6 ms·

Obama Administration Announces New Anti-Piracy Initiative

26 points by michalmarko 16y ago

CodeMage 16y ago
"Whether we are talking about fake Kevlar vests... or a bolt that fails on an airplane engine, we cannot afford to purchase fake goods. This is not just about the new Robin Hood movie," said Biden. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but the "logic" seems to be: piracy is about copyright (one kind of intellectual property) infringement, counterfeit goods are about trademark (another kind of intellectual property) infringement, therefore they should be in the same bag. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
- TallGuyShort 16y ago
  I think it's an even bigger stretch than that because he's not even alluding to trademark infringement - he's referring to low-quality goods. Now, I think piracy is wrong, but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    > comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant No, it makes you look like you want to protect the American interests oversea while also thinking about the children.
    - jamaicahest 16y ago
      Warms my heart to see someone finally thinking of the children!
  - rick888 16y ago
    "but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant." Not really. Pirated software can be "low quality". They could contain viruses, which also could look bad for the company that made the software.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Bootleg movie != Pirated software
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  I agree that the article is lacking in nuance, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong. When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized". That's not such a big stretch, is it?
  - narag 16y ago
    People that download torrents don't give a fuck about its "authenticity".
    - rortian 16y ago
      I'm not so sure this is right. They want a high quality file and hopefully one that is trojan-free etc. Thus, there are several 'name brand' ripping groups.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      Because... they like getting viruses instead of what they googled?
      - chrischen 16y ago
        No, because it's free.
        Groxx 16y ago
        Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc. Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?
kiba 16y ago
Yahoo! More angry customers for entrepreneurs to capture.
steveklabnik 16y ago
Recently, I came across one of the best things I've ever read on the whole IP topic: Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm Don't be fooled by the shitty site, these are Cambridge professors, they just also put the book online. It shows lots of amazing examples throughout history where the concept of IP actually hurt business, not helped. One good example: Dickens was heavily copied and sold here in America, because British copyrights didn't apply here. In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so). He made more money here.
- rjett 16y ago
  "In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so)" I wonder how much this fun fact is skewed by the fact that the pound was worth way more than the cheap American paper money during the time (not to mention that a lot of states printed their own money, so it would be quite difficult to compile a relative exchange rate).
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    I don't remember exactly, as I was borrowing a friend's copy, so I read it pretty quickly. They cited all their sources, though. I'm assuming that trivial of a mistake wouldn't be made.
billybob 16y ago
Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues. A few random points that should be considered about media piracy: 1) Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. 2) Copyright is a two-edged sword. Maybe knowing that you can copyright a song encourages your creativity. But knowing that they can't reuse your song discourages someone else's. (And reuse of others' work is old - classical composers borrowed others' music or poetry frequently.) 3) Consumers should recognize that NEVER buying movies, music, etc, but ALWAYS pirating them, will mean that some media, like music, is much harder to make, and other media, like big-budget films, are impossible. So it's in fans' interest to buy at least sometimes. 4) On the other hand, media producers have not convincingly shown (to my knowledge) that piracy is really hurting them. Clearly not every download is a lost sale: demand at price 0 will always be greater than at price $15, and piracy may expose people to band which they later buy from (this has happened to me). A decline in music revenues may be partly linked to a rise in video games and other entertainment.
- bad_user 16y ago
  > Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. I don't think this is the purpose of copyright anymore ... copyright just became a means to protect "IP", and that's it. It is still considered a means to protect authors, but that's just a facade for protecting the distribution channels. You can argue all you want, but it's your word against powerful interests groups.
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues. But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public. Do you think that Biden actually understands the difference? If he does, do you think that he cares?
bigstorm 16y ago
"Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy," Vice President Joe Biden said in releasing the 61-page plan drafted 61-page draft and ask him to sum it up and he will go nuts!! He has no idea what he is speaking of..just a beau talk
- bobbyi 16y ago
  He also apparently speak in comma splices.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Many people do. Spoken language rarely transcribes to good written language.
    - bobbyi 16y ago
      All that is required to transcribe that quote correctly (and a few others in the article) is to use a semicolon instead of a comma.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        Oh, I know. One of my friends noted the same thing recently--people use semicolons all the time in spoken language. But in written language it looks pretentious somehow.
        chc 16y ago
        People don't use semicolons in speech — they use emdashes.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        I always wondered what a semicolon sounded like.
ericbb 16y ago
They want to protect the public from unsafe false copies? I can suggest this for software: educate the public on the use of simple cryptographic tools. The public needs to know how to check for themselves that their torrented copy is an authentic copy. If they want to protect obsolete business models from technology, I would suggest the following: reduce the privacy and freedom of the entire public by spending lots of public money on big brother programs. The article gave me the uneasy feeling that they are trying to use the first problem to justify the second solution.
thecircusb0y 16y ago
In the end Piracy saves us... http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cmToK.jpg http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cmToK.j...
mmagin 16y ago
So, I guess this is the USA's side of compliance to the new copyright treaty that was being cooked up in secret? It's so tiresome seeing copyright infringement conflated with the counterfeit physical goods which may cause their users physical harm due to not complying with expected specifications.

