Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

China Passes Internet Copyright Legislation 215

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the pendulum-politics dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Passes Internet Copyright Legislation More

China Passes Internet Copyright Legislation

Comments Filter:

  • Everyone? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:19AM (#15427559)
    I don't think that's quite true.

    • Re:Everyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ithika ( 703697 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:46AM (#15427660) Homepage

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:54AM (#15427919) Journal
        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.

        • How about markers?

        • Re:Banning devices (Score:2, Insightful)

          by hynakin ( 977599 )
          Well, this is only a translation from one of the chinese dialects... the original is probably written in Mandarian so this translation is never the same as the original... Therefor you can't go too far into detail.

        • Re:Banning devices (Score:3, Informative)

          by vux984 ( 928602 )
          production, import and supply of devices capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection

          Not just computers:

          Video cameras, still cameras (including cellular phones), tape recorders, photocopiers, fax machines, scanners...

          pretty much anything with an "analog capture mode" is capable of evading or breaching technical measures of copyright protection... ...microphones, web cams, pen and paper, sticks and clay
    • A wise man once said:

      All generalities are false, including this one.

    • Insightful, not funny (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:30AM (#15427810) Homepage
      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? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iminplaya ( 723125 )
      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.

    • Re:Everyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rob_squared ( 821479 )
      Especially those of us who bought region-free DVD players from them. I mean, it circumvents the region encoding "protection," right?

  • Interesting. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:20AM (#15427560) Homepage Journal
    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. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Southpaw018 ( 793465 ) *
      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. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )
        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.
      • 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 enforcea

      • 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.
        • How the hell is that a troll? Does a reasonable assessment of what is going on here in America today really justify modding the post as "Troll?" I don't think so.
      • 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.

        Humor me, please. What so-called recourse might you take?

        You can speak out? You can point a finger? Wait, I got it! You can run apachectl start, and post a blog for the world to see! But wait one second... who are you? If CNN doesn't make a claim of your credentials, noone cares what you have to say. Oh, but there's m
    • 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.
      • I've always assumed that was because legal uses comprised a trivial fraction of cases, at least with respect to music and movies.

        "Fair use" is not a trivial fraction, especially recording a TV show to watch later which is something millions of mostly-law-abiding people do on a routine basis, and have done for roughly two decades, entirely within the law. This new legislation could easily render something as simple as a VCR illegal in China. As always, it's just another case of government -- ANY gov't --

    • Re:Interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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

    • 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

    • Just ask McCormick or the McCormick reaper. His patent was stripped by the US Government. So much for the Constitution.
      • Where in the Constitution does it say that McCormick had any kind of "right" to a patent? (Hint: it doesn't.)

    • "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."

      Every report on P2P that you've ever read? That's really quite odd; I just spent about 20 seconds entering "P2P" into the search box at wired.com and couldn't come up with any articles that even came close to implying that all music/software downloads are illegal. Frankly, I don't believe you, and I think that

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

    by expro ( 597113 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:23AM (#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.

    • 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?
    • 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. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dominator ( 61418 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:44AM (#15427871) Homepage
      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.

      • 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 wher

      • This IS just lip service. China has a long history of benefiting from utilizing the rest of the world's IP. Lots of machine tools have come out of China replicated so faithfully that they have the same design flaws. And, of course, the world market in "pirated" media of all kinds is driven at least as much by China as by any of the other major players (like Russia.) You can expect anyone in good with the power structure in China to continue to distribute materials in violation of copyright for the forseeabl

  • China bans computers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grimwell ( 141031 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:25AM (#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?
    • 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.
      • Add to that any camera, or indeed, the good old pen and pencil.

        Sorry, can't chaulk on cave walls, you could breach copyright!

        Just watch then stick a "digital" in there somewhere to avoid this...
    • I think this could this mean no more Chinese sourced modchips. Better get them while you can.

  • Hey everyone, don't panic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by localroger ( 258128 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:26AM (#15427575) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:27AM (#15427576) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • ooops. Guess <strike>IP</strike> doesn't work at slashdot...

    • Priorities (Score:2, Informative)

      by gentimjs ( 930934 )
      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.
    • 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 unres
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:28AM (#15427585) Homepage
    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 ...

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

    by LordAbraxsis ( 945048 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:29AM (#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.

  • Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:31AM (#15427596) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

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

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @08:46AM (#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

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

      Nah, The Mao Dynasty would be more accurate.

  • 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 (Score:3, Funny)

      by Kirth ( 183 )
      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 (Score:2, Informative)

      by cciRRus ( 889392 )
      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.
      • 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.
  • 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"?
    • 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 s
    • "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."

      Ah, you'll be referring to this map: http://opennet.net/map/ [opennet.net] right? (Sorry, Flash required)

  • 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?
  • 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.

  • Incorrect summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @09:00AM (#15427712) Journal
    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.
    • 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 supposed violations of s/w patents, licenses and trademarks have no bearing on the legislation being debated.

      WIPO and the big dumb publishers who established it have oversimplified things for you and the dear submitter. They are the people who invented the meaningless term IP. If you

  • 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 o
  • 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! (Score:2)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    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...

  • Never right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:24AM (#15428080)
    Sigh - once again we see the tsunami of uninformed drivel that is provoked every time China is said to have done anything.

    - when they were an isolated, communist state, that was SO EVIL!!!!
    - so they opened up, introduced market economy and started outcompeting America, and that is SO EVIL!!!
    - but they didn't respect copyright, and that was SO EVIL!!!
    - so now they introduce laws that protect copyright holders, and that is SO EVIL!!!

    Hmmm, do we see a tendency here? It seems that China can do nothing right, no matter what.

    Plus all the nonsense about whether they are really communists or not. 'Communism' and 'capitalism' as political and economical systems both have their roots in Victorian England, and just as you wouldn't expect 'capitalism' to stay the same through the > 100 years since then, you can't expect communism to be the same now as it was then. The world changes and our ideas change with it. Or, at least this is what happens outside the USA.

    In my opinion what China has now is communism - not quite the thing Karl Marx described, but essentially the same. I personally think it is good, far better than what you have in the US. It is still far from perfect, but it is evolving and improving, which is what USA's system doesn't.

    China and the Chinese leaders have shown great courage and made huge progress. In the beginning of the 20th century China was a backward, chaotic country with an absolute monarch, who lived in total isolation from his people. Only 50 years later China was one of the world's superpowers, and in the last ~20 years or so they have evolved from being a closed country that was limping behind socially, economically and politically to being the emerging leader of the world in all areas, whether you or anybody else like it or not. Everybody who knows about these things agree about this, even American economists are in little doubt; it's only a matter of time when America will be relegated to second or third position.

    And that, in essence, is why you Americans keep whining about how bad China is; not because you really care one bit about the plight of other people. If you had cared, you wouldn't keep going on about China, but rather talked about the poverty in India, the hunger in Africa etc etc. You don't, however.

    • In my opinion what China has now is communism - not quite the thing Karl Marx described, but essentially the same. I personally think it is good, far better than what you have in the US. It is still far from perfect, but it is evolving and improving, which is what USA's system doesn't.

      Oh yes, it's far better than the US! I really don't enjoy expressing my opinion of the government without being maimed, killed, or tortured! That's not a right I enjoy at all! Who needs public discourse or a free press!

    • Person A says, "They didn't respect copyright, and that was SO EVIL!" Person B says, "They introduce laws that protect copyright holders, and that is SO EVIL!" It does not therefore follow that persons A and B both think that everything China does is evil. Can you cite one instance of a single person saying both things?

      As an American who has spent time in China and is studying Mandarin daily with the goal of living there for a while, I was perfectly happy with their old pooh-poohing of Western IP concepts

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

    When it comes to the law in China, there is no such thing as "a step too far". *Especially* when we're talking about crushing the rights of the little guy. I was actually quite surprised that I didn't see the words "prison term" anywhere in the article. Funny that, since if you get caught distributing software for free in the US, they *will* throw you in jail.
  • I'm one of a few people on slashdot who repudiate copyright. In fact, everything I create in an intellectual sense I freely offer to others to use as their own, if they wish. The more information that is out there, the more that industrial people can work with to create new inventions that satisfy our desire for more information and cheaper products.

    China has been a Mecca of technology, and I think part of the reason for it is the rampant "piracy" and "theft of intellectual property" that has always been part of their culture. Cheap DVD players that play multiple formats, cheap pocket-sized CD players, even telephones that possess capabilities of file sharing and copying, well beyond what we get in the States and in the EU.

    I also produce music (that would be the person behind raising the money), and I'm working with more local bands to repudiate copyright as well. As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows. When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money. Some bands are even facilitating "piracy" of "their" music by letting people bring their iPods to the show to get a free sync of all the music. There is more money to be made in entertainment without copyright than with.

    I'm sad to see China cater to the West and their mad-monopoly-over-information craze. This step means nothing, though, as the average consumer will still use their own capital (their time, their computer and their internet connection) to satisfy the laws of supply and demand. Near infinite supply? Near microscopic price.

    • nope. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      "China has been a Mecca of technology, "
      incorrect. They have been the Mecca for production.

      "As more smaller bands give up the right to their thoughts, words and hand motions, their fan base grows."

      wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.

      "When their fan base grows, their shows bring in more money -- much more money"

      Not nearly the amount of maney they could make if there music was paying them roalties. Assuming they were popular and good*.

      *A good band in the music busin
      • They have been the Mecca for production.

        I do business in China. My customers have more R&D groups stationed in China than in the U.S., a huge change from 10 years ago. If you honestly think the U.S. is the engineering capitol of the world, have a vacation in China for 2 weeks.

        wait until clear channel stations begin playing there music and not paying them.

        Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws.

        Not nearly

        • "Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws."

          I believe the business unit we're discussing here is the one that owns the radio stations. They don't own the copyright on the music they play. They pay the artists (not the record companies) for the priveledge of playing music... the copyrights of which all belong to other people. I'm also not sure of your choice of the word "cartel" here. The first definition

  • Any ISP that does not comply with the takedown notice within 72 hours will be shot in the head, fined, dismantled, and sold to other ISPs.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close