good enough.

What about modchips China loves to make? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427598)

Imagine all the lost GNP for China now that they wont allow their citizens to make millions of modchips and illegal CDs.

Wait... this bill only influences THEIR copyright... not the copyright of foreign countries.

Continue your communism, nothing to see here.

Public opinion and China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427600)

is this a step too far?

Whatever China could possibly do is a step too far, eh?

Hypocritical (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427604)

Does anyone find this a bit hypocritical given that China is arguably the largest pirate nation on the planet?

Neither the populace nor government has any respect for foreign intellectual property value.

Re:Hypocritical (2, Funny)

Kirth (183) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427707)

Well, its actually not the largest pirate nation, the largest would probably be malaysia. But its true, only too often a freightship attacked and taken over in the malacca strait or south china sea finds its way into chinese ports.

http://www.imo.org/Legal/mainframe.asp?topic_id=33 4 [imo.org]

Re:Hypocritical (2, Informative)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427770)

China is not the top software piracy nation, but rather the third. Apparently, Vietnam is at the top of the list [bbc.co.uk] , followed by Ukraine and then China.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427784)

I saw that list, but it is by percentages. Take said percentage, and multiply it by the population and China becomes the largest pirate nation on the planet.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428060)

Hypocritical? How so? If the Chinese government looked at the state of their nation, and thought "piracy is bad" and "our people are responsible for a lot of piracy," enacting a law to prevent piracy is about the only reasonable and consistent thing they could do. If they said "piracy is bad" and then didn't enact such a law, that would be hypocritical.

Maybe you're confused about what the word means?

To bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427606)

...this does not apply to all the copyrights on physical products the steal on a daily basis...but then again, what should we really expect from a bunch of Commies!?

Freedom! (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427607)

So we can say that one third of the world cannot access a free (ans in freedom) internet. Another third cannot access it at all.
So is it right to call it "world wide web"?

Re:Freedom! (1)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427690)

The freedom of the internet is a negative right, not a positive [wikipedia.org] one. But it's on the national level, not the individual level, meaning that nations are not prevented by others from connecting to the internet, and nobody is obligated to step forward and connect others to the internet. And each nation gets to decide individually whether or not to allow certain traffic, just as they are allowed to make their skies a no-fly zone or ban the importation of products that are blasphemous according to their belief system.

If it were any other way, it'd be paternalistic imperialism on our part (see Iraq)

It's nice to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427617)

...that China's legislators are as clueless as our are! This is a good thing, the worse other governments are, the better our incompetents can keep up.

Basically it looks like they banned computers, VCRs, and tape recorders (and cell phones?). I wonder what country will manufacture our electronic geegaws now? ;)

There Goes Lenovo (2, Funny)

cyberbian (897119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427633)

The ban includes the production of devices that can be used to circumvent IP protections...

I guess Lenovo is about to file the Chinese equivalent of Chapter 11.

Stupid Human Rights Tricks...

Prohibition has never been the answer, how many times do we need to learn this?

Waging the war on freedom... (1)

el_crapitan (957323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427680)

I hear they are looking to copyright things like 'democracy' and 'rights' so that they'll have even more reasons to through those pesky chinese bloggers away.

Computers illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427704)

Are all programmable computers illegal by this law?

Incorrect summary (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427712)

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?"

While the entire article speaks specifically about Copyright violations only, the summary lumps it under 'Intellectual Property' and confuses the issue. And immediately, the /. crowd will be up in arms about software piracy, China's poor record against piracy etc.

When the term "intellectual property" is itself not clearly defined, and software patents - a key component of the so-called "IP" - are not treated equally by all nations.... why should we over-simplify this matter?

China's suposed violations of s/w patents, licenses and trademarks have no bearing on the legislation being debated.

nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427755)

nice to see slashdot is so open minded when it gets to politics. we get both news from china and china.

Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427766)

China was so progressive with their stance on copyrights, i.e. turning a blind eye to violations and whatnot, leading to leaps and bounds in innovation and progress in science and the useful arts. Now their devolving into the US with respect to IP. Too bad. Expect innovation in China to stagnate like the US in a few years.

Between the US and China... (2, Interesting)

burningion (936461) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427780)

Between the US and China there has been a rediculous number of infringements on human privacy and freedom of speech. I think the best way to stop the NSA and China's insistence on snooping and restricting is for as many people as possible to start participating in an anonymizing service, like the EFF's TOR Project. It wraps every web request in encryption and then routes it through other servers so noone can tell what the other person is looking for. I wrote a tutorial on putting this anonymizing software on a hidden volume in a USB key for those people who want to be able to surf the web, without big brother tracking them. Make your own DemocraKey [travelingforever.com] , and let's take away every government's ability to regulate thought.

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427819)

It's a bad sign when China's looking to us for tips on restricting people's freedoms.

Oh well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427824)

They can copyright all they want... their public still can't read the damn pages anyway. /This reply is censored in China

Good for the goose... (-1, Redundant)

Afty0r (263037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427835)

[blockquote][i]... forcing ISPs to remove illegal content if given written notice, the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection[/i][/blockquote]Is this not exactly the situation the US of America is in, and has been for the best part of a decade?

Good for the goose... (1)

Afty0r (263037) | more than 8 years ago | (#15427841)

... forcing ISPs to remove illegal content if given written notice, the law also bans "the production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection
Is this not exactly the situation the US of America is in, and has been for the best part of a decade?

IP and communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15427968)

It seems that IP is at odds with the principles of communism.

This move has been made for two reasons:
  -as a political measure for the US
  -as another reason to put dissadents in jail

The US would say to China "you need to have more freedoms like us", ... "except with information owned by our corporations. In that area, you need less freedom"

Uh huh (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428017)

While everyone wants to see China improving its enforcement of IP rights, is this a step too far?

No, I'm sure that the average John Chinaman is truly in love with the prospect of a government-run IP crackdown!

Yay! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428050)

Now all they need to do is pass a law saying that spammers will be executed. They can do that -- their government can do whatever it wants. Not like here. So go ahead, China! Start executing spammers! You have nothing to lose. Well, except a bunch of spammers. They're not... um... contributing to the... er... harmoniousness of your society anyway. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...