26 points by michalmarko 16y ago

"Whether we are talking about fake Kevlar vests... or a bolt that fails on an airplane engine, we cannot afford to purchase fake goods. This is not just about the new Robin Hood movie," said Biden. Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but the "logic" seems to be: piracy is about copyright (one kind of intellectual property) infringement, counterfeit goods are about trademark (another kind of intellectual property) infringement, therefore they should be in the same bag. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

TallGuyShort 16y ago
I think it's an even bigger stretch than that because he's not even alluding to trademark infringement - he's referring to low-quality goods. Now, I think piracy is wrong, but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant.
- bad_user 16y ago
  > comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant No, it makes you look like you want to protect the American interests oversea while also thinking about the children.
  - jamaicahest 16y ago
    Warms my heart to see someone finally thinking of the children!
- rick888 16y ago
  "but comparing a bootleg movie to a fake life-saving device just makes you look ignorant." Not really. Pirated software can be "low quality". They could contain viruses, which also could look bad for the company that made the software.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Bootleg movie != Pirated software
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
michael_dorfman 16y ago
I agree that the article is lacking in nuance, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "piracy" that Biden, et al, are speaking of here is not individuals downloading torrents, but bootleggers (largely in China) reproducing and selling works. And, in this case, the similarities are strong. When you buy an item-- be it a Xanax, a Kevlar vest, or a Pink Floyd CD-- you want to know that it is "authentic" (i.e., made to the proper spec) which implies "authorized". That's not such a big stretch, is it?
- narag 16y ago
  People that download torrents don't give a fuck about its "authenticity".
  - rortian 16y ago
    I'm not so sure this is right. They want a high quality file and hopefully one that is trojan-free etc. Thus, there are several 'name brand' ripping groups.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Because... they like getting viruses instead of what they googled?
    - chrischen 16y ago
      No, because it's free.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        Except for the time spent downloading it, in some cases days / weeks. And the implied risk, however small it's interpreted to be. And the danger of it being a virus (diminishing, but applicable). And etc etc etc. Nothing's "free" to the extent that people wouldn't care if it's crap. Actually, there's a nice analogy: that flaming bag of dog doo on your porch was likely free too, but it may cause damage. Is it a non-issue because it's free?

kiba 16y ago

Yahoo! More angry customers for entrepreneurs to capture.

steveklabnik 16y ago

Recently, I came across one of the best things I've ever read on the whole IP topic: Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm Don't be fooled by the shitty site, these are Cambridge professors, they just also put the book online. It shows lots of amazing examples throughout history where the concept of IP actually hurt business, not helped. One good example: Dickens was heavily copied and sold here in America, because British copyrights didn't apply here. In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so). He made more money here.

rjett 16y ago
"In the UK, his books sold for $6 each; in America, they sold for $0.06 (or so)" I wonder how much this fun fact is skewed by the fact that the pound was worth way more than the cheap American paper money during the time (not to mention that a lot of states printed their own money, so it would be quite difficult to compile a relative exchange rate).
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I don't remember exactly, as I was borrowing a friend's copy, so I read it pretty quickly. They cited all their sources, though. I'm assuming that trivial of a mistake wouldn't be made.

billybob 16y ago

Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues. A few random points that should be considered about media piracy: 1) Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. 2) Copyright is a two-edged sword. Maybe knowing that you can copyright a song encourages your creativity. But knowing that they can't reuse your song discourages someone else's. (And reuse of others' work is old - classical composers borrowed others' music or poetry frequently.) 3) Consumers should recognize that NEVER buying movies, music, etc, but ALWAYS pirating them, will mean that some media, like music, is much harder to make, and other media, like big-budget films, are impossible. So it's in fans' interest to buy at least sometimes. 4) On the other hand, media producers have not convincingly shown (to my knowledge) that piracy is really hurting them. Clearly not every download is a lost sale: demand at price 0 will always be greater than at price $15, and piracy may expose people to band which they later buy from (this has happened to me). A decline in music revenues may be partly linked to a rise in video games and other entertainment.

bad_user 16y ago
> Copyright exists to encourage the creation of new works - ie to benefit the public, not the creators per se. I don't think this is the purpose of copyright anymore ... copyright just became a means to protect "IP", and that's it. It is still considered a means to protect authors, but that's just a facade for protecting the distribution channels. You can argue all you want, but it's your word against powerful interests groups.
w1ntermute 16y ago
Media piracy and fake Kevlar vests are completely different issues. But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public.
- anamax 16y ago
  > But it's pretty easy to conflate them without any objections from the uninformed American public. Do you think that Biden actually understands the difference? If he does, do you think that he cares?

bigstorm 16y ago

"Piracy hurts, it hurts our economy," Vice President Joe Biden said in releasing the 61-page plan drafted 61-page draft and ask him to sum it up and he will go nuts!! He has no idea what he is speaking of..just a beau talk

bobbyi 16y ago
He also apparently speak in comma splices.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Many people do. Spoken language rarely transcribes to good written language.
  - bobbyi 16y ago
    All that is required to transcribe that quote correctly (and a few others in the article) is to use a semicolon instead of a comma.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Oh, I know. One of my friends noted the same thing recently--people use semicolons all the time in spoken language. But in written language it looks pretentious somehow.
      - chc 16y ago
        People don't use semicolons in speech — they use emdashes.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      I always wondered what a semicolon sounded like.

ericbb 16y ago

They want to protect the public from unsafe false copies? I can suggest this for software: educate the public on the use of simple cryptographic tools. The public needs to know how to check for themselves that their torrented copy is an authentic copy. If they want to protect obsolete business models from technology, I would suggest the following: reduce the privacy and freedom of the entire public by spending lots of public money on big brother programs. The article gave me the uneasy feeling that they are trying to use the first problem to justify the second solution.

thecircusb0y 16y ago

In the end Piracy saves us... http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cmToK.jpg http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/cmToK.j...

mmagin 16y ago

So, I guess this is the USA's side of compliance to the new copyright treaty that was being cooked up in secret? It's so tiresome seeing copyright infringement conflated with the counterfeit physical goods which may cause their users physical harm due to not complying with expected specifications.