Slashdot Mirror


MPAA, RIAA Seek Permanent Antitrust Exemption

Devistater writes "Webcasters sued RIAA two months ago in an antitrust case for anti-competitive behavior. The response? An exemption from antitrust laws. Today's Register tells about RIAA/MPAA's efforts to get just such an exemption written into law. They could become permanently exempt from such a suit, if the bill passes. They snuck it into a bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch called EnFORCE Act (Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003). Orrin Hatch says this bill contains "First... an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act [for] record companies and music publishers" Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"

759 comments

  1. 'market realities' by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I wonder whether Mr. Hatch ever paused to consider that porn is a market reality as well...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:'market realities' by EinarH · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You have to see this in the same view as the executives at the major record companies to understand why they would want this protection. They see a different market reality than we do.

      Recently EMI wanted to buy the music division of Time Warner and Sony and Bertelsman also want to do a large merger. This could be stopped in USA or Europe by monopoly laws ,[legitimate] fear of even more anticompetitive behaviour and anti-trust laws.
      But if they proactivly construct laws that can exempt them from lawsuits the mergers could get through easier and with less complications later.

      Even after Bronfman bought the TW music division they are planning on mergers to squeeze out a couple of hundred million dollars in "long term" (two year) cost savings.

      So expect to se RIAA release a couple of dubious reports that "proves" that "piracy" is hurting their business.
      It's sad to see how easily some US politicians are bribed.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    2. Re:'market realities' by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bzzzzttt... This exemption applies specifically to copyright law, it's not the type of sweeping antitrust exemption that would remove barriers to corporate mergers.

      That said, of course this is just another industry-crafted bill that will work its way through the process just like so many others these days. Fall in, RIAA/MPAA, alongside the domestic steel companies, big agri-business, and textile companies while you all leech off the public teat...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    3. Re:'market realities' by jkabbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The RIAA needs to be considered in a different light than its individual members. The proposed legislation would essentially allow the RIAA members to act together as a cartel legally. This isn't the same thing as allowing the RIAA members to buy each other or others without government review. Even though such reviews would be irrelevant in light of the legalized monopoly they would still likely continue. Kind of like the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

    4. Re:'market realities' by xmedar · · Score: 1

      This is a great idea, I can post an MP3 of myself mumbling something unintelligible on the company website, and now we're a music publisher with permanent antitrust exemption, now if only the excellent Mr. Hatch gives employees of music publishers immunity from criminal prosecution I can hire my staff out as hitmen with impunity!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    5. Re:'market realities' by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      Ordinary people must obey the law, or be punished. Big corporations can bribe away laws they don't like. That is wrong, and there is something we all can do about it. Boycott them! And vote the bums taking their bribes out of office.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    6. Re:'market realities' by qtp · · Score: 1

      his exemption applies specifically to copyright law,

      Could you provide a link that supports your claim?

      Exemptions to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act generally are not limitted to one area of law, but are cover nearly all forms of protection against prosecution for anti competative behavior.

      Industry organisations that recieve these protections are permitted to legally carry out what would be labeled as "racketeering" if commited by other companies. An example would be professional baseball. If one team owner decides to follow p[ractices that the other team owners do not like (such as offering to pay for the teams stadium, reducing the prices of tickets, or not licensing merchandise deals to the "endorsed" manufacturers, the other team owners may revoke that owners right to own a baseball team and thus force a sale.

      Such exemptions to anti-competitive regulations basically allow industry organisations to act as an unelected government body that has far reaching effects beyond thier employees and patrons.

      it's not the type of sweeping antitrust exemption that would remove barriers to corporate mergers.

      You may be correct in that these exemptions might not curtail the regulations over mergers, but they still place the lucky companies beyond the reach of much of the law that the rest of the population is required to obey.

      --
      Read, L
    7. Re:'market realities' by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1


      How has globalization and megamergers affected our power as consumers? On the positive side, you get cheaper goods. On the negative side, you get huge companies which don't care about anybody, only their bottom line. You don't buy their cigarettes, they don't care - you'll still buy their shampoo. It's getting to the point where it is more difficult to boycott any one company because on the other hand you'll support them through one of their other businesses. I wonder if those in support of globalization years ago thought of these kinds of consequences.

    8. Re:'market realities' by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      It's right there in the link from the article... I know, I RTFA, what am I doing???

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  2. Inquiring minds want to know... by darkmayo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly how much the RIAA pays off chumps like Orrin Hatch.
    Must be nice having a senator in your pocket....

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
    1. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by palutke · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to Open Secrets, a lot.

      1997-1998 PAC Contributions
      1999-2000 PAC Contributions
      2003-2004 PAC Contributions

      Important to note:
      1. there's no data available for 2001-2002 Cycle
      2. The 2003-2004 is a running total

      --
      'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
    2. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by plemeljr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, according to Open Secrets, Hatch has raised $152,360 for his 2004 campaign from TV/Movies/Music industries. In the 2000 election, he raised $515,207 from the Communications/Electronics sectors.

      Viacom and GE have given him over $14,000 each.

      --

      Please email all complaints to root@127.0.0.1 and the issue will be dealt with in due time.
    3. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I am a kernel in the linux army"

      Greetings Kernel, i'm Colonel Ingus.

    4. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by banzai75 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well heck, I thought it would be more expensive to buy off a senator. We should start saving up and buy our own Slashdot senator or congressperson.

    5. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by I+am+Kobayashi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to say "market realities" = they bribed, err "contributed" the most to Hatch :)

      --
      --Kobayashi--
    6. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try doing more searches on there, though. They pay more senators and congressmen than just this one, democrat and republican. It may not be that expensive to buy one senator, and cheaper to buy a congressman, since they campaign on a pretty limited scale. But try to buy fifty or sixty senators and a good two hundred congressmen, as well as governors and state legislators, presidential candidates, etc (Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA regularly plays both sides, funding opposing candidates so they can't lose either way). It's an expensive game once you start playing.

    7. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by frenchtouch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Communications/Electronics:
      Top 20 Senators
      Rank 6 - Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) $404,388

      Source

    8. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Technician · · Score: 1

      Drill down into the details. The RIAA only contributed $1000 this year.

      However it's interesting to note the amounts by ASCAP, National Assn of Broadcasters, and National Cable Television Assn contributed in 1999-2000. Those three alone contributed $28,000.

      That kind of makes the RIAA look small. The RIAA wasn't even listed in 1999-2000.

      The studios such as Time-Warner, Viacom, Universal Studios, Metro-Goldyn-Mayer, and Sony are well represented however.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    9. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anonymous Coward for president!

    10. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      They probably just gave him some of the interns they had working on his plan for hacking into pirates' computers. Like these pirates here.

    11. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me, politicians are some of the cheapest whores you can find. I know of a state representative that couldn't decide how to vote on a particular bill. He wanted to vote one way because that's the way his constituency would like him to vote, but a PAC gave him $50 and so he felt obligated to vote the other way to satisfy the PAC contributor.

      Thank god for Democracy, huh?

    12. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by dbateman · · Score: 1


      We should start saving up and buy our own Slashdot senator or congressperson.

      I thought the correct term was congress-critter

      D.

    13. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Slashdot: YRO PAC? That is an excellent idea.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    14. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by strike2867 · · Score: 0

      Actually I think we should buy a judge. More longterm profit.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    15. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think we should buy a prostitute.

      More short-term fun.

    16. Re:Inquiring minds want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can t be a senator I am a British citizen you insensitive clod!!!!

  3. In other news... by Perseid · · Score: 5, Funny

    the mob is exempt from murder charges due to 'market realities'.

    1. Re:In other news... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      RICO

      --
      What?
    2. Re:In other news... by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

      And Bill Gates is pissed as hell.

    3. Re:In other news... by fingerfarm · · Score: 1

      that's called war, isn't it?

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, these two groups offer so many other excellent grounds for lawsuits. Harassment springs to mind pretty quickly.

  4. The Last Straw by Robawesome · · Score: 1

    This is the last straw.

    I'm buying a gun.

    Who's with me?


    --

    I did NOT learn everything I need to know in kindergarten.

    1. Re:The Last Straw by hatrisc · · Score: 1

      i'd say 'yes' but with the recent privacy laws which allows the FBI or CIA to cease any information from any organization might come back to haunt me.


      just kidding, i hate guns.

      --
      I write code.
    2. Re:The Last Straw by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      Who's with me?

      For the record, I would never use a gun to kill SCO.

      ...and you can read that any way you want.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    3. Re:The Last Straw by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Heh, way ahead of you, bub.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:The Last Straw by Ayaress · · Score: 0

      Gun? It would take a lot more than that to stop the RIAA or SCO or even my uncle Gerry. I'm going to buy an inconveniently large ground-to-ground missile system. Anybody got about half an acre they could donate for me to park it on?

    5. Re:The Last Straw by azzy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Much better to use a gnu, I agree.

    6. Re:The Last Straw by homerules · · Score: 0

      How can you hate guns. I own guns. I don't love guns. I like shooting them . I hate the people who use them to commit crimes. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    7. Re:The Last Straw by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1

      Gunsdon't kill people, Apes with guns kill people...

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    8. Re:The Last Straw by operagost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry, but you can't buy one legally anymore because the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed while you were busy fighting for your right to free music.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:The Last Straw by hatrisc · · Score: 1

      did i say anything about killing people? no. i made no such comment. as far as shooting guns, hey if you do it in a controlled environment, than there really is nothing wrong with it. i personally do not like guns. that's it

      --
      I write code.
  5. Oh great... by bjb · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Imagine how this could permanently squeeze out anyone who isn't associated with the RIAA (indie labels, or just people making music on their own). Since the RIAA would be the only source, and given their power they could push everyone else around semi-legally, everyone would be forced to buy into their world. I guess this would ultimately mean that I couldn't webcast my own music, I wouldn't be able to sell my songs from my website without paying them, etc.

    I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

    --
    Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    1. Re:Oh great... by UberOogie · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

      The sad part is, I don't even have that anymore. I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    2. Re:Oh great... by Slider451 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just heard on NPR this morning that many indie labels are trying to get off the RIAA's list (Many indies want to be file shared to get the word out). Apparently the RIAA claims to represent thousands of labels, many of whom have never joined the organization.

      The theory goes that for them to be effective they must appear to represent the majority of labels. The reality is that they represent the major labels and their affiliates. The quicker the truth comes out the less power they will have.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    3. Re:Oh great... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what is really sad? The fact that the RIAA was found guilty of price-fixing on CDs, was giving a one fingered slap on the wrist, and got to get out of paying pretty much anything by a loop-hole...

      Support freedom of music people. Only support bands that allow the free copying, distribution, and listening of their music in any format you choose.

      It's the public that supports the RIAA by purchasing their merchandise. DO NOT DO IT.

      Sharing the Groove and FurthurNET

    4. Re:Oh great... by leerpm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds like they need to form a new non-profit organization to represent the indie labels. Kind of like the FSF does for free software.

      I would be happy to contribute to such an organization, and I am sure they would get a lot of support from Slashdot.

    5. Re:Oh great... by nearlygod · · Score: 1

      I agree with this post...

      Or does this post agree with me?

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    6. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

      Good luck, but I can tell you from experience.. having faith in the more rational Santa Claus and tooth fairy didn't make them real.

    7. Re:Oh great... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      With the way major record companies are consolidating, the RIAA should just get absorbed into a corporate PR department any time now. The real problem is that while indie labels could go off and create their own, new organization, it would have no clout in Washington.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    8. Re:Oh great... by Red+Rocket · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Support freedom of music people.

      It's even more important than freedom of music. It's our freedom of culture that's at stake. Our true culture has been stolen from us and replaced with manufactured culture. By monopolizing our culture they're taking away who we are and replacing it with a world of culturally ignorant "consumers". It's good for their profit but absolutely horrendous for our heritage, our freedom, our inspiration, our creativity, and our happiness. It's short term thinking that is rotting society from the inside.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    9. Re:Oh great... by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

      They just have to warm Congress's icy heart with a cool island song.

      Wait...

    10. Re:Oh great... by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

      Fat chance during an election year. And it would have to be more than a single "someone" to get anything done. It's bunk like this that makes me wish /. collected donations and had its own lobbyist.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    11. Re:Oh great... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Imagine how this could permanently squeeze out anyone who isn't associated with the RIAA (indie labels, or just people making music on their own). Since the RIAA would be the only source, and given their power they could push everyone else around semi-legally, everyone would be forced to buy into their world. I guess this would ultimately mean that I couldn't webcast my own music, I wouldn't be able to sell my songs from my website without paying them, etc.
      >
      > I have faith that SOMEONE in the government will see the absurdity of this request and will stop it before it gets too far.

      Funny. I have faith that 500-odd people in the government will see the absurdity of this request, also see that has a cute acronym, and that it deals with (evil) pr0n in the (eviler!) Intarweb. And that it will path both houses with a huge majority.

      We obviously mean different things when we say "faith". What do you mean by "faith", and what do you smoke to find it?

    12. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Any orginization that requests Anti trust exemption should automatically investigated for antitrust violations.

    13. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Novell should buy them.

    14. Re:Oh great... by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's even more important than freedom of music. It's our freedom of culture that's at stake.

      I Agree. When someone can control the songs your kids can sing around the campfire, or demand payment for singing Happy Birthday without being laughed into silence then things are seriously screwed up.

      Our true culture has been stolen from us and replaced with manufactured culture.

      Have to disagree there. Culture has always been a combination of grass-roots folk tradition and manufactured content. Great works of classical music, drama, and literature were written, ultimately, to make money, either directly from the populous or via commissions from wealthy private patrons (often business owners). It's only historial myopia that leads us to see today's balance as all that different.

      The difference is that those who created those works had no illusion that they had perpetial and unlimited control over their contributions once they became part of the common cuture.

    15. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that? opt-out doesn't work?

    16. Re:Oh great... by infiniphonic · · Score: 1

      I don't support them and haven't for months. Everyone should make all there friends aware of the RIAAs business practices and their effects on the industry and you.

      --
      Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
    17. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bunk like this that makes me wish /. collected donations and had its own lobbyist.

      Ah, now that can be arranged, if you would just like to post your credit card details...

    18. Re:Oh great... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Hmm. How about if those true-indie labels get together and file civil and/or criminal charges against the RIAA, for misrepresenting and therefore damaging their business and reputations? Surely there's at least a libel suit in there somewhere. And isn't claiming to represent someone who you don't actually represent against some criminal statute?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    19. Re:Oh great... by Red+Rocket · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Great works of classical music, drama, and literature were written, ultimately, to make money...

      No, the ones you eventually heard may have been created that way, but the ones that moved the people and created the culture that those works grew out of were created from the heart and the soul. A lot of them are lost to history. No record was made of them because no money was involved and recording them on paper and maintaining the record were, historically, things only the rich had the power to do. Cave men, sitting around the fire, singing and banging on hand-made instruments didn't do it for the money. They did it to create and maintain their culture. It's the human spirit that motivates these things, not money.

      A rare and significant example of the real tide of culture was recorded by John Lomax who traveled the country, funded by the Smithsonian (thank you government) to record musicians where they lived. That's real stuff, not manufactured pablum and it would have been lost to history had he not been there to record it. In fact, there was a man born in Tupelo, Mississippi with a certain swivel in his hip and a voice that made women swoon. But that man never made a nickel because he was black. Then a couple of years later, Elvis came along and the rest is history. Record makers believed they couldn't make money on black artists so they picked white ones who emulated their black peers.

      Britney Spears isn't popular because her music is culturally significant. She's popular because she's the tip of huge marketing machine. It just sounds like the ka-ching of a cash register to me or the beep of a truck backing up -- just the sound of money being made. The real culture is hidden and if anyone is guilty of myopia, it the person who can only see and hear what our corporate media presents to them. You are being manipulated and controlled so that someone else can make a buck. Some real artists can still be heard, though. Check out Mountain Stage.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    20. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is ONE person in Congress who is not afraid to stand up to the moneyed interests that are buying their way through Capitol Hill: Senator Brownback (R-KS) introduced S.1621, the "Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003".

      For example, Section 2.6 states:

      "It is not in the interests of consumer welfare, privacy, and safety, or for the continued development of the Internet as a communications and economic resource, for the manufacturers of digital media products or their representatives to be permitted to require Internet access service providers merely providing subscribers with transport for electronic communications to disclose a subscriber's personal information, absent due process and independent of the judicial scrutiny required to ensure that such requests are legitimate."

      Additionally, Senator Brownback wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in mid-September which further outlined his view that consumer privacy is more important in the long run than a corporate bottom line.

      Unfortunately, nobody co-sponsored the bill, which was read twice and sent to committee. It will most likely languish and die there, while Senator Hatch's bill will probably rocket through the process. Yet another case of money talks, integrity walks.

      All of this information (and much more on DRM) is available over at EFF.org for your perusal.

    21. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I just heard on NPR this morning that many indie labels are trying to get off the RIAA's list (Many indies want to be file shared to get the word out)

      In this vein: We need a new way to distribute music and determine song quality. Check out iRate Radio. From the iRate site:
      iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering client/server mp3 player/downloader. The iRATE server has a large database of music. You rate the tracks and it uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music.
      Things like this cut out the RIAA altogether (they cut out just about everyone)
  6. Republicans, republicans, republicans by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0, Troll

    You get what you vote for (unless it was Gore).

    When corporations come before constituents this is what you get. I don't care which party it is, they are all corrupt. Republicans just never cared about the people.

    1. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My god, you're ignorant. The Democrats are just as firmly in the MPAA/RIAA's pockets.

    2. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps if people in America actually bothered to vote you would see the politicians taking more notice of the people than the corporates.

      Just a though....

    3. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by ukmountie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Last time I checked Gore got the Majority. Not that the Democrats are any better. The problem is that Corporate rule is already or soon to become reality in most of the "free" world, and with a lack of options it will be difficult to dislodge.

    4. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by drix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections. Their number one recipient was some guy from Massachusetts named Kerry, who correct me if I'm wrong doesn't tend to agree too often with Bush and his cronies. In fact, every single congressman who is a Democratic presidential candidate is in the top 5--Edward #3, Lieberman (who favors censoring TV and records, that little sellout whore) #5, Gephardt #1, Kucinich #3. Hell even Dean is second only to W in total dollars received--and he's, technically speaking, no more than an unemployed migrant orator, at the moment! :) So blaming this all on republicans is, I'm sorry, bullshit. Oh and by the way, Gore took $250,000 more from the enterainment industry than Bush in 2000.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    5. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Ayaress · · Score: 0

      The Democrats started this with the RIAA. Don't blame Republicans, put the blame where it belongs: The whole bunch of them.

    6. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      No, it will be very easy to dislodge. Unfortuntely it will also be very, very violent.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    7. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      LOL! "Unemployed migrant orator" is a great line.

      I tend to trust Dean more than the others. It may be naive of me -- he may just have a really good image consultant -- but he gives the impression, at least, that he talks straight and takes shit from nobody. That doesn't mean he's turning down anyone's money (he'd be stupid if he did) but he may be slightly less easy to out-and-out bribe than your average politician of either major party.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate republicans as much as the next guy, but dude: democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections

      Only because Republicans are happy to shit on your rights for free!

    9. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the democrats, gore ahead of them all, invented the internet you newb.

    10. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by sjb2016 · · Score: 1

      Republicans never cared about the people? What the hell does that mean? The party was founded on the fact that they felt slavery was wrong. In the 1960's they fought for Civil Rights legislation that the Democrats led by former KKK member Senator Robert Byrd successfully filibustered. The Republicans have also just passed the biggest entitlement ever, the prescription drug plan. A true Republican cares about people just thinks that the government isn't necessarily the best medium via which to do it.

    11. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Golias · · Score: 1
      It may be naive of me -- he may just have a really good image consultant -- but he gives the impression, at least, that he talks straight and takes shit from nobody.

      It is naive of you. His people spent a lot of entertainment-industry dollars make sure you were given that impression.

      This is not an attack specifically at you, Daniel, but it's sad that we have come to the point where somebody who manages to watch an episode or two of "Frontline" on PBS now and then is considered a well-informed voter, by way of contrast to most people, who seem to get most of thier political information from Saturday Night Live sketches.

      Note to everybody: If you spent more time this month thinking about Michael Jackson's sex scandals than US foreign policy and the tax code, please do us all a favor and don't vote. Thank you.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    12. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by jgabby · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the entertainment industry doesn't need to give as much money to the Republicans because they're already got them in thier pocket? They're still trying to buy the democrats, so they have to dump more money toward them.

      Just an alternate theory.

    13. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by patches · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well just so that people can know,

      The two cosponsors of this bill are
      Sen. John Cornyn from Texas
      Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California

      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    14. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Perhaps if people in America actually bothered to vote you would see the politicians taking more notice of the people than the corporates.

      Voting only works on the back-end of the election process. Corporations have already roped off the front end (the campaign process)with campaign cash, PR machinery, and market research. Without access to the front end of elections and with the information they're given being filtered by corporate media and PR firms, the people have no chance against the corporations.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    15. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Technician · · Score: 1

      Actualy I find the republicans generaly favor supply side economics, while democrats favor the welfare state and leaving no one behind.

      Under the republican way, losers suffer and acheivers buy bigger houses and cars.

      Under the democrat way everyone gets government housing and benifits. Nobody bothers to rise above the poverty level, because the taxes quickly take it all away to pay the entitlements. The rich don't need the money is a popular arguement.

      With that in mind, The democarats are the ones to lobby to protect the studios and prevent individuals from competing with the revenue source. Don't want to hurt the industry.

      The republicans are the more competition, the more common wealth, great! Create and market to your heats content. Be prepared to face stiff competition. Not everyone is going to be a success.

      The industry knows who is more for their cause and can grease the correct wheels.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    16. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure they did.

      But his record as governor of Vermont does indicate that, at least on occasion, he's willing to take unpopular stands when he feels it's the right thing to do. And his policy statements -- whether or not he intends to live up to them -- are more in accordance with my personal beliefs than those of any other politician, of any party, at any level, I can remember. He might be just another sellout schmuck with good PR. He might also, just possibly, be another Lincoln or Roosevelt (either one) or Truman. And given that the rest of the field that has any chance of winning is composed of people I know to be sellout schmucks with good PR ... well, Dean's the horse I'm putting my money on.

      Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you, or doesn't share your reflexive cynicism about all politicians, is ill-informed. Skepticism is valuable; so is hope. Dean gives me at least some hope, and considering the direction the country's headed right now, that's a precious thing. If he wins, and turns out to be a letdown ... well, what the hell, that's happened before. And even if that does happen, odds are he'll still be better for the country I love -- and served proudly for most of my adult life to date, and for which I am now desperately afraid -- than any of the alternatives.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    17. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      " Perhaps the entertainment industry doesn't need to give as much money to the Republicans because they're already got them in thier pocket? They're still trying to buy the democrats, so they have to dump more money toward them.

      Just an alternate theory."
      ===========
      Err..no..just a goofy knee jerk post...

      In terms of contributions, the Republicans are smokin' the Demmocommies by a factor of 2 to 1.
      The republicans are getting more money from 'the little guy' in compliance with the McCain/Fiengold finance reform..
      (Poor Dem's... screwed themselves.. They depend of fat-cat Hollyweird types moreso than anybody else..Oh..can you say "George Soros"??)

      So..please..
      Enough with the misinformed, bumpsticker rants against republicans...

      Ya.. I know this will get mod'd down..
      But hey.. Typical liberals always try to stifle free speech when its not THEIR free speech..(shrug)

      Liberalism is a Mental Illness....

    18. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I just can't help but respond here. Given little good information about the positions of candiataes (and sometimes there is very little to go on), I will vote for the democrat over the republican. Why? If the dem spends all my money via taxes, I can always vote him/her out and make more later. If the rep lets the environment go to waste, there's not enough money in the world to put it back correctly. I may make the wrong decision in the voting booth, but I want to know that I've got a shot at fixing that error once it's found. It must be the engineer in me - fault tolerance ranks high in my decision-making process.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    19. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Under the democrat way everyone gets government housing and benifits. Nobody bothers to rise above the poverty level, because the taxes quickly take it all away to pay the entitlements. The rich don't need the money is a popular arguement..."

      Jesus, that's the exaggeration of the century. Anything more cooperative than "I'll let my neighbor die and squeeze every last dollar out of his cold corpse" gets painted as wacko commie nonsense. The basic principle of a Democrat is that there are some things that work better if we all cooperate...like, say..public roads, schools, or health care. No one wants to throw you in a government housing project. Stop reading Hannity and grow up.

    20. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Enry · · Score: 1

      By 'the little guy', you mean the hundreds of CEOs that call their CEO friends and executives and pledge upwards of 200,000-500,000 dollars for Bush's campaign?

    21. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if people in America actually bothered to vote you would see the politicians taking more notice of the people than the corporates.

      ...And the lobbyists. Not only vote, but speak up in numbers, and in your own words. Although I am a 'Republican republican republican', I want to send a shout out to registered Dems and Independants that don't vote. Come on guys, it's not that hard to do. It's shameful when a national election doesn't even get 50 per cent of the registered voters off their arses. You guys could have had a Dem in the white house by a wide margin!

      I see the same thing in my town. Registered Dems outnumber Republicans, but they don't vote. There are a lot of Republicans that I don't want in power right now, but I can't really influence elections in other states. Please, for the love of all that is good, vote this year. Take a day off from work if you have to!!

      BTW, am I the only one that sees something wrong with campaign contributions from outside a elected officials territory? No really. Why can Orrin Hatch be persuaded to vote a certain way by a lobbyist group out of California? Can I donate funds to senators or representitives from other states? It seems to me that lobbyists are exercising political power which the people do not even have.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    22. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MarvinMouse · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the best line I heard about the democrats recently was:

      "The only problem with democrats is that they agree too much, and they don't hate. They will calmly listen to what you have to say, and then at the end go 'that's a good point'."

      It's a very interesting point. Basically saying that democrats are fence sitters... Fence sitters are very easily bought.

      --
      ~ kjrose
    23. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MarvinMouse · · Score: 1

      Vote for who?

      Republicans?
      Republican juniors, aka Democrats?

      or a third party, which has been ingrained into their psyche is basically throwing away a vote.

      The American public doesn't vote, because it doesn't feel it has any options. It doesn't want to vote for the two major parties, and was taught that voting for anyone else is just a waste of time.

      As soon as that false belief is worn out of the American public, you will see more voting.

      --
      ~ kjrose
    24. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Damek · · Score: 1

      The Dems main monetary support has always been and still is the unions. They have always been way ahead on "soft" money, which is why this election cycle is much more difficult, with the new campaign finance rules. This is all checks from individuals, on both sides, Dems & Repubs. The question is, what kind of individuals?

      While I understand the desire to curtail donations from groups, I'm not sure what "the entertainment industry" is supposed to mean. I don't know Rob Reiner, but I believe he wrote a $2,000 check to Dean, and he probably got 40 of his friends to come to a dinner, where each friend wrote a check for $2,000.

      The problem is, as usual, with the laws, and this tells us we need constant vigilance in our Campaign Finance Reform laws, and need to update them each year to keep up with all the loopholes.

      Trial lawyers also shouldn't donate, I guess, and neither should individual union members, because a Democrat is favorable to their particular occupations.

      My point here is that, yes, the Dems traditionally get more money from those who work in "entertainment" than the Repubs. To you that may mean the RIAA and the MPAA. To me that means hundreds of thousands of "starving artists". Probably neither of us is 100% correct. The fact remains that the wealthy and powerful favor the Republicans (and vice versa), while the Dems, though slipping in the past decade or so, remain the only viable voice for the poorer of us.

      Let's not forget that Hatch is a Republican, and it was Republicans who generally let the FCC rules through. The Dems didn't respond very quickly, but they have been responding as their constituents have been letting them know how they feel.

      As for Lieberman, who in their right mind would vote for him?

      Meanwhile, Our Annointed Leader just raised himself another $3 million . I wonder how anyone can question which economic base Republicans speak for when they can get that kind of money that easily?

    25. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by camt · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that, while both parties are equally corrput(able), the Democrats at least are able to get a good dollar for selling out, whilest the Republicans are cheaper whores.

      I voted Republican last election, and I am ashamed. I am not about to switch to another party. I am simply about to leave this country. I am sick of it here. I hope to be able to leave the country before my son has to start school in the U.S.

      -- Cameron

    26. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by eyeball · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if people in America actually bothered to vote you would see the politicians taking more notice of the people than the corporates.

      Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Clinton in 2000, along with the majority of other voters. Oh shi-

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    27. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the lack of options. It's the fact that your vote does not matter. How would you vote to block this bill from taking effect? You can't. And once it's in, good luck getting it out - that almost never happens, except through the Supreme Court, whose membership you do not influence (because you don't know when they're going to die/retire).

    28. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      Thank McCain-Feingold, the law that Democrats insisted on getting passed.

      The Democratic Party relied on large donations of soft money from labor unions, liberal special interest groups, and extremely wealthy benefactors (think George Soros, Barbara Striesand). They have very little apparatus for generating the much more regulated hard money.

      The Republican Party, however DOES have a good apparatus for generating hard money. Republican policies are (and always have been) more beneficial to the small business owner than Democratic policies. Many successful small business owners are single digit millionares. They would gladly pay $2,000 to help keep Republicans in power with their lower tax rates and business friendly policies.

      Seeing that there are many more small business owners and potential Republican donors than there are potential Democratic donors, the GOP will always out raise the Democrats in the post McCain-Feingold era. The beautiful irony of it all is that is was the Democrats who were insistant that it passed.

    29. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      " By 'the little guy', you mean the hundreds of CEOs that call their CEO friends and executives and pledge upwards of 200,000-500,000 dollars for Bush's campaign?"
      =====================

      No proof..no nothing from this poster..and he gets a "2" to my "1" in Score..

      So..
      Give me just one CEO that has contributed "200 or 500 thousand dollars" to the Bush campaign...

      Bah...
      Just more junk that can't be backed up with facts..

      Liberalism is a Mental Illness

    30. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Technician · · Score: 1

      Ever meet anyone on welfare woried about losing their entitlements?

      Ever meet anyone on welfare with cable TV and a cell phone?

      Ever meet anyone on welfare having trouble with the house payment?

      They struggle to get by. They tend to be hard pressed for cash. However if you want a good steak, they eat better than I do. Generaly cable TV is a requirement, not a disposable income item. The same is true for a cell phone.

      The State is having a hard time keeping down the abuse of food stamps. Many on welfare eat better than I do most of the time and are more than willing to trade down for some cash which is in very short supply. I've seen them in the supermarket. They have the steaks, chicken, etc, while I'm re-stocking ramen. They can't afford to not vote for whoever is providing their basic needs, health care, food, and shelter. For many getting a job is a downgrade as they lose health care, food stamps, etc. They are unwilling risking failure trying to break out of the dependance cycle.

      Many on welfare are cash short so things like reliable transportation is not there. Regular service gets skipped month to month as long as it still moves. I've been asked to fix a few friends cars. Man what sludgemobiles they were.

      I do have enough income to drive a decent vehicle and maintain it.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    31. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      "I voted Republican last election, and I am ashamed. I am not about to switch to another party. I am simply about to leave this country. I am sick of it here. I hope to be able to leave the country before my son has to start school in the U.S."

      ===========

      Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

    32. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Golias · · Score: 1
      He might be just another sellout schmuck with good PR. He might also, just possibly, be another Lincoln or Roosevelt (either one) or Truman.

      The consensus seems to be that he's another George McGovern. Whether or not you think that's a Good Thing is up to you.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    33. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the earth heal itself over time?

      My professor told me the air in the 70s was much worse in the US than today and its thanks to the clean air act.

      I'm sure the ozone will be healed a lot (after we fuck it up again)

      Forests regrow and the earth cools down and heats up. I think as long as we stay away from the nuclear winter we can fix anything we *want* to. The question is when will public demand swing in the US for things (electric cars, ozone protection, more parks)

    34. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by jcoleman · · Score: 1

      No proof..no nothing from this poster..and he gets a "2" to my "1" in Score..


      That's his karma bonus. Read the mod rules...

    35. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Enry · · Score: 1

      You want just one? How about 106 people who have raised more than $200,000 for Bush in the 2004 campaign.

    36. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by jcoleman · · Score: 1

      Cable TV a "requirement?" If you think TV is a requirement, please do us all a favor and do not breed.

    37. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by dabraham · · Score: 1
      Umm, your first cite backs what you said before it. The rest of them get fuzzy. You are using different lists which raises the ranks of various democrats. The overall list makes more sense if you're going to talk about people in different jobs in government. WRT "TV/Movies/Music" Bush is #1, Dean #2, Kerry #3, Gephardt #4, Edwards #6, Lieberman #8, Clark #10, Kucinich #18. They're all pretty high on the list, and there are fairly few Republicans on the top 20, but given that they're running for president, I'd expect them to be working the money sources more than usual.
      Yee gods, I just looked at the overall totals. Bush has almost 3 and a third what Dean does...

      I love the quote about migrant oratory though...

    38. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No, that's not the consensus. That's the label the Republican propaganda machine, and the DLC hacks who are jealous of his early success, are trying to stick on him. Whether or not it works remains to be seen.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    39. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Liberalism is a Mental Illness"

      Spouting political dogma is a stupidity illness. Not to mention a reflection of how brainwashed and easily manipulated you are.

      I'm sure you'll call me a "liberal" now that I've "insulted" you with "ad hominem" attacks. But you'd be 100% wrong.

      Just end it now. You're just that much more waste of human flesh.

    40. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      " You want just one? How about 106 people who have raised more than $200,000 for Bush in the 2004 campaign."

      ====

      Thanks for the effort of proof...
      But I'm afraid it still falls short..
      Upon closer examination from your link we find..

      "Thanks in large part to 242 wealthy "Pioneers" who bundled together at least $100,000 worth of $1,000 checks, George W. Bush shattered presidential fundraising records in 2000"

      Hence...regardless of how the funds were gathered, the fact remains that the funds comply with current reforms. This as opposed to BIG MONEY (Unions, hollyweird) for the democrats that subvert the fundemental spirt of McCain/Fiengold.
      (Mind you..I never supported that Act due to other limitations contained..)
      Bush simply smokes the dems in terms of individual low dollar contributions...

      Nice try... (You should read your links more carefully...)

    41. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Enry · · Score: 1

      WTF does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about 106 people who have pledged to bring in more then $200,000 for the Bush re-election campaign. 2000 has nothing to do with it.

      Perhaps you have some similar stats for the Democratic nominees? Maybe there's a Fox memo you can look up or something.

    42. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      " "Liberalism is a Mental Illness"

      Spouting political dogma is a stupidity illness. Not to mention a reflection of how brainwashed and easily manipulated you are.

      I'm sure you'll call me a "liberal" now that I've "insulted" you with "ad hominem" attacks. But you'd be 100% wrong.

      Just end it now. You're just that much more waste of human flesh."

      ====

      It IS a mental illiness!!
      I can PROVE it!!

      Clinically, a mental illness can be demostrated by doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different outcome.

      Liberals:
      Want univeral health care.. Failed in Europe..canada et al.. Failed by way of never improving health care.
      See Hillarycare...

      Stripping away of property rights.
      See the Greens lobbying efforts for environmental policy that robs property owners of their rights to satisfy the sactuaries of bugs/birds etc...
      BTW(a classic).. The famous 'spotted owl' BS was easly dismissed when they found these owls living in department store signs thus negating their 'facts' that the owl could only survive in a protected habitat..
      They didnt stop on that issue...

      Welfare..
      Liberals LOVE giving money to folks who choose not to work..
      "Lets give em money..that'll fix it"...
      Ooops..now we have to give MORE money to more people those on the public dole...Lets give more..that'll fix it.."...etc..etc..etc..round and round we go...
      The only thing that stopped that maddness was republican invocation of welfare reform...

      An all incompassing point.. The liberal's race to socialism!! Yeah!
      Its been tried ..and tried..and tried..only to result in MILLIONS of deaths and the decline of nations.. Yet liberals simply believe we need to 'try it again' here in the US...

      Or perhaps I should just change my sig to:
      "Liberalism generates the complete opposite of its stated intent"
      Pick a liberal issue..apply that theory.. and you'll understand...

      PS..I love debating liberals.. Its easy when you have the facts... Plus its fun for the whole family!!

    43. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by MindSlap · · Score: 1

      Its the same thing thats going on today as in 2000.. Only MORE...

      Its called referring to history...
      Additionally I was simply stressing the information that was glossed over in that link by the AC poster...

      Fox memo..
      Oh..that news organization that has democrats going banannas?!?
      One would think they would simply counter, with facts, anything that is reported...

      Hmmm..they must be doing something right..as in NOT LYING or skewing the news...
      Afterall, crazy liberals just LOVE to sue..
      If what Fox has to report is soooo wrong, you'd think they'd be sue'd out of business by now... (shrug)

    44. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is that supposed to help people? Your argument seems to suggest it doesn't matter whether you vote democrat or republican, because either way you will not be listened to. The republicans don't become better just because the alternative is just as bad.

    45. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Golias · · Score: 1
      So, by the fact that you think some RNC/DLC conspiracy is responsible for the McGovern comparisons would indicate that you think it's a Bad Think, I guess.

      He's being compared to McGovern because 99% of the emphasis of his campaign is an anti-war message, and he's clobbering more moderate candidates in the Democrat primaies as a result (as McGovern did to Humphrey.)

      Also, his party is likely to get utterly spanked in the general election if he becomes the candidate (as Nixon did no McGovern.)

      Guys like Lieberman or even Kerry would have a pretty good shot at stealing the moderate vote away from Bush, and winning by a narrow margin. By positioning himself as the True Blue Liberal Davior of the party (in spite of the fact that he was actually a somewhat moderate Governor) he is pretty much doomed to get about as much of the moderate "swing" vote as Goldwater did against Johnson in a general election.

      Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you're a liberal, a loss by a "pure" liberal candidate could be better for the cause than a win by another triangulating Clinton-style Democrat. Were it not for the Goldwater loss, the Reagan presidency might not have happened.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    46. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think it's a conspiracy between the Republicans and the DLC. I just think that both groups dislike him and find "another McGovern" to be a convenient smear.

      And the DLC's strategy was successful in the Clinton years, but since then it's led to nothing but losses. Actually, even during the Clinton years, it was successful for the Presidency but nowhere else. Recall that after the Democrats winning both houses of Congress by solid margins in 1992, the Republicans came roaring back only two years later -- and they didn't do it by saying, "Oh, we have a popular Democratic President, so we'd better try to be more like the Democrats." They did it by being committed, passionate, and unafraid to go on the attack against one of the most popular sitting Presidents in recent history.

      (Granted, they then overreached themselves with the whole absurd Whitewater/Lewinsky thing; had they kept their politics aboveboard, IMO Newt Gingrich would still be running the House.)

      There's a lesson here. Lieberman would get some of the moderates but nobody else. Kerry would get some of the moderates and most mainstream Democrats. But the genuine center-left moderation of Dean's politics (no matter how much his opponents try to paint him as to the left of Vladimir Lenin) combined with his willingness to fight the good fight in a public forum represents, IMO, the Democrats' best chance for victory.

      The ironic thing about Goldwater is that he turned into quite the libertarian in his later years ...

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    47. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Golias · · Score: 1
      I just think that both groups dislike him and find "another McGovern" to be a convenient smear.

      Again with the notion that calling him "another McGovern" is a smear. A lot of old-school liberals always liked McGovern, and still do.

      And the DLC's strategy was successful in the Clinton years

      Successful for moderate Democrats, but not for liberals, hense the rise of Ralph Nader and the Greens.

      Kerry would get some of the moderates and most mainstream Democrats.

      Read as: "enough votes to win"

      But the genuine center-left moderation of Dean's politics (no matter how much his opponents try to paint him as to the left of Vladimir Lenin) combined with his willingness to fight the good fight in a public forum represents, IMO, the Democrats' best chance for victory.

      If you even suspect that Dean could win the moderate vote after the campaign he as run so far, you are so far out of touch with reality, you probably are one of those people who think Paul Wellstone "definately would have won" had he not died.

      The ironic thing about Goldwater is that he turned into quite the libertarian in his later years ...

      No, it's not ironic, Miss Morresette. Goldwater was always "quite the libertarian." The term "populist right-winger" was practically invented to refer to him. Most modern libertarian conservatives consider his "extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice" address from the 60's to be the dawning moment of their entire movement.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    48. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by drblunt · · Score: 1
      Pardon, but I must chime in. The Democrats from the North opposed slavery, while the Democrats from the South were all for it. It literally tore the Democratic party apart, as they nominated two candidates for president (Breckinridge for the southern states, and Douglas for the northern states.) However, let it be noted that it was mostly the republican party, with presidents Grant, Hayes and Garfield, that was responsible for the relapse in atrocities in the south after the Civil War, due to their cessation of reconstruction, and the removal of federal troops from the south.

      Also, I think you should get your definition of Republican and Democrat straight (as it can be these days.) The Democrat is (technically)pro Federal Government, and the Republican is (techincally) pro State Government, but niether is anti-government.

      Just my 2c.

      --
      We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
    49. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Technician · · Score: 1

      Actualy I have a life and no cable or disk. I'm referring to some of the welfare folks who can't make ends meet, but has steak for dinner while watching cable TV and talking on the cell phone.

      I rarely have steak for dinner, don't have cable TV, or a cell phone.

      I also don't have lots of kids. I live within my budget and save for retirement.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    50. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, eventually the machine is going to eat your children to, you stupid fucking bumpkin. Keep cheerleading for the people who don't give a shit about you.
      <BR></BR>
      I for one, being a member of the 'Fuck you I'm rich' society thank you for your blind allegiance.

    51. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by strike2867 · · Score: 0

      True, but if you add up all the totals Democrats beat out Bush by 13,972,819. If they could only join forces, we would have a pretty good chance.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    52. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberalism is a Mental Illness

      Reading a bit too many of Ms. Coulter's books are we?

    53. Re:Republicans, republicans, republicans by GenSolo · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked Gore got the Majority.
      It appears you didn't check after the ballots started being counted, then. Gore got a plurality of the popular vote. Firstly, a plurality is not enough to elect a President as the Constitution mandates a majority. Secondly, the popular vote isn't even Constitutionally mandated. All that matters is the vote within any given state because that's how the states have decided to choose electors.

  7. Grrrr... by squarooticus · · Score: 1, Troll

    Orrin Hatch is the type of a**hole who gives all Republicans a bad name.

    But there's also a lack of parallelism here: Republicans constantly get shit for the actions of these buffoons, but is the senior blimp from Massachusetts, the infamous Teddy Kennedy, ever called on the evil things he stands for?

    --
    [ home ]
    1. Re:Grrrr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orrin Hatch is the type of a**hole who gives all Republicans a bad name.

      But there's also a lack of parallelism here: Republicans constantly get shit for the actions of these buffoons, but is the senior blimp from Massachusetts, the infamous Teddy Kennedy, ever called on the evil things he stands for?


      You're right, Ted Kennedy just gets the George Bush (Sr.) Award given to him for his outstanding service. Still comes back to republican corruption. In any regard, much of the problems we're having are due to republicans controlling all major branches of the federal government and the press more concerned about Michael Jackson than they are about the multitudes of Bush administration scandals that have gone un/under-reported.

    2. Re:Grrrr... by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1, Funny

      Getting away with leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident resulting in a fatality.

    3. Re:Grrrr... by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      "Orrin Hatch is the type of a**hole who gives all Republicans a bad name.

      But there's also a lack of parallelism here: Republicans constantly get shit for the actions of these buffoons, but is the senior blimp from Massachusetts, the infamous Teddy Kennedy, ever called on the evil things he stands for?"

      I find it amusing that you decided to censor the word ass and not shit. Frankly, if anything should have been censored in your post, it should have been the name of Boring Snatch (Orrin Hatch).

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    4. Re:Grrrr... by goober · · Score: 1

      but is the senior blimp from Massachusetts, the infamous Teddy Kennedy, ever called on the evil things he stands for?

      You mean such evil things like fighting for Civil Rights, championing Labor Unions, seeking Health Coverage for everyone, improving Education, etc... Please tell us...

    5. Re:Grrrr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean such evil things like fighting for Civil Rights, championing Labor Unions, seeking Health Coverage for everyone, improving Education, etc... Please tell us...

      Race baiting and union pandering, at the cost of perpetually higher taxes, increased bureacracy and regulation, and a practically gutted military and intelligence. It all depends on your point of view...

    6. Re:Grrrr... by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      ...but is the senior blimp from Massachusetts, the infamous Teddy Kennedy, ever called on the evil things he stands for?

      What the hell are you talking about? Rush attacks him on a daily basis. Your viewpoint is seriously skewed.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    7. Re:Grrrr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends on your point of view...

      As well as your gullibilty...get a clue...

    8. Re:Grrrr... by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... calling black and hispanic judicial candidates "neanderthals"? Opposing the Medicare prescription drug benefit, because it was a bipartisan plan instead of Democratic?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Grrrr... by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Orrin Hatch was the tool that blabbed that we knew Bin Ladden was responcible for 9/11 before we knew where he was. Thus giving Bin Laden a heads-up and letting him get away. The man is just about the worst scum on this earth.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  8. They're legislating themselves into irrelevance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the more of this nonsense comes up, the more they'll be laughed out of court if they try to enforce it, and the less anybody will actually make an effort to enforce anything.

    Let them get more and more disconnected from real life until they're in their happy delusion-of-omnipotence bubble and everybody's moved on from buying music on physical medium altogether...

    sometimes the best way to deal with the insane is let them think they're right.

  9. I wonder why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft didn't think of getting an exemption along with the RIAA.

    1. Re:I wonder why by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

      No need. They'll buy a small record label, and claim the exemption.

  10. I am ashamed by jlechem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative. I have never voted for him and after several news stories like this will never vote for him in the future. When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written? I suggest everyone write a letter to Senator Hatch and tell him what you think of this law. Utahans especially but it helps if anyone sends a letter in.

    *Ok rant's over, flame on!

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, seriously, whats wrong with Utah ? You guys got mormons, SCO, Hatch and the Utah Jazz ? If I were you, I'd be running the shit out of myself to get to a more decent place, like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    2. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to change things, send Hatch a letter and send letters to all your Senators and Congressmen. But don't just threaten to withhold your vote. Instead tell them you have had enough, and if they go through with this, you will actively campaign for their opponents. If they get enough of these letters they will notice.

    3. Re:I am ashamed by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written?

      Who needs money when you get this!

      From the article:
      "At a gala awards dinner in March 2001 hosted by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero Award" and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his songs, "I Am Not Alone". "

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:I am ashamed by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, you are voting though.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    5. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be something about UTAH! Isn't that where SCO's based? j/k

    6. Re:I am ashamed by aborchers · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am ashamed to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative.


      Er... Isn't he a senator?

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    7. Re:I am ashamed by Grimwiz · · Score: 1

      Sadly the only people running for office I have ever had the opportunity to vote for have been people who I would not want governing me.

      --
      -- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
    8. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can Orin Hatch honestly answer the question "Are you dealing fairly with your fellow man?" Or many other Mormons for that matter? It seems to me when it comes to business the gospel and the teachings of the church are completely ignored. Most Utah mormons are living the mormon culture and not the gospel. How could anyone in the church posibly work for SCO knowing what they are doing?

    9. Re:I am ashamed by ferret70 · · Score: 1

      Word. After the whole Orrin-led "Let's get the born-in-the-US requirement to be president revoked" (to cozy up to his pal Arnold), I was sick. Now, I'm really sick of his naivete. It goes to show you what years in Congress will do to anyone's thinking.

      Too much more of this (MPAA/RIAA/PatriotAct/40+%Taxes/yadda) and I have one question: How long before another Revolution?

    10. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats with Utah any ways. They Have SCO, Orrin Hatch.

      It must be the state were freaks go and get stoopid laws passed.

    11. Re:I am ashamed by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think that this yet another black eye on Utah.

      Between Hatch and SCO you guys are getting some bad press lately. OTOH I am pretty sure both Hatch and SCO are widely supported but the population at large in Utah.

      Cheer up though bad news usually comes in threes. What's going to be the next news out Utah, anybody have a guess?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    12. Re:I am ashamed by Silburn_Luke · · Score: 1

      Senators are part of congress, right? So he's a congressional representative. Instead of representing to the house of representatives he represents to the senate.

      Regards
      Luke

      --
      #include witty_one_liner.h
    13. Re:I am ashamed by aborchers · · Score: 1
      Senators are part of congress, right? So he's a congressional representative. Instead of representing to the house of representatives he represents to the senate.


      Yes, the Congress is composed of a Senate and a House, so that is technically correct. I think you may be stretching it a bit in context of conventional usage, though. Congressional Representative is generally understood to mean member of the House of Representatives and Senator member of the Senate. "Member of Congress" is ambiguous and rightfully describes the membership of both houses, but in every usage I've encountered, Congressional Representative has a clearly established meaning that does not include Senators.

      Of course, both our Senators and Representatives have probably managed to pass some other kind of jerk-around law to sign away more of our rights while we've been debating this. :-)

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    14. Re:I am ashamed by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1
      OTOH I am pretty sure both Hatch and SCO are widely supported but the population at large in Utah.


      Hatch: probably. This is a republican-controlled state.

      SCO: What are you smoking? The population at large still doesn't even know what SCO is, unless they work in the computer industry or read the smaller articles on the back of the business section. The population at large still supports MICROSOFT.

    15. Re:I am ashamed by BanditBuddhist · · Score: 1

      May I suggest that simply *not* voting for someone is not enough. You must also vote for someone else, or your abstaining does nothing.

    16. Re:I am ashamed by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      I have seen articles in the salt lake paper (online) that seemed to be cheerleading for SCO. Kind of local-boys-done-good stuff.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    17. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You spelled "Jason" wrong, plz fix in future posts.

    18. Re:I am ashamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you spelled please wrong, so why don't you have a big glass of fuck off and die.

    19. Re:I am ashamed by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      a big glass of fuck off and die

      It does the body good. Er, wait...

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  11. Congressman Valar...nice ring... by Valar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I were in congress, I think I would just start voting down anything with a clever acronym for a name....

    1. Re:Congressman Valar...nice ring... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      That's a beautiful idea. You'd get my vote.

  12. Not even surprised anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When justice can not be obtained via peaceful means through the system, the people usually turn to the violent ones.

    Oh well, it's just another symptom of a failing Republic turning to despotism. At least these yahoos will be the first against the wall, come the revolution.

  13. Who's next? by mcbunny29 · · Score: 0



    Microsoft? De Beers?

    If this bill goes through, it's gonna be a free-for-all grab-while-you-can anti-anti-trust bonanza in every industry sector!

  14. heh by SQLz · · Score: 1, Funny

    More bribe money, down the Hatch.

  15. Not Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Democrats voted for the DMCA. A democrat signed the bill into law.

    Democrats (cough, Senator Fritz Disney) are some of the ones that support the MPAA/RIAA.

  16. what market realities? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Market realities that radio is being consolidated into a handful of companies and you now have more control? Song royalties for Internet radio are cost prohibitive in most instances? You are spending millions of dollars to develop trash movies and music and the consumers aren't buying into it anymore?

    How about we stop allowing them to pay off these lawmakers with huge donations (even through other channels) and they stop being able to throw their weight around.

    Although I guess they could just ignore any findings of the government like someone else we know and go about their business as usual w/o fear.

    1. Re:what market realities? by Ayaress · · Score: 0

      How about we stop allowing them to pay off these lawmakers with huge donations (even through other channels) and they stop being able to throw their weight around.

      The problem with stopping corporate payoffs is that once major companies start paying off politicians, they can't be stopped. They can block a ban on this sort of thing just as easily as they can push this exemtion through. The politicians getting the money won't go against the companies, and the politicians who don't get the money don't stand a reasonable chance of winning an election against the existing polticians on the sweeping scale (voting majority in both houses plus the president) it would take to change things.

    2. Re:what market realities? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Our Constitution was designed so that you, me, the Communists, the Iraqis, whoever wanted to give money to government officials could. But it would have no effect, because that government official would have their hands tied by the Constitution. Each official has certain enumerated power -- if the Constitution doesn't allot for it, they can't do it.

      Of course, the average joe (yourself included it seems) believes that the money is evil! Not the act of law created by someone who is not following their oath to uphold the Constitution.

      For more information:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul13.html

    3. Re:what market realities? by EriDay · · Score: 1

      How about we stop allowing them to pay off these lawmakers with huge donations (even through other channels) and they stop being able to throw their weight around.

      The complicated way to do this is to have a law passed (that is sure to be filled w/ loopholes). The easy way to do this is to not give them any money. Buy music only from indie labels (I haven't bought an RIAA CD in years). Movies are tougher; who can resist going to see LOTR the weekend it comes out.

    4. Re:what market realities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you don't believe that money is the driving factor behind these bills being pushed through? If not, you're naive.

    5. Re:what market realities? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Market realities?

      The reality of the market is that the cost of entry into the music market is no longer very high. Any artist with a few thousand dollars can get his song or album recorded, and distributed through an Indie label (or distribute it himself). No longer do they have to borrow large amounts from big record companies who turn artists into indentured servants.

      Another reality is that the cost to become a record label isn't that high anymore either. Many of the small distributors (like CD Baby) started as a hobby project, and have grown into a profitable business over time. These labels offer a better deal to both artists and customers.

      In short, the sweet, sweet days of being able to screw both customers and artists are over for the RIAA and its members. The one advantage they have over the upstart labels is deep pockets. Since money is no longer the deciding factor for entering into the music business, the one thing they can spend it on is legal action. Money buys them lawyers and apparently senators as well, and of late it seems that the RIAA is pursuing both these options.

      One has to wonder about the brazenness of the whole thing. What they are really saying is: "We are a monopoly, we have been able to skin the general public for years, and we would very much like to continue to do so. Please change the law to let us remain a monopoly, and do something about these upstart Indie labels"

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:what market realities? by fermion · · Score: 1
      The market realities is there is just too many talented people out three for any single person or corporate entity to make large sums of money off talent alone. There has to be some mechanism to insure that certain powerful people can choose from the extremely large pool of potential stars and then use these properties to generate profit.

      This is why professional sports are monopolies. You allow true competition in the stylized competitive sports and profits are going to drop. Someone might get the idea of not charging $5 for a coke.

      In the past the barriers to entry to music has been high enough to insure the labels could control the market without an official monopoly. The Internet can potentially remove those barriers, and therefore they need to make the monopoly official. If they do not, then the arbitrary engineered chick and arbitrary engineer boy-girl will not make their owners huge sums of money.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:what market realities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we stop allowing them to pay off these lawmakers with huge donations (even through other channels) and they stop being able to throw their weight around. These are the "market realities" referred to, I think.

  17. Great...more power to the RIAA by canfirman · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "Any bill that further increases the RIAA's power over consumers is extremely disconcerting to us," president of the Webcaster Alliance, Ann Gabriel told us today.

    Great. This is what we need. More power to those who hold the purse strings. Give more power to big business and less to consumers.

    The thing that concerns me is that the RIAA is trying to circumvent a diplomatic process. I always thought that, while not completely effective, challenging an organizations actions (even in court) kept what organizations do in check - that the could not overstep their boundries. Now, the RIAA is trying to be immune from it's actions, while suing consumers for their actions.

    This could start a dangerous precident - allowing corporations immunity from their own actions. Hope SCO isn't watching.

    --
    It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
    1. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      What this would effectively do is let the legislative branch of our government immunize the recording industry from the judiciary branch of our government. The 3 branches exist for a reason and IMHO it would be unconstitutional for one branch to prevent another branch from doing their job.

    2. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. Try "Give more power to big business and less to CITIZENS." We're CITIZENS of the United States, dammit, not "consumers of globally mass-produced drivel."

      (well maybe not you specifically, considering your yahoo.ca e-mail address, but still.)

    3. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      As more of us geeks get the word out, more of the general public will stop paying exhorbitant prices for CDs and DVDs. One of three things will happen:

      the RIAA will implode due to lack of funds

      the RIAA will implode due to lack of artists

      the RIAA will explode to due a suitable application of... erm, never mind... :)

      But seriously, we may not see justice in our lifetime, but if we can indoctrinate our kids to visit the secondhand CD stores first, and only buy brand new CDs when the tracks can't be downloaded or bought used-but-in-good-condition, then the RIAA will eventually pass from this world.

    4. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by Red+Rocket · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Great. This is what we need. More power to those who hold the purse strings. Give more power to big business and less to consumers.

      Stop thinking of yourself as a "consumer." That's exactly how they want you to see yourself. Start thinking of yourself as a citizen with all the power the constitution gives you. The consumer is at the bottom of a food chain. The citizen is at the top in a democracy.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    5. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 1

      We need projects like Roofnet to come to fruition too, so we can finally take the network itself out of organizations' hands. Having to pay a (lawsuit-susceptible and potentially evil) megacorp for Internet access isn't exactly conducive to freeing society FROM the megacorps...
      Anyone considered starting a Great Sneakernet? Somehow it has to be detached from the Internet after it gets started, and it'll need to be self-perpetuating. Get everyone to cart their CD cases around whenever they go to their m8's house and copy...but I'm kinda at a loss as to how to make it take off. =\

      --
      -insert a witty something-
    6. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Your first statement is true, but it is not unconstitutional. The judiciary rules on matters of law, some as established by the legistlature, and some as established by the Constitution. If the legislature established constitutional laws which prohibit lawsuits, etc., then the judiciary can do nothing, as they are bound by the law. There is very little business law engrained in the Constitution (The only specific thing mentioned is limited patents and limited copyright). Much of the power of the Congress is derived from broad statements such as "to provide for the general Welfare of the United States". As such, the legislature has had to establish almost all of our business laws on their own. That means they are also free to change it at any time. Since new legislation always supercedes prior legislation, all that is needed to enact change are simple statements which establish new guidelines.

    7. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coporations can do whatever they want and get away with it. When is the last time you heard of a corporation being disbanded because they broke the law? Corporations are a charter allowed by government. If there's no way to lose this charter, why would you "do the right thing"?

      Even if corporations con people out of their money, most of the time all they have to do (IF they get caught) is give it back (which means it becomes worthwile to try to get away with it). Punitive damages are very rare, in this settlement-heavy era (settlements almost always mean a net profit for the crime the corporation committed).

      There is also no accountability for the leaders of corporations. Just look at enron. Who got punished for that one? The worst that could happen to a business leader is a small fine and a few years in prison. When screwing over your own employees and clients results in billions of dollars on your own personal bank account, why does it surprise anyone that (some) business leaders screw everyone over?

    8. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    9. Re:Great...more power to the RIAA by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The citizen is at the top in a democracy.

      Agreed. What's that got to do with America again?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  18. Media Companies by femto · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Why do record and movie companies get away with this? Is it because of their close affiliation with media companies? Does this lead to their actions never being reported, so the electorate never finds out what laws are being passed in the movie/record companies' favour?

    Are politicians so dependent on positive media spin that they dare not refuse such laws? So many questions.

    1. Re:Media Companies by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Are politicians so dependent on positive media spin that they dare not refuse such laws? So many questions.

      Oh absolutely. William Hearst's often quoted telegram still applies: "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."

      Give a politician a camera to look at and he'll promise you the world whether he can deliver it or not. Politicians are scumbags. The trouble with our system of government is the politicians are the media whores and the true statesmen don't pander to the press and bow to the media so they don't get reported on. Thus, they remain the silent heroes working the back channels to try and keep some semblence of liberty in this country. The rest of the government, run by media-whore politicians, Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike, can all go suck my balls.

  19. now that the 2nd amendment's been brought up... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    it's time to bring it into the 21st century: the right to compile & run your own code on your own h/w;-)

    1. Re:now that the 2nd amendment's been brought up... by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 1
      I like this idea. Not that I'm in favor of the 2nd, who cares I'm Canadian anyway, but it is a reality, so can we consider having a stockpile of virii on your personal machine as falling under the "right to bear arms"? After all, US citizens are allowed to have entire armories in their homes...

      Or is it because there is no market for virii that it's not protected. As long as they can sell them to you, then you can buy them, is that how it works?

  20. Bah... by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't care what you say, there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to be exempt from anti-trust laws. The reality of the market? What on earth does that mean?

    Clearly the music and movie industries are larg amalgams esigned to stigle anything that resembles competition, is that the reality that they're talking about? The only reason a company would want an exemption from anti-trust laws would be if they were or were planning on becoming a monopoly, or if they are or plan on just raping those laws in the name of extreme profit. Those laws are in place to protect not only consumers but the economic and creative interests of the United States of America.

    What a bunch of bums, really. I don't care if no one likes you. I don't care that your companies are losing money because people found out that they didn't have to pay $20 for a CD (they could pay like $10 with I-Tunes). Why should you be immune the the laws? I'm sorry Mr. Corporate Conspiracy Group, but the laws are there to apply to everyone equally, and no one should get exempted from them, this is what we call equality, if you don't like it, then you can stick it in some place and go move your companies out to Vantua with Sharman networks.

    1. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but the laws are there to apply to everyone equally, and no one should get exempted from them, this is what we call equality, if you don't like it, then you can stick it in some place and go move your companies out to Vantua with Sharman networks.


      Major league baseball is exempt from anti trust laws. So are many power companies (witness the fuss made over deregulation, deregulation from monopoly status)

      I don't like this development any more than you do, but to carte blanche say that "monopolies" are evil demonstrates ignorance about the issues involved, which is what you are blasting sen hatch for.
    2. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      larg amalgams esigned to stigle

      WTF?

    3. Re:Bah... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Do the laws aply to people who pirate music off the internet? The general consensus here seems to be that it shouldn't.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:Bah... by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1
      I don't care what you say, there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to be exempt from anti-trust laws.

      you must be a NY yankees fan.

    5. Re:Bah... by stubear · · Score: 1

      "Why should you be immune the the laws?"

      Exactly. Which is why the 12-year-old, the 15-year-old and the 66-year-old are being sued for copyright infringement. Oh, I'm sorry, you meant no corporate entity should be immune to the law, but individal citizens should be allowed to selectively choose which laws they will abide by and allow themselves to be prosecuted for. My mistake.

    6. Re:Bah... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      The reality of the market? What on earth does that mean?

      Simply put, it means that policitians are as much a saleable commodity as just about anything else.

    7. Re:Bah... by ahfoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those are very interesting points and they go along with the interesting comment made, I guess by Timothy, that said
      "From the watch-people-blame-the-free-market dept."
      I think the problem is that people use terms like "free-market" or "competition" as though they were magic spells that could solve all problems and have some mystical, sublime and transcedental meaning. Being for or against "free-markets" is totally irrelvant.
      This a case of a logical problem created by the sloppy use of language to patch over complex ideas with simple catch phrases.
      There is no such thing as a "free-market." There never was such a thing and there never will be. So baiting people about attacking this mythical beast is nothing more than a kind of bizarre political statement akin to saying --I'm on the right. Such spatial metaphors are next to meaningless without a very specific context.
      So, this AC post is right on the money. American capitalism has always been regulated and deregulated to varying degrees. There is no one-hundred percent and it is quite possible that the RIAA could be exempted. It is also quite possible that the NET Act could be ammended to make all digital P2P fair use.
      They're both possible and neither would have much influence on the cult icon referred to as the "free-market."

    8. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are good reasons to be exempt, such as when you are a governement granted monopoly over an essential service (BTW, I am assuming that such monoplies are exempt, but hey, I could be wrong). Of course, then you are are heavily regulated by the government. Think that RIAA\MPAA would like that?

    9. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An excerpt from "On the Granting of Bill of Rights Protections to Corporations as Pertains to the Case of Nike Inc. v. Kasky", by Carl Mayer:

      "[...]In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), the [Supreme] Court utilized the artificial entity theory to deny corporations fifth amendment privileges against self-incrimination. Hale involved a criminal antitrust action, brought under the Sherman Act, against two tobacco corporations: the American Tobacco Company and the MacAndrews & Forbes Company. A subpoena duces tecum was issued to Hale, the secretary and treasurer of MacAndrews & Forbes, requesting that he appear and produce a battery of letters and contracts executed between his corporation and several other tobacco firms.Id. Hale refused to comply, invoking the fifth amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.Id.

      Rejecting this argument, the Court held that the words "no person" in the privileges portion of the fifth amendment do not suggest that corporations should be included within the amendment's protections. The majority then rendered its most expansive rendition of the artificial entity theory, drawing a sharp distinction between the individual and the corporation."The individual exists antecedent to the state and therefore owes no duty to the state and cannot be deprived of any constitutional rights. The corporation, however, is a mere "creature of the State." Its powers are limited by law, and the legislature reserves a right to investigate the corporation... An individual may refuse to answer incriminating questions, but a corporation may not if it is charged with an abuse of its state-conferred privileges. Id. at 74-75.

      In a separate concurrence in Hale, Justice Harlan advanced the artificial entity theory to suggest that corporations should not be accorded fourth amendment protections. "In my opinion a corporation -- "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law" -- cannot claim the immunity given by the fourth amendment, for it is not a part of the "People," within the meaning of that amendment. Nor is it embraced by the word "persons" in the amendment". Id. Subsequently Justice Harlan's concurrence became the majority in Morton Salt(See also. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 238. 327 U.S. 186 (1946).), in which the Court permitted the Department of Labor broad access to a newspaper corporations documents. Furthermore, the Court found that corporations are not entitled to all of the constitutional protections individuals have "in these and related matters." Id. [...]"

  21. Ob South Park Reference by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Funny



    Orrin Hatch, he went to congress, DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM

    </singing>

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    1. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Jaysyn · · Score: 0

      He's coming right for us!!! BLAM! BLAM!

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Ob South Park Reference by devnull17 · · Score: 1

      Wow, the turnaround time on these South Park references is getting scary. That episode just aired for the first time last Wednesday.

    3. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Slashdot came and got him impeached,SMART SMART SMART SMART SMART

    4. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      That would imply that the people on /. who can do something about it will do something about it, other than just bitch on /. about it.

      Chances of that happening...nil

    5. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Greenisus · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA! That just topped my morning coffee as best thing of this morning. If I ever run into you in Colorado, dinner at Casa Bonita is on me.

    6. Re:Ob South Park Reference by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      um....I wouldn't go to Casa Bonita if I were you. The food is bad.

      seriously...

      I'm not kidding.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    7. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Greenisus · · Score: 1

      wow . . . i didn't know it was a real place.

    8. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Sanction · · Score: 1

      No, nil is just the number because most of the people on slashdot don't have a spare $10,000 to even get their voice heard, let alone afford some influence.

      --
      Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
    9. Re:Ob South Park Reference by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      the people on nova pull them off satelites up to a week before they air.

      "(Q) Why are some eps out before they air and some after?

      Some networks (Fox, WB) encrypt their wildfeed, meaning that certain eps can not be capped sucessfully. Other networks may adopt encryption, so don't count on eps being available until after they air.
      This is new to the 2003-4 season, so shows you were able to get before they aired last year may not be available until after airing starting this season.

      (Q) What are wildfeeds?

      Wildfeeds are a transmission by the network to distribute the episode before it airs around to the tv relay stations. You need to be in the correct location and have a large satelite dish in order to receive them.

      "

      tv torrents

      do mormons really believe that that guy was given gold plates from god? and that the idians used to be from isreal but god got mad and turned them red?

      i didnt really believe it because im not american but if it is trure, wow. just wow.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    10. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOOHHH CASABONITA!!!

      awsome you guys

      spam filter spam filter spam filter

    11. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust me, most Americans don't believe it either.

    12. Re:Ob South Park Reference by Nodatadj · · Score: 1

      Ah, the joys of the freedoms that troops in Iraq are dying to defend...

      There's something fucked up when people don't even consider letter writing campaigns as viable. I guess they've won then and the US is no longer a democracy.

  22. For the people by Aelfweld · · Score: 1

    While I already think people sue to often things like this make me wonder. If we are a country for the people by the people(ok really a republic not a democracy) and senators are supposed to represent people in thier distrcit. Shouldn't we as people step up and sue some of these senators for not represnting us but instead representing big business and not even businesses that are in thier district?

    --
    Government is the abdication of your responsibility to a faceless bureaucracy. Anarchy(absence of government)is the a
    1. Re:For the people by musikit · · Score: 1

      wouldn't they just enact a law stating that they are exempt? hence the problem here.

    2. Re:For the people by Hanzie · · Score: 1
      Shouldn't we as people step up and sue some of these senators for not represnting us but instead representing big business and not even businesses that are in thier district?
      1. There's no way in hell you're going to successfully sue a senator. He's doing his job, which is introducing and voting for laws that he likes.
      2. There's no way in hell you're going to successfully sue the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committe.
      3. Hatch is already a lawyer. His posterior is covered six ways to Sunday.

      Your only hope is to try to vote him out of office. Good luck voting a powerful incumbent Republican senator out in Utah. Perhaps you'd like to get Ralph Nader elected president while your at it?

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    3. Re:For the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck voting a powerful incumbent Republican senator out in Utah.

      Who says he has to be voted out? To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, all it takes is one bullet. Guess I'd better post anonymously now....

      Perhaps you'd like to get Ralph Nader elected president while your at it?

      One thing's for sure: Nader would never sign a bill exempting any company from antitrust law. Dubya might be a big enough asshole to do it. After he's reelected, of course.

    4. Re:For the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Entertainment* issues don't rise to the level of outrage that makes people do political assassinations, and this one is no exception.

    5. Re:For the people by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      While I already think people sue to often...

      The reason you think that is because big corporations have paid PR firms a buttload of money to make you think that. The lawsuit crisis is a fiction perpetrated by corporations to get legislation passed to protect them in court. They want carte blanche to be able to commit whatever crime is profitable and then escape justice.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    6. Re:For the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is more than an entertainment issue, my dear Coward. If one corporation or industry group can be exempted from antitrust laws, then any other one can claim they should have the same exemption. After two or three of these exemptions are granted, there's no point keeping antitrust legislation around, so it's all revoked.

      Next thing you know, you're buying your gas at $3/gallon from the new Standard Oil. Telephone service from the new AT&T is astronomically priced. Since the power companies were all deregulated and allowed to merge, you pay $1/kWh or more, and they've been exempted from all pollution regulations so there's a permanent cloud of black soot hanging over you if you live anywhere near a power plant. Unless it's nuclear, in which case your house glows.

      Soon after these things happen, the bullets will start flying. The shooters will of course be labeled "terrorists", and the crackdown against them will make Nazi Germany look like a basket of puppies.

      Or maybe I'm delusional.

  23. "market realities" demand a lot of things by iainl · · Score: 1

    Exemption from the law isn't even a new thing for these people; this does after all come on the back of the "go on, let us kill every box we suspect of having copies on" request. Exemption from other boring laws, like those stopping them from just firebombing those nasty piracy enablers like Frys and Staples who supply all the equipment required to write a CDR can't be too far behind, surely?

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  24. Why by Hanzie · · Score: 1

    Why is Mr. Hatch so bent out of shape about copyright abuses? The claimed "because I have copywritten songs too" is unbelivable. Lets face it, who is going to download a senator's greatest Mormon hits?

    Does he actually believe that he's losing money from the kazaa collective by this?

    I'd really love to track sales, because there probably are some of his songs out there now, just out of sheer macabre fascination. Perhaps he'd try to say with a straight face that it has hurt his sales?

    I'd guess that some folks have bought his album just out of sheer novelty.
    -------------------Stunning Insight Strikes -----------
    It just hit me. I'm serious here, don't laugh. He's gotten more exposure for his singing out of this copyright fracas than he ever had a chance at. No doubt the RIAA is helping him market as well.

    I'd bet his sales have skyrocketed, since he's been able to use this entire fiasco for personal gain.

    I mean, who the heck knew he even HAD a singing career before this. Now it's mentioned every time he opens his mouth in the media.

    Between him and McBride, I'm getting really embarassed about this whole Utah thing.

    The truthfulness of my sig is really starting to bother me.

    hanzie.

    --
    ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
  25. So far this week by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far this week our government has passed laws legalizing spam and giving huge kickbacks to insurance companies. They have a majority on a bill indemnifying oil companies for MTBE pollution. They declared intent to ban gay marriages in the US. Now there is a bill that would give all publishers the right to become monopolies? And this actually received sponsorship?

    Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

    1. Re:So far this week by Hanzie · · Score: 2, Funny
      Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      They are. Just watch what happens when elections are over.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    2. Re:So far this week by ccmay · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They have a majority on a bill indemnifying oil companies for MTBE pollution.

      And so they should, given that MTBE was forced on the oil companies by the government and the 'watermelon' public interest groups in a misguided attempt to reduce air pollution.

      If anyone should pay for cleaning up MTBE, it should be the EPA and the Sierra Club. I don't think the oil companies should pay one red cent.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    3. Re:So far this week by palutke · · Score: 1

      If anyone should pay for cleaning up MTBE, it should be the EPA and the Sierra Club. I don't think the oil companies should pay one red cent.

      It doesn't matter. The consumer will end up paying one way or the other.

      --
      'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
    4. Re:So far this week by goljerp · · Score: 1
      Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      Sure, but this is a slow news week. Everyone busy getting ready to stuff their faces with Turkey and shop, and nobody's going to notice a story buried in the inner pages of the papers.
    5. Re:So far this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pollution is likely because the product was mishandled, leaky tanks, carelessness by producer and consumer, etc. Leakage or spillage was inevitable so it should never been introduced; I agree with you. The question to me, if MTBE is making into groundwater, what else is and has been making it there because of negligence, carelessnes, or other? If this was the tanker/ocean, and to everyone's view, what would be the answer and who would be responsible?

    6. Re:So far this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      elections?

    7. Re:So far this week by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      Did you miss the memo about voting machines legally ripping off the voters?

    8. Re:So far this week by hellfire · · Score: 1

      They have a majority on a bill indemnifying oil companies for MTBE pollution.

      Please pay attention to the political media. This was a provision that was part of the major energy bill that two days ago died in congress. It's NOT becoming law any time soon. Congress could not agree primarily because of this provision. Republicans wouldn't take it out, Democrats didn't want it in. They probably compromised by letting the medicare bill go through but killing the energy bill.

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    9. Re:So far this week by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit ccmay:

      the 'watermelon' public interest groups

      The what?

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    10. Re:So far this week by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      So far this week our government has passed laws legalizing spam and giving huge kickbacks to insurance companies. They have a majority on a bill indemnifying oil companies for MTBE pollution.

      As far as the junk e-mail legislation is concerned, I think it's pretty clear that the reason spam is so common is that it works as an advertising medium. I notice that big names are now using junk-pumps (HP for example) to get their word out. I could see that one coming. There is no lobbying group representing line subscribers that actually foot the bill for this "free" advertising, so it's going to get much worse (until, of course, a better version of e-mail is made standard). It wasn't Big Oil's idea to put MTBE into petrol, so I can understand them seeking indemnification. However, MTBE became a problem because of shoddy maintenance procedures for storing the fuel, so those distributors that let their tanks leak and rust should feel the wrath of the lawyers. If those faulty storage tanks were owned by Big Oil companies, well that's a different story.

      They declared intent to ban gay marriages in the US.

      Absolutely ridiculous, especially when considering that no government was granted the power to regulate this, and the people (whom the decision ultimately rests upon) are indifferent toward the issue in general. I feel that the government only really should have power when mediating an agreement for a divorce, and is otherwise much too involved with matters at home.

      Now there is a bill that would give all publishers the right to become monopolies? And this actually received sponsorship?

      Yeah, pretty sickening, huh? These are the things that happen when congressman becomes a full-time job. You would think that showing a relationship between contributions and voting record would be enough to prove that our elected have no integrity. I guess that's not enough. Maybe Hatch will have to authorize a nuclear strike on Sharman Networks before people say, "uh, yeah, that's going a tad too far."

      Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      No, election years usually are the worst, because incumbents push through the pork for their special interests in an effort to remain popular. It gets even worse if the polls show the incumbent on the way out.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    11. Re:So far this week by ccmay · · Score: 1
      The what?

      Watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    12. Re:So far this week by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit ccmay:

      Watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

      Ah, Cold War-style ``environmentalists are really Commies'' then...

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    13. Re:So far this week by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Not in this case. Bush and his republican allies know that they get 100% of the republican votes no matter what they do. This is why Bush can feel free to add a huge entitlement program, grow the deficit, create a whole new govt agency, enact trade barriers etc. Usually conservatives would balk at such acts and if a democrat was in charge they would be howling and calling for impeachment.

      As of now Howard Dean is actually more conservative then Bush (fiscally anyway).

      The republicans apparently have given up on fiscal conservatism as long as their religious war is going well.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    14. Re:So far this week by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Oil companies, and some environmental groups, were well aware that many Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) could not properly contain MTBE. There are currently pending court cases where evidence has shown that MTBE manufacturers were well aware of the dangers. This did not stop the oil companies from allowing, and encouraging, MTBE usage, though. Then again, you probably think that tobacco companies shouldn't be liable for anything either, and that the American Lung Association should pay for the costs of lung cancer.

    15. Re:So far this week by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Please pay attention to the political media. This bill is NOT dead, and the GOP plans on bringing it back for another vote, possibly in a small December working session, but most likely in January.

    16. Re:So far this week by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Absolutely ridiculous, especially when considering that no government was granted the power to regulate this

      That's why it's being raised as a constitutional amendment. If the Constitution doesn't grant the legislature a power, they can always petition the states to have that power added.

    17. Re: So far this week by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

      Yeah, behave the way the lobbyists want them to.

      It's no accident that people are calling recent legislation the "No Lobbyist Left Behind" act. There's a big election at stake, and everyone wants the lobbyists behind them..

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    18. Re:So far this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal guess is that the coming elections will be the last elections held in the US for about a decade or so (when the revolution finally happens).

      Who here believes Bush will actually give up a presidency he believes has been handed to him by GOD?

    19. Re:So far this week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny???

      That must be the comet-the-size-of-Texas-on-a-direct-collision-cour se-with-Earth kind of funny?

    20. Re:So far this week by ccmay · · Score: 1

      Ah, Cold War-style ``environmentalists are really Commies'' then...

      Yes, some of them really are, and they are despicable scum too.

      The former Reds have an unquenchable desire to tell other people how to live their lives. They like to preen for each other in their coffee shops and faculty lounges, congratulating themselves about their enlightened moral superiority. However, the world has rejected their bankrupt ideology, and embraced democracy and free-market capitalism.

      Since the hard Left has become so discredited and marginalized, the Green/anti-globalization movement has become the only remaining outlet for these heaps of human filth to peddle their collectivist bilge.

      Normally, I believe in freedom of speech and assembly, but I make an exception for violent radicals who would deny all freedoms to the rest of us if they got the chance. I really like it when the police crack their heads.

      I'd like to see the ALF/ELF/Black Bloc types shot dead in the streets.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    21. Re:So far this week by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit ccmay:

      despicable scum... bankrupt ideology... collectivist bilge... crack their heads... shot dead in the streets.

      My, my, my, what bile. My first impulse is to ask if you got dumped by a Greenpeace girl or something. I mean, why debate issues when ad hominem is so easy?

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    22. Re:So far this week by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      The former Reds have an unquenchable desire to tell other people how to live their lives.

      And people like you would rather let big business run unchecked. So instead of being told what to do, you're forced to breathe polluted air. You have your forests cut down, and your environment strip-mined. So sure, nobody's telling you what to do, but life sure is hell.

      What, you say? That'll never happen? Big business will know when to stop? What in human history makes you think that'll happen? How many times in history have the wealthy elite done *anything* but grab as much as they can? How many civilizations have fallen because of the decadence of the ruling class (and yes, the ruling class and the wealthy elite are the same thing, in the States and everywhere else)?

      Personally, I'm not an environmentalist, but here's my take: I have a lot of respect for someone who stands up for a belief that isn't likely to benefit them monetarily. Especially when it's in defense of something that's otherwise defenseless.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  26. Theft as competition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick, notify Microsoft. If product theft can be considered competition for the RIAA, then so too can Microsoft claim that with the anti-trust issues they have been having.

    "Your honor, clearly the fact that our products are competing heavily with pirated copies of our products clearly proves that we are not a monopoly."

    1. Re:Theft as competition? by Ayaress · · Score: 0

      From the RIAA's past blather, I think they mainly want this exemtion so they can better deal with independent record labels and radio stations (both internet and airwave). Legally, they don't need this sort of thing to deal with file swappers (although it can't hurt by any means).

  27. Market Realities? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what exactly are these "market realities"? That they completely dominate the mainstream music market?

    Have they considered giving MS the same sort of exemption? After all, they dominate their mainstream portion of the market as well..

  28. Re:fucking apathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    jesus. i can still here the m-idiots from here saying, "oh, i voted nader, he seemed nice" "oh, i voted for two or three candidates, whatever, my vote doesn't count"

    at least, hopefully, nobody buys the brainwashing bs this year. course, that's asking way too much. there is a threshold for how much advertising buys an election, in dollars. bush has $200M right now, more than the last one. we're screwed

    Don't take this the wrong way, but you can't possibly be that stupid can you? Is it a huge suprise to you that politicians are in the pocket of special interests? Political corruption is the only truly bipartison thing going on in Washington these days. If it isn't the Republicans fscking us for the sake of large corporations, it's the Democrats fscking us for the sake of Hollywood, trade unions, etc. If you actually look beyond your blinders you'll see that both sides of the aisle are double-dipping from the same bag of money.

  29. Just sheer disbelief by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    .. not only at the in-your-face cheek that it was done at all, but that it may even get past congress.

    Wonder if this is how government has always behaved and now they're being found out more, or whether it's a particularly crap current bunch...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  30. Time to protest with sledgehammers... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I frankly am nearing the point where I think we need to bulldoze and take down RIAA's national headquarters with sledge hammers, bulldozers, etc.

    This is getting sickening....

    Frankly, Orin Hatch, is a danger to society...

  31. WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crime, particularly violent crime, has been falling for the past 15 years.

    Perhaps you're stupid or easily maniupulated that you think otherwise.

    I'd subscribe to both theories, frankly.

  32. Info request by polin8 · · Score: 1

    google didn't help.

    I'd call my Senators - the generally loveable Barabara Mikulski, and generally respectable Sarbanes - but I can't find the actual bill number.

    Anyone know it?

    (google mentions another "enforce act having to do with gun control, wouldn't want to confuse the issue)

  33. What the..? by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?

    What? This antitrust exemption seems like pure shit to me, but, last time I checked, 12 year-olds are not exempt from the law, nor 66-year olds (NOT that old). I don't understand why the RIAA suing young or old people is some sort of condemnation.

    1. Re:What the..? by larien · · Score: 1

      The issue is the dual standards; the RIAA wants to sue the world while being exempt from at least one type of court action on itself.

    2. Re:What the..? by musikit · · Score: 1

      although i agree with you about youngsters and old people not being exempt from the law they sued a old women that didn't even have the possibility of doing what they said she did. it's like saying she stole from a department store she can prove she never even set foot in. As far the 12yr old girl. donno if she lied or not but she said she downloaded songs listened to them once and then thought they would automatically delete themselves plus she thought that she wasn't doing anything illegal. who's responsibilty is it to ensure that people know they are doing illegal acts? kazaa allows you to share files. is it there responsibility to ensure users don't share copyrighted materials? like windows kazaa should by default turn off sharing. yes it's anti open shared network blah blah blah but it protects the user. then they have to willingly understand that they are sharing information that could expose them to a lawsuit.

    3. Re:What the..? by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you will see that the 66-year-old Grandma was runing an Apple computer which as such cannot run Kazaa which they accused her sharing MP3's with.

    4. Re:What the..? by Gestahl · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor are "But everyone does it!" and "This is a stupid law" excuses. I am all for civil disobedience, but you gotta accept the consequences.

      However, there are laws specifically exempting minors from some laws or lessening their liability due to the fact that they are not in a position to understand the law. The court would throw out the 12-year-olds case if it ever got there... now the parents are a different issue.

      It is *your* responsibility entirely to ensure that you are following the law, no one else's.

      I think this is a shitty state of affairs w.r.t. music and copyrights, but quit trying to pass the blame to other people. There is too much of an attitude in America that nothing is your fault, and you are not responsible for anything.

  34. 14th Amendment challenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ianal, but I believe this would violate the 14th amendment. This would give unequal protection under the law.

  35. Public awareness is key here... by reimero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hatch is trying to pull this off at the same time Congress is debating whether the BCS violates antitrust laws. The NCAA doesn't have an antitrust exemption, and neither does the NFL. To my knowledge, Major League Baseball is the only group of that sort to have an antitrust exemption, and even that's come up for debate during all those strikes.


    A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness. In the context of other "market realities," it simply doesn't make sense. In fact, Congress has taken an active interest in limiting those other "market realities." Seriously, what's the difference between one group controlling all access to recorded music and one group controlling all access to pro football?

    --

    ----------

    Something clever
    1. Re:Public awareness is key here... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >A simple public awareness campaign should put an end to the madness.

      I don't know about that. On one had we have Congress saying because of the internet and piracy we have to protect the monied interests. On the other hand we have Powell's FCC saying because of the internet and its ability to give anyone a voice, radio station, etc we should let the monopolies alone to do whatever they want.

      Which message do we claim is the correct one, because it looks like both equal the same outcome: leave the monopolies up to their dirty tricks and dare not speak of reform or expanding fair-use to empower small business (in this case small labels).

    2. Re:Public awareness is key here... by AntiOrganic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's interesting that you mention Major League Baseball, because they appear on the RIAA's member list.

    3. Re:Public awareness is key here... by dollargonzo · · Score: 1

      on that subject, so is fedora! didn't know redhat was a traitor all along

      --
      BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
  36. Ah Mr Capone, please enter the Oval Office by valisk · · Score: 1
    "No Mr. Capone shouldn't be charged with forming a Trust, as market realities have to be taken into consideration. Instead we should write into law a permanent exemption for Mr. Capone and his organisation, the Mafia." said Senator Charles Deneen yesterday to the Senate, whilst proposing the text of his new EnFORCE bill, which is designed to reduce crime by making several current crimes legal and preventing legislation against several potential crimes.

    I can't imagine this having happened, but I can imagine RIAA getting their way.
    Why?
    Because the political types of today, even if they in some small numbers do have principals, seem all to willing to sell those priciples down the sewer in exchange for a piece of whatever pie happens to be offered at the table.

    People like Orin Hatch are a stench in the nostrils of all decent liberty loving people.

    --

    Economic Left/Right: -0.62
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
  37. FSF for Indie Labels? Great idea! by GuardianBob420 · · Score: 1

    That is a great idea; my brother (who has his own [very] small indie label) has repeatedly looked into finding the kind of support you're talking about. The RIAA is definitely NOT looking out for his interests, nor does he want to have anything to do with supporting them / being endorsed by them.

    And yes, looking at his record, Orrin Hatch is either (1) a complete tool (in the best sense of the word) or (2) completely disingenuous - ah, screw it, he's probably both!

  38. I love America... by mritunjai · · Score: 1

    ... I can see capitalism "working"... naked and in all its gory details.

    Folks, absolute power untimately corrupts absolutely, and sadly, capitalism gives that power in hands of those who have deep pockets.

    --
    - mritunjai
    1. Re:I love America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, laws that allow such strong corporate structures do, idiot.

      Isn't communism just capitalism with special requirements on stock ownership?

    2. Re:I love America... by dada21 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fortunately, you prove yourself wrong in forgetting that the only one with ultimate power is the government, not big business.

      America was to be different from communists such as yourself because we were to have a federal government with very strict enumerated powers -- so that they could not trample on the rights of individuals by helping their friends.

      What we have today is more socialist than it is capitalist. But I can understand how those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business rather than on a Congress that has bordered treason for not upholding their oath to the Constitution that should keep them from passing laws that are clearly not within their powers.

    3. Re:I love America... by Gestahl · · Score: 1

      AHAHAHAHAH! That's funny! Are you that naive? The government does not have "strict enumerated powers"... they gain new power all the time, to the detriment of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the individual. That is what governments do: gain more power and more control. I will agree with you that our gov't is more socialist than capitalist... although our *economy* is still capitalist. With bills like this though, the economy will become socialistic as well. Monopolies will be the norm, all operated under the graces of Washington. You don't think businesses control Washington? If politicians think they can get away with it, they will pass any law that someone that gives them money asks them to. Studies have shown that as long as the economy is doing well, they think the government is doing well: ergo to help business helps the economy, which keeps people happy. Plus, politicians need money to mount campaigns, and they get *far* more from business that individuals or SIGs. Technically, the people have the ultimate power, not the government, and even now the individuals rights are being trampled to the advantage of big business. It is *entirely* within Congress' power to enact this legislation... they created the Anti-Trust Laws, and they can rescind it. I can understand why people with smaller minds can hold your view of the American government...

    4. Re:I love America... by fuzzix · · Score: 0

      "What we have today is more socialist than it is capitalist."

      Funniest thing I have read all day. Thank you.

    5. Re:I love America... by MarvinMouse · · Score: 1

      Well, actually socialist isn't exactly the right word for it. There is a term being kicked around in polisci and economics circles called corporatist, and I think that's a better description of the government in the states right now more than anything. Socialist implies that they support the general populous and are doing things to better their lives, when in reality in the states they are supporting large corporates, at all costs. Thus, you lose a lot of the gain that you'd get from a socialist economy.

      Thus, in a kinda shitty way, you get the worst of both worlds. You end up with corporate monopolies, but a lack of rights due to strigent government regulation. Surprisingly similar to Fascism.

      --
      ~ kjrose
    6. Re:I love America... by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      There is nothing socialist about big business screwing people rights. IT is all capitalism. Socialism - in its purist form would not have the big business in the first place. Albeit an idealistic outlook - these things should never occur in that society.
      Mean while - in the capitalist ideal - someone has to win, someone has to lose. The whole idea of anti-trust lawsuits is anti-capitalist. Big businesses now do have ultimate power. They can bribe/pay politicians. They can use bad-publicity through media channels to blackmail them. They can buy people into or out of power.
      Think of a web server- you dont write the bits of each packet out yourself - but your actions will effect those bits in a very influencial-if indirect way.
      Of course - your last line is correct - that were the government to be upholding the constitution properly it could not happen. But it is a capitalist idea to exploit every hole - true socialists would patch the whole for the good of the community - not exploit it for the good of themselves.
      In this capacity both are at fault - as are the people of America for not rising and fighting this properly yet. But I can understand how those with smaller brains would rather blame it on one or another in a binary way...
      If someone could post it again- I remember someones sig line having a link to a paper decribting what went wrong with the American constitution and when it began to give business the same or more rights than indviduals.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    7. Re:I love America... by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Fortunately, you prove yourself wrong in forgetting that the only one with ultimate power is the government, not big business.

      Government is not a power in and of itself. Government is the cumulative power of the society itself. If you have a corrupt society, then it begets a corrupt government. Corporations currently own the government and control its actions. So blaming things on the government is childish and ignores the real culprits behind the scenes.

      America was to be different from communists such as yourself...

      Nice ad hominem. Abusiveness doesn't advance an argument.

      What we have today is more socialist than it is capitalist.

      No, it's more fascist than either capitalist or socialist. Fascism is corporate control of government combined with bellicose patriotism and nationalism. That's pretty much what we have now.

      But I can understand how those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business rather than on a Congress that has bordered treason for not upholding their oath to the Constitution that should keep them from passing laws that are clearly not within their powers.

      Oooo, another ad hominem. You're on a roll. That indicates that your argument is weak. Look, congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate power. You're blaming the puppet for the puppeteer's crimes. The reason they can keep passing laws that are beyond the powers granted to them in the constitution is because the also corporately-owned executive branch is packing the courts with corporate-friendly judges who allow those laws to stand. Bashing government is a juvenile exercise equivalent to ragging on your mom because she won't let you go to a concert. The solution isn't to knock down government, it's to take it back for the people. Government by the people is the only way we can have things our way. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If government power is reduced, corporate power will take its place.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    8. Re:I love America... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Big business doesn't screw peoples' rights. Big businesses uses the power of government to screw peoples' rights. Our government is supposed to be restrained by the Constitution so that they can NOT take away our "God-given" rights. It is not capitalism. Capitalism is not bad nor good, all it really does is describe a means of two people or entities in trade. True capitalism doesn't hurt anyone -- it offers everyone the best price for the product they are selling (labor, goods, information).

      We don't have true capitalism. At mises.org, they explain how true capitalism works. It works best when government regulates the least. No one entity would ever monopolize in a truly capitalist society -- competition would never allow it. If a large company had too much power and raised prices too much, in an unregulated economy, another competitor would come in with a better service at a better price.

      In our economy, government mandates that only one company or cartel can offer a product (cable, local phone service, taxi cabs, milk producers, drug companies, etc) to you. This is the only way a monopoly can be created -- by government.

      Capitalists only exploit every hole because we allow those holes to be added. If Congress would keep to their oath, there would be no holes. There would only be provisions: services to provide, products to provide, and information to provide. Whoever can provide the best provision at a price a person can afford in a quality level that is acceptable will be the strongest provider. But anyone who can provide the same level of quality at a lower price can easily wipe out that strong provider.

      It is a simple fact that socialism fails because no one really wants to help the other guy out. Capitalism helps everyone -- even the little guy, by providing an avenue for everyone to produce the best product they can.

      If you're disabled, maybe you'll find a way to produce a product at a cheaper price than someone who is fully abled (phone support, typing skills, engineering, etc). This doesn't hurt you, what it does is allow your customers to spend less money on one facet of their business so they can invest in another facet -- which helps the economy. If government came in and said "you have to pay the disabled as much as the abled" guess what? The abled will be hired, and the disabled will be frowned upon, although ever openly.

      The same is true with minimum wage laws. When you set a minimum wage, you basically state that anyone worth less than $5 an hour won't be hired. If I am a restaurant owner, and I can afford $6 an hour for table cleaning, I either hire one guy at $5 an hour, or I hire 2 guys at $3 an hour. Those 2 guys are now employed, and will not stay at that level long, because they will gain skills and be worth more. If I won't pay them more, my competitors surely will!

      Socialist idealogy is bunk. Capitalism must either be true, or it is a failure.

      As for the ad hominems, I used to try hard not to use them, but I've realized that we use ad hominems every day here on slashdot, without them being obvious. The terms used against the RIAA and Microsoft alone go to show you that the people making those claims ARE idiots. The terms used against Senators and Congressman show you that the people ARE communists. These are not ad hominems, these are FACTS. Just because you feel your public education made you smart does not mean you have a clue. You're only indoctrinated.

    9. Re:I love America... by spiritraveller · · Score: 1
      ...America was to be different from communists such as yourself...
      ...those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business...
      (dada21) Your Friendly Lake County, IL Libertarian

      Libertarians start out with admirable idealism. It's a pity when they devolve into name-calling right-wing wackos.

      You speak of the roots of our country, enumerated rights, and individual liberties. Point me to the place in the Constitution where it says anything about the rights of corporations.

      You won't find it, because corporations as we know them did not even exist at that time. You also don't seem to realize that communism didn't exist at that time either.

      It is strange, that you call yourself "Friendly" and yet you promptly insult the other person.

    10. Re:I love America... by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Okay - so making a point about ad hominems and then pointing out we are communists in the same sentance pretty much cancels itself out in the same paragraph. Saying that something is a fact by having the word are and the word fact in upper case does not strengthen your argument one bit.
      I personally dislike the RIAA and MPAA because of their actions, and what they really stand for. I am not sure that I need to sling mud at them - as there own actions speak measures of magnitude more than I could hope to acheive with such fallacies.
      I notice you did not point out that people making claims against Linux, and Open software also use ad hominems - like accusing them of socialism, and other such things. Maybe I am reading to much into you exact words - but I cannot help but feel some bias here.
      In your case of the disabled guy or other "little guys" - capitalism helps build developing country sweatshops. After all, for unskilled work - an army of children at less than a penny day is much cheaper, and has more throughput than one disabled person. Large companies who make jobs sound like dream jobs can afford to employ graduates at crap wages - because for every skilled worker who leaves - there are a hundred more trainee ones banging at the door for much less.
      As for indoctrinated - I am probably less than the average american by a great deal. Considering I was actually tought Dawkins(on the foundation of Darwin) in school and understand as much about deep physics as I do about the power of theology as a population control system - my usual tack is to question every line of indoctrination. By the way - justifying your last line claim - what kind of education did you get? And what makes you think I had a public education (in the states)?
      (flamewar alarms primed - playing advocate is always more fun)

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    11. Re:I love America... by dada21 · · Score: 1

      SpaceJunkie: I'll refrain from the ad hominems if it makes my case stand stronger.

      As for Linux, Open Software, etc, I'm sure people sling mud within those circles also, but I purposely avoid those conversations. I like Linux as much as the next guy, but I have never found any way for me to pay my bills by supporting the software. The market has picked its current winner. When Linux matures, it will probably offer a better product than Windows, and MS will fall.

      In terms of "child labor," it is a fallacy that child labor is bad. In countries that children are abused into labor, those countries are socialist or communist. It is not the labor that is bad, but the government (again!)

      Read these amazing articles:
      http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999f.asp
      h ttp://www.fff.org/freedom/1099e.asp
      http://www.mi ses.org/fullstory.asp?control=342
      http://www.fff. org/freedom/fd0210d.asp

      They show why child labor is, in fact, good. Societies that have governments that mismanage "public money" always create the need for really cheap labor. The U.S. doesn't have high wages because of unions and government, we have high wages because we offer a great service with high quality.

      You've been responding with "reasonable" responses, but who are you quoting? Please, throw some links or bibliographical information. If you're just quoting what makes sense, without any backup, I can't just go and believe your side of the issue.

      I had a public education, but I was a deficient student (average of a D grade). I aced the SAT and ACTs, and had performed amazingly well on almost every class quiz and test I took, but we aren't graded on knowledge, we're graded on "class participation" and "homework evaluations." If I know the topic, why did I get a D in the Calculus? In my opinion, we can save public education in one simple step: Let teachers teach, and then bring on third party graders. The graders should be free market companies. They can issue tests. You can have the Jones Aptitude Test for Math, and the Peterson Math Qualification Test. Let students and parents decide what tests to take. Let teachers know what they should train students.

      In these situations, bad teachers would go away. There is no reason to have the grade structure based on age -- if you know the Calculus at 10, you should be able to take that test. If you're 18 and don't understand Algebra, just don't take that test.

      Ahh, the free market! IT WORKS.

    12. Re:I love America... by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

      Look, ma! He doesn't know anything about science OR government!

      FYI. The "Nature abhors a vacuum" myth was discredited in 1643 by a student of Galileo. Read about it.

    13. Re:I love America... by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      You have some fine posts here, and make some really good points, especially the examples of how less regulation works better. Thanks.

      I think you are getting a little too extreme here though:

      We don't have true capitalism. At mises.org, they explain how true capitalism works. It works best when government regulates the least. No one entity would ever monopolize in a truly capitalist society -- competition would never allow it. If a large company had too much power and raised prices too much, in an unregulated economy, another competitor would come in with a better service at a better price.

      In our economy, government mandates that only one company or cartel can offer a product (cable, local phone service, taxi cabs, milk producers, drug companies, etc) to you. This is the only way a monopoly can be created -- by government.


      Actually the Anti-Trust laws came into being to control monopolies which were NOT created by government. Shell Oil and other large corporations were able to abuse the capitalist system by offering low prices where there was competition to drive the competition out of business, and then charge high prices where there was no competition to subsidize the low prices elsewhere. Once they were bigger than anyone else, they could use this strategy to keep other out of the market. Similar strategies were used by Microsoft to beat Netscape.

      So pure capitalism CAN be abused. Any system run by greedy, self-interested individuals can fail. If you get rid of all the greedy, self-interested individuals, any system would succeed, but that is impossible.

      We need something to check and balance corporations when they get out of hand, just as we need different branches of government need to check and balance each other.

      But as you know, we are currently in the situation of having way too many regulations, and the Medicare bill is a good example of how the corporations are able to pick and choose the regulations that are best for them.

    14. Re:I love America... by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Look, ma! He doesn't know anything about science OR government!

      I'm glad to see your mom is helping you get these posts out. Otherwise, who knows what kind of garbage you'd be posting.

      Grow up, Mr. Literalist.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  39. When did young girls and grandmas become immune... by BlabberMouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from the law? I know that this law is obnoxious, but what difference does it make that it is enforced against young girls and grandmas. It is just as obnoxious enforced against a 30 year old white male.

  40. Re:fucking apathy by kraksmoka · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    well i liked the way the dems sold us up the river then. if you have to tell people that you're compassionate, it means you're a flaming asshole and don't give a shit.

    sorry for all the cursing, a bad day here.

    where's bill clinton when we need him?

    --
    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
  41. Write by hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been suggested that people write to their representative on issues such as this. Don't forget that hand written letters get MUCH more attention.

  42. Blame the Free Market? Yes, they will by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the classic powerplay of the statists - set up a straw man scenario, get people to believe that the 'market' is 'free', then show its failures, thus proving the need for State intervention.
    A classic argument for this is health care (in the US, sorry for you non-US folks). The argument goes as follows: Health care is expensive, due to those rich capitalist pigs raising the prices of drugs. This conjures the emotional response of jealousy, and subconscious imagery of sick people dying due to 'greedy' doctors. This argument neglects the reality that government monopoly money (in the form of Medicare/Medicaid) was been pouring into the medical establishment for 40 years. Given a customer with infinite cash, any business will jack up its prices to infinite levels.
    Returning to the music argument, the industry has so manipulated the legislation that it is far from a free market (DVD encoding, DMCA, even region-encoded discs) that they can no longer claim the same right to protection under traditional law. It was only a matter of time, inevitable, that they would require blatant exemption and special treatment.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  43. Another Market Reality by curtisk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...is that the RIAA and MPAA have lost touch with their markets and artists, and yes, reality. They need to adapt to the changes in technology and society or they will eventually die (albeit with alot of kicking and crying), they don't get it, they are their own PR nightmare.

    While at the core their arguements against piracy are valid, unfortunately the reason it is so bad for them is because of the "market-plan" they have set for themselves, which isn't an option anymore, people know what CD's actually cost, people know that the artists see pennies on the dollar, people don't want to line **AA's pockets with their cash anymore ....so if **AA's profits are down, you're cutting into their "lifestyle" so whats another way to produce revenue? Lawsuits settlements!

    They're saying ,one way or another, they will get your money from you whether you like it or not. Time for them to re-assess their plans.

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    1. Re:Another Market Reality by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >they will get your money from you whether you like it or not.

      Actually the market reality is that unless they fix the "analog hole" there will be no way they can stop people from legally/illegally copying their product.

      No law will change that fact.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:Another Market Reality by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Just in: "**AA lobby congress for international laws allowing(nay enforcing) removal of ears and eyes - for replacement with DRM controlled digital implants."

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    3. Re:Another Market Reality by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Here's the reason that the major labels will not change until a huge disaster occurs:

      If your company is huge, in order to have a large change in the structure of your business, you have to draw up some cost plans. How much it would cost to change, what the benefit will be if you do, and what the cost will be if you don't. That way you can make an informed decision. This part of the process is completely rational (well, usually).

      The problem comes when the business plan is reviewed. Trying to convince people that their current business plan is going to fail drastically and they need to change everything and (this is the important part) the new plan will make less money than they're making right now, well...they're going to be a bit skeptical.

      At some level, the directors of the major labels either

      1. Really believe that the current business plan is and will be successful.
      2. Are willing to ride it out until they have to change.

      From a purely fiscal perspective, I can't really blame 2. Why convert over to a lower-income system until you have to?

      Though being first does have its perks. The goodwill of artists and ease of recruitment isn't a huge goal, though: all the major names are tied up in contracts while their liver is being eaten. You're not getting them from the other labels except for by buying them from the labels, and you wouldn't be able to make money with their price and your new business model.

      Also consider: the amount of change required to change a major label to artist- and consumer-friendly would be on the order of change required for IBM. You have an entire corporate culture devoted to screwing artists and consumers and getting rewarded for it.

      So, have they lost touch with their markets and reality? Yes, probably. But they're not going to change for a while.

  44. We Should All Be Ashamed by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am ashamed to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative.

    And well you should be. As an American, I am ashamed of virtually everyone congress and the presidency, and a number of Supreme Court justices. It is appalling how deep the rot is ... I do not have any optomism whatsoever that our government will ever recover from its current despicable state without a descent into revolution and chaos, and I do not have much optomism that our society will survive such a descent. In other words, I think it likely that our culture and our political system is about to consume itself and collapse utterly, and I am of two minds as to whether or not that will, ultimately, be a good thing or not.

    When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written?

    To answer your question, Orrin Hatch whored himself out to the entertainment industry for $150,000 or so. Interestingly enough, he is brazen enough to take $100,000 from the computer industry at the same time (one wonders if that isn't Microsoft priming the pump for TCPA/DRM ... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      Apart from politicians receiving "campaign contributions" in return for favors, another sad thing that seems to slip by unnoticed is this:

      They snuck it into a bill...

      That, more than anything, shows that the system plays favorites. It should not be possible to alter a bill by slipping in little bits that are substantially different to the primary intent. Need to get something like DRM legally recognised? Tack it onto a bill that's guaranteed to pass.

      That, more than anything, shows how low our elected offcials can stoop.

      BTW, here's my idea for campaign funding reform: let the politicians only get contributions from the people they're actually hoping to represent. No more big company donations to the parties or to individual politicians, no more scrounging for money across the country. Only allow them to take contributions from the district they hope to represent. That ought to give everyone a fair shake of the dice.

    2. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      How about no private contributions at all.

      In the UK, it's the parties that are funded, not the politicians, and people contribute to the parties who then run the election campaigns.

      This way, anyone (not just the rich) can run for election provided they get the backing of their party.

      It also doesn't stop independents, who can fund their own campaign if they are not affiliated with any particular party.

      Reduces the scope for conflicts of interest.

    3. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Christian Smith:

      In the UK, it's the parties that are funded, not the politicians, and people contribute to the parties who then run the election campaigns.

      I'll refrain from any smartass remarks about how you still got the same president we did ;)

      Seriously, the UK system also differs in that there is more room for other parties. The Liberal party is much more important than the rough American equivalent (Libertarian); we certainly don't have anything like Scottish Nationalists here. And the proportional representation arrangements in the devolved parliaments/assemblies are very exciting from a democratic perspective -- if we had a similar arrangement in the U.S. House of Reps we might have fifty or so ``third-party'' members of congress, and could really get some alternative voices heard.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    4. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1

      Uh... correction.

      Orrin Hatch is a BIG ANTI-Microsoft guy. He is a strong supporter of the local Utah software industry (what used to be WordPerfect and Novell. And being the coporate whore that he is, was at the forefront of congressional leaders calling for Anti-Trust lawsuit against Microsoft (and collected many millions from Sun, Oracle, et al).

      It is truly funny to see how "market conditions" warrant punishing Microsoft for anti-trust but als call for protection of RIAA...

    5. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by Politburo · · Score: 1

      It should not be possible to alter a bill by slipping in little bits that are substantially different to the primary intent.

      Well, it isn't possible, in some circumstances. House amendments must be germane, or appropriate to the issue at hand. However, so such rule exists in the Senate, and non-germane Senate amendments can be added to the conference report, if desired. The conference report is a compromise bill that gets final approval from both houses and gets sent to the president. It is (supposed to be) negotiated by members of both houses, and members of both parties. However, the GOP has taken a liking to negotiating the conference report in secret, with no Democrats present. Also, the germaneness of an amendment is decided by the chair, who is usually a member of the majority party. And, because of the way the rules are written, almost any amendment to a spending bill will be germane.

    6. Re:We Should All Be Ashamed by kalinh · · Score: 1

      Now I'm not usually one to pick on on bad spelling or grammar, but come on, "optomism"?

      I suppose this means you're not old enough to remember Transformers, or you'd have a better idea that the root of the word is "opti". Which I suppose also means that you've got a pretty short/young memory for the federal government's despicable acts past and America's weathering of such.

      Keep the faith and stay positive, cultural change takes a generation at least.

      --

      Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro

  45. Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which do you want? The puppet on the left or the puppet on the right? Waking Life. Great movie, watch it some day.

  46. The use of power by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

    Surprised that laws are being enacted
    for the benefit of those in power?

    Shocked that "right" and "wrong" do not
    seem to have any stable meaning?

    Scandalized that money buys influence
    and influence buys money?

    This is the modern social contract:
    keep us safe from the unwashed hordes,
    provide us with fuel for our SUVs, and
    we will vote for you, make you wealthy,
    and accept your regimes.

    People get the governments they deserve
    and sadly the US deserves this one: it's
    the consequence of 25 years of "me 1st".

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  47. Record companies and music publishers? by bahamat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if Microsoft writes an origonal song for each relase of Windows the way Theo does for OpenBSD they become a music publihser and are therefor exempt from anti-trust laws?

    Thanks Orin. I feel so much better now.

    1. Re:Record companies and music publishers? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well considering they already ship Beck, whistler and others in Media Demo's on their windows disks - they could already claim to be a music publisher. Are they on RIAA or MPAA lists?

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  48. Please keep children and grandmother's out of it. by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Because of 'market realities.' Which ones? The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"

    I am as much against the RIAA as anyone, and have been a victim of their tactics (in 1998/99 I was threatened with a suit via my school over an ftp site, ended up being protected by my school, but got slapped w/ loss of network access and academic probation for a year). But come on now guys, these quotes are the same type of crap pulled to get these laws in place 'for the children.' (Ok this doesnt apply really to the DMCA, but it doesnt change the central point). What is worse, is that we are now throwing grandmother's in the picture. It is equally heinous to sue your customers regardless of age, or maternal status. Can we please try to keep the loaded language to the mass media and off of slashdot? If not, might as well do some digging around, im sure one of them has or had cancer, perhaps is HIV positive.

    Come on guys, lets keep the standards high, and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.

  49. Oh yes, I'd vote for gore anytimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I remember the great times I had when I watched "Dawn of the dead", "Evil dead" 1+2+3, "Evil Ed", "The Dentist" and whatever - I sure will vote for anything containing GORE

  50. They should merge with the Disney corporation by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    That way, they can continue concentrating and isolating themselves, and we can all develop another system that renders them irrelevant.

    Every time you try to close your fist around the population like that, you will lose.

    Let's just hope it happens quickly!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  51. this is insane by mm0mm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in translation the two most powerful mafia in the entertainment industry are requesting immunization from any request for breakup so that no one with sound mind won't stop their *activities*. if you have an army of lawyers standing behind, you can exploit all the "entertainers" and extort peepers, blaming them for watching free shows.

    RI@@ + MP@@ should be disband, just like hollywood studios were ordered to break up their vertically integrated film distribution system in the past. both organizations gives no benefit whatsoeveer to artists and/or consumers. their only interest is their profits only. fsck them.

  52. Mr. Hatch is just a cheap whore... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1, Troll

    For selling the rights of the American Public to the RIAA and MPAA for the little sum of 18.000 dollars...

    1. Re:Mr. Hatch is just a cheap whore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey jerkoff! Don't be putting down cheap whore's. Orin is no match for their integrity. They pick and choose the john's they sleep with. Orin beds down with any special interest willing to put cash down his pants.

      ORIN GO FUCK YOURSELF

  53. class system by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It seems to me that our current political "leaders" are only interested in ensuring that the current class system, where 1% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, continues to remain as it is.

    Anti-trust law has been entirely shirked during this administration. In the last, the DMCA was brought into law. It seems to me that the divide between Democrats and Republicans is simply a minor power-struggle in the top class.

    Every new politician who might care is used as a pawn, and they will either have to sell out their people to become part of the upper class, or get ousted from the political machine.

    Then there is the push by the top powers in the world for "free trade" that is starting to look to me to be anything but.

    But here's the real kicker. There is not really any group or persons who controls this political machine, it is simply the manifestation of the greed of the top 1% as a whole. Each one may not see themselves as "selling out" their people, but each one doing so in minor (sometimes more than minor) ways creates this monstrosity of a machine that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and the middle class working harder and harder.

    How do you stop the machine?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:class system by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      I know how, but if I discuss it it's terrorism.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:class system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > How do you stop the machine?

      Get more 'average people' into politics as independents.

    3. Re:class system by bergwitz · · Score: 1

      you rage against it

      --
      Evolution is just a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
    4. Re:class system by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Stop buying into their bullshit.

      Money doesn't buy influence. Votes are influence. A politician ultimately answers to the populice. You cannot win a war when the enemy controls where the battle is to take place, the rules of engagement, and the weapons you are allowed to use.

      Put simply, we need to organize this murmoring into a chorus. Not a riot. Not a protest. A chorus. We do not need to tear apart our cities to get our point across. The cities are already ours. We do not need to yell at one another. We are in accord. What we do need to do is put aside our differences, and focus on what we have in common.

      Liberal and conservative are not black and white. They are melody and harmony. One singing louder than the other makes noise, not music. One competeing against another is cacaphony, not art.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  54. Welcome to America by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I hope people will finally *see* the light with all the legislation passing these days. With every bill like this (and before) our freedoms and rights are slowly being taken from us. Pretty soon we won't be able wipe our asses with Brand 'B' toilet paper because Brand 'A' holds a copyright on the use of paper to ass.

    Am I the only one out there?

    Politicians don't give a rats ass about their constituency. Ever notice when one is interviewed its always "I feel this bill should pass" or "I don't like this bill." Shouldn't it be "the people who put me in office want/don't want this"?

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    1. Re:Welcome to America by Turd+Rippleton · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right.

      The whole reason we elect government officials is to protect us from the government itself. All bills that are passed are not only for protection against our civil rights, but again to protect us from the government.

      Notice that more and more of our rights are taken away as the government gains more power?

  55. This is just the first step by Urkki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Next logical step is to make any music's copyright automatically go to RIAA so they can protect the artists rights against evil pirates.

    And this eventually leads to you not being allowed to play your own music without paying RIAA, since they own the copyright...

    Oh, and whistling is also music, so any whistler is liable for up to 5 years of prison and $25000000 fine if caught in the act without proper RIAA license...

    1. Re:This is just the first step by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1
      Oh, and whistling is also music, so any whistler is liable for up to 5 years of prison and $25000000 fine if caught in the act without proper RIAA license...


      This reminds me of a situation a few years ago, with Metallica's lawyers issuing cease-and-desist orders to sites featuring guitar tabs of their songs. Ridiculous nonsense.
    2. Re:This is just the first step by Reziac · · Score: 1

      This may not be so far-fetched as it sounds at first glance. I vaguely recall that way back when, some book publishers had effectively such a contract with writers, sortof an "all your words are belong to us". It can be a short step from commonly-contracted to required-by-law, as this antitrust exemption itself clearly demonstrates.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  56. Re:FSF for Indie Labels? Great idea! by Jaysyn · · Score: 0

    Well, at least he's old & will (hopefully) die soon.

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  57. Your fault. by dada21 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thanks for voting. Democrat? Republican? All the same. The Constitution limits our Congress to certain enumerated rights. Copyright and anti-trust regulation ARE within those enumerated rights, but we've given them so many other rights (health care, FBI, FDA, FCC, etc) that they can now pass any law, any time, even if the laws are obviously pork for their friends.

    This is the problem with democracy. If 49 people disagree with 51, the 49 people lose. Everyone's a loser. Stop voting for authoritarian parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens) and start voting for parties who actually want to downsize DC.

    1. Re:Your fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you only have to buy 51 senators instead of 100? It's time for the RIAA and MPAA to change business strategy!

    2. Re:Your fault. by Desirsar · · Score: 1

      The FCC was always within those rights. They always have had the power to regulate interstate commerce, and radio waves don't just stop when they hit state boundaries, so for as long as broadcasting is a business...

    3. Re:Your fault. by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Please show me where the FCC is given these rights by the Constitution.

      Here are some articles that may help:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor59.html

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/09-90.htm l

      http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=313 &i d=62

      http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1297

      http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp

      http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0203f.asp

      There are some great articles there with proof that the FCC really hasn't done anything but mandate monopolies where no monopolies were necessary.

    4. Re:Your fault. by Desirsar · · Score: 1

      It's in the Constitution that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. They delegated that control to the FRC (Federal Radio Commission, later FCC.) I don't want to go reading the Constitution just to find the one line to quote it, but it is in there. That was all the authorization Congress needed.

    5. Re:Your fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to tell you this, but Libertarians are not so different from Republicans. If anything, they're basically just the extremists from the GOP gone awry.

      Why would you include the Green party in that list with the Republicans and Democrats? Maybe because you're full of it?

      gg, thx.

    6. Re:Your fault. by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Downsizing DC is equivalent to upsizing corporate power. Power will be grabbed by someone. The only way we, the people have to grab the power is via government. The power is there for us to grab if we choose to. I'm not really anxious to throw that power away and let corporations come in and take over.
      Going...going...

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    7. Re:Your fault. by dada21 · · Score: 0

      The FCC spends more time infringing on the God-given (inherent) right to free speech than it does on anything else. Our Constitution vehemently restricts Congress from making "any law" that infringes on our inherent right to free speech.

      The FCC is the federal government. It can not and should not have any authority to regulate speech. Communications are speech. If the States want to regulate speech, they should run their own seperate FCC type organization. I'd move to a State that didn't regulate it.

      The Constitution does offer Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, in Article I, Section 8. But it was never meant to overstep the basic regulation of said commerce. Today, the federal government puts gun laws in the "interstate commerce" area. It regulates toilet sizes because toilets get shipped between States. It even found ways to regulate violence against spouses using "interstate commerce" (which was later struck down as unconstitutional, but it took a while!).

      The FCC is unneeded.

    8. Re:Your fault. by Desirsar · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the FCC sometimes abuses its power, it is most definitely needed. If they go away, who regulates which stations can broadcast on which frequencies in a given market? But I suppose if you don't mind the interference... In any case, what the FCC regulates regarding speech is done (usually) in the best interest of the public. Not everything they do which is only questionably within their power restricts speech, and definitely not to the benefit of businesses - mandatory cable public access channels, for instance.

    9. Re:Your fault. by dada21 · · Score: 0

      How many people watch mandatory cable public access? Few. Maybe none on some shows. So basically we pay (in increased cable costs) for information few want. To me that is idiotic. The expense of many for the profit of a few.

      As for interference, who says there WILL be interference? If a state runs its own version of the FCC, you can bet that it will be run better than the federal. Even better, why can't there be a free market corporation such as the UL that handles bandwidth? It's crazy to think that there isn't a free market solution. No one has the chance to make one up.

      Everything the FCC does is for the benefit of a select few political cronies. Everything. I read the FCC mandates -- all of them. Go check them out at fcc.org and find me one that actually doesn't help some political friend.

    10. Re:Your fault. by Desirsar · · Score: 1

      Suppose, just for a convenient example, the Nebraska 'FCC' allows an Omaha station to broadcast at maximum power on channel 6, and the Iowa 'FCC' allows a Council Bluffs station to broadcast at maximum power on channel 6. Both of them completely interfere with the other, and unless you live just outside the range of one but not the other, you can't receive either. That'd be brilliant. Hence, we need a federal agency for this. Licensing of radio stations was the original purpose of the FCC, and they simply make regulations for things the courts nor Congress wanted to touch. The public access channels are a good idea, it guarantees that anyone who wants to have some sort of show or air time gets it. There have been a number of public access shows that, if ratings were taken for them, would have led their market for their timeslot. Also, the cost of the channel generally falls on those who want to produce the programming. The cost of having a machine that will play a tape onto a channel is almost nothing. (My cable system might be an exception - the public access channel here has studios and cameras and other equipment that can be checked out by anyone who passes a course, all at no charge. None of this is required, however, they only have to have a facility for putting the shows on the air.) There are some rules that were put into place for the benefit of business, however. The problem is that even though FCC board members cannot have any financial interest in any industry regulated by the FCC, it doesn't stop companies from offering them high-paying jobs for when they end their term with the FCC in exchange for putting favorable regulations into place. Free market solution? Yeah, that'll be one company buying up anyone who tries to start up a station, and they'll make sure none of the stations in their monopoly interfere with each other.

  58. More voting by cheesedog · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In my most humble of humble opinions, the problem is not that people don't vote, its that they vote for who they are told to vote for. And who tells them who to vote for? Commercials on TV tell them who to vote for. And who pays for those commercials? Big money.

    It doesn't matter which candidate or which party you choose, it's all funded from the same source, beholden to the same interests, ready and willing to scratch the same backs. THAT is the problem, and in an incredible demonstration of the chicken-and-egg problem, it is also the reason for much of voter apathy.

  59. Market Realities by dlur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "market reality" is that the RIAA and the recording companies that they "represent" have completely lost their sense of reality. They are so afraid of losing the market share they currently posses to new and emerging technologies that they want to litigate and lobby until nobody but them and their archaic means of distribution are legal.

    Look at how the movie industry fought against VHS, BetaMax, and more recently DVDs because they would "destroy" the movie industry. Now VHS and DVD rentals and sales are a huge chunk of the movie industry's sales each year. Just as cassettes were once a huge chunk of the RIAA's child company sales.

    The simple reality of the situation is that very, very few high quality products are being released in this day and age by large corporate media companies (both music and movie). There are no musical groups that can compete in record sales with the likes of Elvis, the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and the like and there are no movies any more that can be compared in out-and-out quality with older movies like Scarface, Gone With the Wind, the Wizard of Oz, etc. Everything now is about image and flashy special effects and the simple reality of the market is that this stuff just doesn't sell as well as a good product.

    --
    Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
    1. Re:Market Realities by GauteL · · Score: 1

      Personally I think this reaks of an old mans "everything was better in the old days"-attitude.

      I have seen plenty of movies since the start of the 90s that I think can be compared with the old movies you mention in quality.

      They are highly different, and you may not like them, but I feel they are on their way to become just as big classics. Think of "Pulp Fiction", "The usual suspects", "Leon", "Amalie" and lots of European and american movies. While I don't agree with the ordering at IMDB for instance, you can find lots of movies in the top 250 that deserve to be there and are made in the last 10 years.

      I don't like the top-10 music all that much, but there are plenty of other music around for people who want really high quality stuff. It may not all be rock-music, but that does not mean it is not good.

      Culture has also become more individualised, with more subcultures, which can explain the lack of an "Elvis" just as easily as lack of quality. People just don't all like the same thing anymore.

    2. Re:Market Realities by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I don't seem to recall the movie industry fighting DVD. IIRC, they were rather pro-DVD, probably thinking of all the people replacing VHS and giving them an excuse to raise prices.

      As for new stuff, don't knock it. I agree that the 40s produced some great movies, but look at the 70s or the early 90s. And you have to sometimes dig deeper than the super-hyped blockbusters.

    3. Re:Market Realities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern pop music doesn't suck any worse today than it in the past. The difference is that in the past Clearchannel and Infinity didn't own all the radio stations so we heard a variety of music, some of which didn't suck.

  60. Begining of the end ? by btk667 · · Score: 0

    When will this madness ends ? SOmething should be done, maybe just telling all our friends to tell their friend not to buy CD from thoses compagnie ?

  61. This could be a good thing... by Charles+Franks · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Two reasons:

    1) it shows how scared the industry is... that they realize they cannot continue to abuse their customers and survive... they need protection from new and disruptive technologies. This cycle has been seen many many times and signals a major overhaul is well under way whether they like it or not.

    2) gives us another avenue to the Supreme Court to challenge copyright law. 'Protection by Law', whether it be an exemption to anti-trust law or perpetual copyright extensions, does not serve the interest of the people.

  62. Old senators never die... well, almost by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, at least he's old & will (hopefully) die soon.

    That's what we'd been saying about Strom Thurmond for the last fifty years.

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    1. Re:Old senators never die... well, almost by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Isn't he dead?

      Besides, Senator Hatch just *looks* unhealthy.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Old senators never die... well, almost by Pionar · · Score: 0

      So did Strom Thurmond the last 20 years of his life. If you want to see a frail senator, look at Robert Byrd. That man has the shakes REAL bad.

    3. Re:Old senators never die... well, almost by the_consumer · · Score: 2, Funny

      He perks up once he's had his cocktail of virgin's blood.

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
    4. Re:Old senators never die... well, almost by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Yes, hence "what we'd been saying" as opposed to "what we've been saying".

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    5. Re:Old senators never die... well, almost by Exatron · · Score: 1

      Of course he looks unhealthy. That's what zombies are supposed to look like.

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
  63. Open Secrets & "Industry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    democrats took more than three times as much money from the entertainment industry as republicans in the 2002 elections

    Open Secrets defines "industry" as the occupation sector of the contributor. Thus, if an independent songwriter contributes $25 to a campaign, it gets tracked as "TV/Music/Movies". For example, Howard Dean received 99.9% of contributions from individuals. Don't assume all those contributors are upper-level management of the RIAA, especially considering that over half his contributions are under $200.

  64. 10th Amendment by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Doesn't anybody read the Constitution anymore?

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    1. Re:10th Amendment by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. The reason the Democrats, Republicans, and Greens ignore this portion of the Constitution is that their public "education" indoctrination camps would rather teach them to be touchy feely and learn the arts instead of learning to read and understand the rebellious document that was supposd to keep my rights protected against the wishes of the average slashdotter.

      The outcome of this proposal is directly related to everyone here who wants more regulation of business, more control of business, and more taxation of business. It has nothing to do with business but with the federal power that is granted to certain individual organizations -- and that can only be enforced at the point of a gun.

      The only monopoly here is big government. It is time to downsize, downsize, downsize.

    2. Re:10th Amendment by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of reasons why present-day children don't study the Constitution, as well as many other extremely important facets of American society, that go far beyond an emphasis on the arts. For political correctness reasons, for example, we can't have it known that only white male landowners over the age of 18 could vote, can we? That would upset women and blacks (I apologize, "African Americans") to the point where it would interfere with their ability to learn, and that would legally constitute discrimination in the school's curriculum. For a detailed look at censorship in American education, I suggest borrowing Diane Ravitch's "The Language Police" from a local library, or picking it up on Amazon if you so please.

      The reason we continue to study arts is that it's one of the few things left that the radicals from the left and the right can't actively censor.

      I don't mean to say that liberals are the cause of all of this country's problems (I am a rather left-leaning centrist myself), nor do I wish to sound like I endorse and advocate the views of Ann Coulter. However, in little ways, the pervasiveness of the far left is influencing our society in ways we're only now beginning to see, and it really needs to be stopped.

    3. Re:10th Amendment by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      their public "education" indoctrination camps would rather teach them to be touchy feely and learn the arts instead of learning to read and understand the rebellious document that was supposd to keep my rights protected

      Clearly, the solution to this problem is to eliminate funding for the arts... (rolls eyes)

    4. Re:10th Amendment by multimed · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it's possible for more than a very small percentage of the population to actually get this? Let's face it, most people sit back and don't even notice the major liberties taken away, to believe that a critical mass will not only notice the subtle pervasiveness, but also act on it is unfortunately, not very realistic.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    5. Re:10th Amendment by multimed · · Score: 1

      I read the Constitution just the other night. Quite a tear-jerker I might add, I don't know the last time I read something that made me so sad.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    6. Re:10th Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, lets downsize Government.

      So who takes care of food inspection?
      who takes care of road maintenance?

      This is a short list of alot of things that require non-corporate operation. I don't trust corporations, they are IMHO one of the worst ideas ever created. I'm in no way saying that the current mess is good, far from it, it's a giant clusterfuck. But i'll tell you this, i'd rather be clusterfucked by a bunch of nuts trying to change my ideology, than by a bunch of corporations trying to turn me into a "consumer" instead of a human being.

    7. Re:10th Amendment by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Yes! Part of the solution to this problem is to eliminate any and all federal programs for which the federal government has no power to pay for or collect for! Funding for the arts, funding for education of any kind. Great first step. Keep rolling them!

      Eliminate the FBI, CIA, FCC, FDA, EPA, IRS, FRB, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FAA, NRC, FERC, INS, OSHA, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, CPSC, NIH, NASA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal college aid grants and loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and more! None of these programs are Constitutionally acceptable, and the only way we'll return to a truly booming country is to make sure that our duly elected officials abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution. There is only one that I know of who truly does that. Dr. Ron Paul has shown that he believes in the Constitution, and I believe he has never voted for an unconstitutional bill or legislative measure.

      I would love to see a federal government that will never believe in interventionism again!

    8. Re:10th Amendment by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      The only monopoly here is big government. It is time to downsize, downsize, downsize.

      Yes, that's right. Let's get rid of the people's only chance of having power over their own lives. Let's eliminate government, altogether, why don't we. Then we'd be free, right? Free to be preyed upon by the rich and powerful who would swoop in to grab all that power we just tossed out with the garbage. Yep, that's good thinking.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    9. Re:10th Amendment by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Government does not give you power over your life. It gives you power over my life. I refuse. By God or by Natural Right, you have no power to control me on my property. On your property, you can tell me to shut up. You can take away my guns. You can search my person. But on my property, my rights should never be lessened or withered.

      The rich and powerful are usually there because government mandated they be there. I'm not saying get rid of government, I'm saying get rid of 90% of the federal government.

      If your State wants to have health care, let them! The Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments allow the people and the States to decide on issues not enumerated to the federal government. If I disagree with that issue, I can vote with my feet. With the federal government taking over many responsibilities delegated to the State or the people, I can't vote with my feet.

    10. Re:10th Amendment by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Government does not give you power over your life. It gives you power over my life.

      That's hyperbole. How can you think that government by the people means that I get the right to tell you what to do? It means nothing of the sort. You have as much right to influence the policies of an uncorrupted government as I do. One man, one vote. That doesn't even come close to equating to me having power over you. That's just flat-out paranoia. I can assure you that I (and everyone I know for that matter) have no intention of telling you what to do on your property as long as what you do stays on your property. If, however, you're mixing chemicals on your property and dumping waste on the ground and that waste is migrating into the groundwater or a nearby stream, then you are messing with public resources and you are affecting other people. In that situation, hell yes, the people (as a whole, not just me) have a right to tell you to cut it out and to pay for any damage you've done to a public resource.

      The rich and powerful are usually there because government mandated they be there.

      That's just about the stupidest thing I've heard. There may be some cases where government has created a monopoly that benefited an individual or corporation (most likely due to corruption, a la Halliburton) but, by far, most wealth in this country is concentrated in the hands of aristocrats whose money has been passed from generation to generation who have furthered their wealth many times by reinvesting it in private corporations. And to that I say, "good for them." I have no resentment toward them for that. But if they use that money to unfairly influence my government's policies then I'll do whatever I can to stop them.

      I'm not saying get rid of government, I'm saying get rid of 90% of the federal government.

      Then you're advocating that we just give 90% of our power away to corporations, then, right? Well, that's different, then.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    11. Re:10th Amendment by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      The outcome of this proposal is directly related to everyone here who wants more regulation of business, more control of business, and more taxation of business. It has nothing to do with business but with the federal power that is granted to certain individual organizations -- and that can only be enforced at the point of a gun.

      I agree. And as a start towards remedying this situation, I propose we do away with government regulation of "intellectual property", and let the free market take care of it.

      What's that? You don't want to do away with copyright, patents, and trademarks? Not willing to let the free market take care of things like that? Then you damned well better think things all the way through before abolishing things like antitrust laws (which are also "regulation" of business), environment protection laws, etc.

      Wake up. Pure capitalism is an extreme, just like pure communism is. Neither can work as in its "pure" form because neither can completely account for human nature.

      I suspect you're right that there is too much regulation of business, but I would argue that there is much more regulation of individuals, and if you want to achieve the goal of maximizing individual freedom, you'd better deal with the regulation of individuals first, especially since corporations as entities have much more power than individuals and are therefore better able to fend for themselves, even in the face of the regulations that already exist.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    12. Re:10th Amendment by dada21 · · Score: 0

      I can assure you that I (and everyone I know for that matter) have no intention of telling you what to do on your property as long as what you do stays on your property.

      Nice try, but wrong. Zoning laws prevent me from doing what I want to do on my property. I can't paint my house pink in many areas. I can't even run a store out of my house in most towns. That's the many telling me what to do. It is wrong.

      Then you're advocating that we just give 90% of our power away to corporations, then, right? Well, that's different, then.

      No, I'm advocating returning those rights to the people, where they belong.

      If I want to put a substance in my body, that is between me and my doctor (if I involve a doctor), not the FDA.

      If I want to try to get a loan from a private individual or corporation, I should be do it on my merit, not on what Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac dictate. I am a minority -- if a bank refuses to give me money because of that, it is no one's business. I'll go find another bank or source of money.

      If I want to have a rule that no women or left handed people are allowed in my restaurant, it is my property, not yours. If you disagree, open a restaurant open to all (you'll probably do better).

      If I want to import or export steel, no one should tariff me or tax me for it.

      All of these issues are regulated by government. Go to mises.org for two hours. Read some of the introductory articles. It is minded changing. Try it.

      Authoritarian systems fail. They cost too much, they don't offer any sense of freedom to the slaves they capture. Taxation = theft. