Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Politics

Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA 703

Posted by timothy
from the four-letter-acronyms dept.
boarder8925 writes "In a move sure to surprise no one, Obama has come out on the side of the MPAA/RIAA and has backed the ACTA: 'We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,' Obama said in his speech, 'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, 2010 @04:52PM (#31474488)

    ... our jobs!

    • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:29PM (#31474798) Homepage

      Actually assuming you have a particular way you go about accomplishing your job, it might actually be patentable.

      I remember not long ago some company was trying to patent how they ran their business, something to do with how to schedule and conduct the business meetings I believe.

    • by mickwd (196449) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:32PM (#31474824)

      .....and speeches.

      What he wanted to say was: "Our single greatest asset is the innovation of the American people.....innovation and ingenuity.....ingenuity and innovation. Our TWO greatest assets are the innovation and the ingenuity of the American people.....and their creativity.....our THREE greatest assets are the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people.....and an almost fanatical devotion to Hollywood and the RIAA.....our FOUR.....NO.....AMONGST our assets are such elements as innovation, ingenuity and creativity.....I'll come in again...

      NOBODY expects the ACTA imposition.

  • by Third Position (1725934) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @04:54PM (#31474500)

    ...at least he's not a Republican!

  • Not Trolling ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @04:56PM (#31474512)
    ... I'm just asking:

    What would we expect from any President? Pick anyone from the last batch, or even the next batch, of candidates. Do you think any one of them wouldn't back big business in this situation?
    • by Dalambertian (963810) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:25PM (#31475384)

      ... I'm just asking: What would we expect from any President? Pick anyone from the last batch, or even the next batch, of candidates. Do you think any one of them wouldn't back big business in this situation?

      Ron Paul?

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @07:49PM (#31475992) Homepage

      3 candidates I can think of off the top of my head that would have not taken this kind of stand in favor of big business:
      - Ralph Nader, because he's built his entire career on going after corporate chicanery.
      - Ron Paul, because he as a general rule doesn't want the federal government to either support or oppose a particular industry or business model.
      - Dennis Kucinich, because he's consistently advocated the use of government power to put a check on big business's abuses of their power going back to his days as mayor of Cleveland.

      Notice how seriously anyone in the mainstream media took either of their campaigns (for instance, asking Kucinich about UFOs rather than health care or Iraq).

    • Makes sense that our politicians on both sides would sick up for our successful industries. Don't hear about those two needing bailouts...
      The USA doesn't EXPORT much of anything anymore:
      Military and related products
      Movies & Music & TV(?)
      IP lawsuits
      MSonopoly software
      Gambling (aka Banking "products")

      It makes sense these "industries" are largely untouchable; even when they screw over their own country.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, 2010 @04:58PM (#31474522)

    Next up: The Texas schoolboard mandates that textbooks 'de-emphasise' the RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT that Hollywood was founded on industrialised copyright infringement.

    • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:44PM (#31474968)

      Next up: The Texas schoolboard mandates that textbooks 'de-emphasise' the RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT that Hollywood was founded on industrialised copyright infringement.

      For people wondering about the context here. See Motion Picture Patents Company [wikipedia.org] :

      "Since the 1890s, Thomas Edison owned most of the major American patents relating to motion picture cameras.Since 1902, Edison had also been notifying distributors and exhibitors that if they did not use Edison machines and films exclusively, they would be subject to litigation for supporting filmmaking that infringed Edison’s patents.

      [...]

      Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to Hollywood, whose distance from Edison’s home base of New Jersey made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and covers the area, was averse to enforcing patent claims."

      Via [kungfugrippe.com].

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356)

        Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to Hollywood, whose distance from Edison's home base of New Jersey made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents.

        This has the flavor of legend.

        Three decades earlier Hollywood had been chosen by the emergent film industry for more than just a balmy climate and abundant sunshine. Within a day's drive from Los Angeles was an astoni

  • Same song (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Airline_Sickness_Bag (111686) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:01PM (#31474554)

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

  • Logical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AceJohnny (253840) <jlargentaye@gmaiTEAl.com minus caffeine> on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:03PM (#31474574) Journal

    Those up high have understood that the USA's commercial future is not in manufacturing (they left that to China or Germany). If it's not physical goods, then what else is America selling abroad? IP, that's what. That's where the USA's commercial future lies, and that's what it'll have to defend at all costs, trampling their people's and other nation's right to defend that.

    It's that or become insolvent. (look up the USA's trade balance over the last few 20 years. Think it'll improve? Think again.)

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:39PM (#31474920)
      It is really not a defense of these policies to note that we are moving to an economy where copyrights and patents are our chief export; it is just a description of the broader problem that nobody wants to manufacture their goods in America anymore. The solution is not to try to push other countries to accept our versions of copyright and patent law, it is to bring those manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Sadly, the major parties seem to have no interest in the seemingly obvious solution...
  • Let's Do Something (Score:5, Informative)

    by justinjstark (1645867) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:05PM (#31474586)

    I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

    White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact [whitehouse.gov]

    Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm [senate.gov]

    Congresspeople: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml [house.gov]

    • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:29PM (#31474792)

      ACTA will actually make the US poorer.

      Yes, ACTA is aimed towards giving IP laws more power, globally. But how much do you think countries with real problems care about protecting IP laws from countries they don't care about? Do you think China will put some muscle behind enforcing IP laws? Or anyone in the far east, maybe with the exception of Japan? Do you think Russia cares a lot, or any of the post-Soviet Union countries? South America? They got bigger problems. Yeah, they'll certainly pay lip service to it and maybe, when enough of a stink is brewing, they might stage a sting or two, arrest a few token low level copy sellers, then ignore the problem. Why? Why not? What's their interest in it? They have little to no IP, it's like asking a landlocked country to spend money to make the coasts that don't belong to it secure.

      In the US, ACTA will be enforced fully, of course. Not only the IP of the US, but also the IP of other countries. Yes, including countries like Russia, China and all the others that will not put the same amount of muscle behind it. So who benefits from it? THe US? Stop kidding. Yes, the IP owners in the US will be happy about it, but the US as a country will lose money in the process. Because its consumers have to hand money to the IP owners abroad, with nothing to little coming back in return.

      And I'm not even talking about how DVDs are sold for a buck there because else you couldn't sell them at all.

      • by chrb (1083577) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @07:18PM (#31475788)

        Yes, ACTA is aimed towards giving IP laws more power, globally. But how much do you think countries with real problems care about protecting IP laws from countries they don't care about?

        From the position of the MPAA and RIAA there are several different positions that they care about or don't. Russians and Chinese copying music and movies isn't a big problem - those countries have always had large scale piracy operations and undeveloped IP markets, and the potential profit margins are thin or non-existant. If this were to change, then there would be an opportunity to develop new markets, which the RIAA/MPAA would be interested in. But at the moment the markets are lost. The real global battlefield is in the European Union - a larger market economy than the USA, where the average price for a DVD or CD is much higher than the US, and with a voracious appetite for American produced content. If groups like the Pirate Party begin to make serious headway in scaling back European copyright, then the RIAA/MPAA is going to lose control over one of its most profitable markets. The other market they really care about is (obviously) the USA. It is not such a large battlefield since U.S. laws are already more MPAA/RIAA friendly. By agreeing to a global copyright enforcement treaty, that is supported by American corporations, they will be able to easily pass legislation with broad cross-party support, and with little room for debate because the details have "already been agreed and signed" before being considered at the level of national law.

        Because its consumers have to hand money to the IP owners abroad, with nothing to little coming back in return.

        Have you got any idea how much money is spent by European consumers and businesses on U.S. software, movies, books, films etc?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shoehornjob (1632387)
      This will not work because you don't have any MONEY. It always amazes me how people think they can influence the political climate by banding together and making their voices heard. Do you really think that politician x will hear you as he is being bought off by various corporate interests? Welcome to the new corporate America. Mod me how you like but we all live in this world...some of us can't quite see it yet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy

      Your naivette is refreshing, but I would not like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Having an ipod doesn't make you tech-savvy. Neither does having a cool campaign website or having a twitter feed. The man's just as clueless about the nuts and bolts of tech and tech policy as any other career politician whose education was in the law and not in engineering. The only branch of government that's historically had any semblance of a clue about tech has been the military, and even then, they farm most of the h

  • Copyright or Patent? (Score:5, Informative)

    by kurokame (1764228) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:11PM (#31474634)
    "But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."

    Wait, MPAA/RIAA? Since when do they deal with fake iPods? I hate them as much as the next guy, but I can't find a word in the article relating to copyrights that wasn't inserted by the author.

    Obama's speech (as quoted by TFA) seems to relate only to patents and perhaps branded goods, even if ACTA extends to both. It would be interesting to know if this is indicative of an official focus with regard to ACTA.
    • by Xelios (822510) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @07:14PM (#31475752)
      Isn't that one of the main problems with ACTA? The MAFIAA is just riding on the coat tails of a legitimate piece of legislation, to combat commercial IP theft and counterfeiting. Seems to me Obama supports that part of the bill, but didn't say anything specific about the piracy side of it. Just the way they like it. They'll quietly slip through on the heels of a piece of legislation that probably is needed, and probably will do some good.

      SOP in politics these days. Just quietly stitch the unappealing laws into legislation that really does need to be passed.
  • by gweihir (88907) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:13PM (#31474646)

    In any reasonably free society, copying of digital content is impossible to prevent. In non-free societies, it does not matter as those in power can take the money of anybody anyways. So, trying to prevent copying of digital content is just a sure path to failure. Incidentially, protecting outdated business models holds a society back and is bad for eveybody.

    Well, I guess it does not matter that much for the rest of the world, the US-centric century is certainly over, as its economic power is vanishing rapidly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by RobVB (1566105)

      In any reasonably free society, copying of digital content is impossible to prevent. In non-free societies, it does not matter as those in power can take the money of anybody anyways.

      True. However, preventing copying of digital content is a step towards a non-free society, where those in power can take the money of anybody anyway.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:13PM (#31474648) Homepage Journal

    despite i have been a staunch supporter of him and quarreled with my conservative american friends for close to a year since his candidacy to his election and even beyond.

    really, from this point on, i dont think i will be hypocritical to defend him in any regard. there are things that can be overlooked and forgiven, noone is perfect. but ransoming rights and liberties of the thought process to private individuals is nothing less than feudalism at its best. and someone who can justify this to himself cannot be defended in anything else.

  • Future wars (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:14PM (#31474658)

    We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,

    I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against <insert media vilified nation here> for a grave and gathering threat of...copyright infringement!

  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:24PM (#31474732) Journal

    'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.'

    TRANSLATION:

    "Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and the creativity of the American Lawyer. As our education system collapses and laziness and ignorance steadily increase until the Constitution is entirely without meaning and it becomes impossible for our society to function without coercion -- we expect lawyers to bring home enough cash to sustain not just their coke habits but also our military... with a small amount of funds possibly left over for health care (but don't bet on it). We won't have the money in this century to bully anyone with our military capabilities, so we're counting on our lawyers to win the important battles."

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Nerdfest (867930)
      You're defying prophesy. It has been said that in the future “There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery”
  • Its only fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tangential (266113) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:24PM (#31474736) Homepage
    Its only fair, the RIAA and the MPAA have made a sizable investment in Obama and especially in Biden. It wouldn't be fair for them to have spent all that money and gotten nothing but a bunch of justice department positions in return. They've made a sizable purchase of politicians. They should be able to enjoy the fruits of ownership.
  • by GuyverDH (232921) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:26PM (#31474752)

    Dear Mr. President and members of Congress and Senate,

    Please, stop listening to the corporate un-citizens. I say un-citizens because all they care about is lining their pockets with money. Not to say that most Americans wouldn't love to line their pockets with money as well, but only Corporate citizens (which aren't even real citizens as they can't be called to fight for their country, aren't held accountable for their actions unless someone with more money than them can fight them) have the money to pay for you to listen to their needs. The luncheons, the corporate sponsored getaways, the private flights and perks are all their way of buying you, you the representatives of us, not corporations.

    If you really want to protect the creators of ideas and artistic endevours, you must do away with tyranical organazitions like the RIAA and MPAA which prosecute little children as well as dead or dying citizens for a percieved (never proven) loss of a few pennies, all the while wholesale stealing from the very creators they cry woefully to protect.

    I'm going to copy en masse an e-mail sent to me - please read it, please consider it, and please, when you are done, think about pushing corporate citizenship back where it belongs, to non citizenship - without rights, without needs to protect as you would the individuals who actually do the creating of everything you wish to protect.

    Pretty interesting if one reads all the way to the end. Follow this by reading "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man", by John Perkins. We had a surplus in 2000 and no way does the banking industry and those who rule it want to see that again, even if it takes two wars.

    EVERY U.S. CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

    Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

    545 PEOPLE
    By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

    You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

    You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

    You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

    You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

  • by nickovs (115935) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:30PM (#31474808)

    While I'm no particular fan of the MPAA, the RIAA or the ACTA, it deserves to be pointed out that the article is substantially misleading and inaccurate. Firstly, the speech to which they refer, in the section about IP protection, talks exclusively about protecting the licensing of technology and make no mention what so ever of the MPAA, the RIAA or music of video piracy. While these organisations happen to also support the ACTA, it is grossly misleading to say that the speech comes out in support of either of them. Secondly, the article says that "the European Parliament has already shot the ACTA agreement down". This is completely incorrect. The European Parliament have demanded that the European Commission make public the nature of its discussions in the ACTA negotiations, and the EU Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern that the treaty might be incompatible with existing EU law, but the parliament have not passed any resolutions regarding the content of the treaty itself (not least because it's secret, so they don't know what it says).

    The process through which the ACTA has be created is highly suspect but it does its opponents no service if those who campaign against it can't present an accurate case.

    • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:07PM (#31475216) Homepage Journal

      you have to read well.

      EU passed a resolution that banned any form of 3strikes anywhere in europe. Held the regulations and rules it put out before over anything proposed in acta. this means no isp liability of policing their networks for private parties' copyrights. it mandates that cutting an individual's internet access cannot happen unless through a court. it demanded full disclosure of the acta text to all members of the parliament, as mandated by eu laws. eu laws also mandate that parliament share anything with eu public, so anything that is disclosed to eu parliament has to be disclosed to entire european public.

      european commission has to abide by it. there is no other route that they can take. commission already said that they are going to push the other acta negotiating parties for full disclosure. if they dont, commission wont be able to stay on the table any more, for they are not allowed to negotiate and sign anything before eu parliament knows it.

      and if the text is disclosed, that means shit will hit the fan.

      so yea, eu parliament seems to really have shot acta down. and probably not only for europe, for entire world.

  • IP based society. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hylandr (813770) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:33PM (#31474838) Homepage
    An IP Based Society is great for every other nation on earth, for in 20 to 30 years all the world has to do to destroy America is simply start ignoring her laws.

    Do we then start sending troops into nation X for downloading Disney movies? How about when they all decide to stop paying royalties?

    - Dan.
  • by Simulant (528590) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:33PM (#31474840) Journal

    We sure know how to pick 'em.

  • by davecb (6526) * <davec-b@rogers.com> on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:36PM (#31474876) Homepage Journal

    He made some un-controversial statements about protecting U.S industry from commercial copying: "But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."

    I don't think anyone would mind that, and that is what a legitimate anti-counterfeiting treaty would prevent.

    Alas, the commentator leaps out from beneath his bridge and shouts "the RIAA wants that too, and they're evil, so Obama is evil". That's then picked up by a page headed "Obama Care - Stop Him", and retitled "Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA" and referenced here as "Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA".

    Do you begin to see a pattern here? This is a classic "guilt by association" scam, in which you say "X", and are promptly tarred and feathered by a commentator who says "but the <insert your choice of evil group here> is in favor of X, therfore you're a member/supporter/fellow-traveler of <evil group>.

    One should attack Mr. Obama for what he said, not for something Mr. Sandoval said on his behalf...

    --dave

    • excuse me (Score:3, Insightful)

      by unity100 (970058)

      but if an individual cannot distinguish the importance of freedoms over 'right of ownership' over thought processes, and comes up defending the private interests that seek to monopolize thought, there is nothing to defend about him.

      acta is evil. it is the most evil thing since spanish inquisition. the very fact that whole thing proceeds by CIRCUMVENTING democratical procedures is itself appalling from the start, leave aside all the 'measures' that seek to cramp down freedoms for some parties' interests.

      it w

  • by Vahokif (1292866) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @05:37PM (#31474900)

    When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:

    • music
    • movies
    • microcode (software)
    • high-speed pizza delivery

  • Cartels (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:02PM (#31475168) Homepage Journal

    I thought cartels were generally considered illegal. By supporting these entities he is essentially supporting the notion of legal cartels. I think the USA is going to become more and more isolated in its point of views.

    I had great hope for some real change when Obama came in, but he standing shows that there isn't really much separating the Democrats and the Republicans. For me, it really goes to show the whole notion of democracy in the states is more about changing the logo of the party in charge, rather than anything else. Which ever party is in charge, it is still the corporations which hold them by the balls. What it will take to institute a government which is by the people for the people, rather than by the people for the corporations.

    I have nothing against copyright, rather I disagree with copyrights going beyond a reasonable amount of time.

    One question I do have, is what will the reaction of the open source community be in 70 years when the first copyrights of Linux become public domain? This is not a indication of support for long copyrights, but trying to understand the reaction of the community when the shoe is on the other foot.

  • ACTA or ad acta (Score:4, Insightful)

    by prefec2 (875483) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:09PM (#31475232)

    ACTA will only work when every (first world) country is implementing it, but the EU-Parliament is already against it, because the discussion on ACTA and all documents are kept undisclosed. You could say: Who cares what this parliament is thinking? Well Obama should care, because if the parliament is not involved and the documents are not public, then the EU will not implement ACTA which means almost 500 mio people will not be threatened by ACTA. Third world countries will not adopt to ACTA either when the EU is not doing so.

    Even though, some information leaked and it looks like that ACTA would not be legal in Germany as the constitutions defines certain rights. For example the state is not allowed to transfer information on Internet-traffic to private organizations without reasonable suspicion and a letter from a judge. Also the three-strikes-law-idea is against the rules in the EU, and obviously it is against the French constitution. And I am absolutely sure if they would try it in Germany it will fail too. As cutting you of from the Internet violates your right to be informed. And this right is very important in a democracy. It is definitely not an allowed sanction by any European constitution or agreement. So ACTA may be a dead horse and Obama is riding it. It would be better when he would tell all these US-Americans that general health care is good and that securing the existential basis of any person in a country is a necessary thing.

  • by zuperduperman (1206922) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:19PM (#31475326)
    The worst part really is the endorsement of the concept that IP violations are "stealing":

    But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea ...

    Ideas cannot be stolen. It is a physical impossibility. The copyright & patent industry love to blur the lines of the law and pretend that using IP without authorization is as heinous as breaking into someone's house and stealing their physical goods. But it is a complete lie. It's bad enough that the various industries that benefit from these get away with blatant misleading and deception of the general public about it, but having the *president* endorse that lie is very disappointing.

  • Well DUH. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <taiki.cox@net> on Sunday March 14, 2010 @06:48PM (#31475552)

    They're trade representatives of their respective industries. No shit that Obama's going to back them.

    As much as we like to shit on the MPAA and RIAA, they make IP. subsequently, and often foolishly, they try to protect their IP. Which is their right.

    I can't get riled up over IP violation law anymore. There's just so much more to life than ripping DVDs to put on my PSP, Phone or for backup purposes. I'm not saying that the cause is lost, just, not worth burning calories on on slashdot.

  • by night_flyer (453866) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @09:06PM (#31476668) Homepage

    Sides with the RIAA.
    Wants DNA collected with all arrests.
    Shuts Down Federal ACORN Probe into Corruption & Voter Registration Fraud.
    Kills further moon projects.
    Raise gas prices to $7.00 a gallon to "protect the environment".

    He is either evil or stupid.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday March 14, 2010 @11:19PM (#31477702) Homepage

    "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
    that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
    public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
    with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
    circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
    supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
    individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
    of history be stopped, or turned back."

    - Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

  • Reality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jandersen (462034) on Monday March 15, 2010 @05:24AM (#31479454)

    To be realistic - and fair - we are never going to see an American president coming out clearly and strongly against the interests of major industries; at least not until American society and its constitution are fundamentally altered - as in a violent revolution. I can't quite see how that is going to happen, but of course, you never know.

    Much as I like Obama for his intelligence and what still looks a lot like sincerity, idealism and honesty, when I heard him talk about changing things, I could see that he had set himself up for a major challenge. Like it or not, America is not governed "by the people, for the people", and the president only has the power allowed him by the noble classes that everybody in America assures me don't exist (the fact that you can enter "nobility" in America by becoming immensely rich is not an argument against this - that has always been the way throughout history). Change will only occur as and when they want it.

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...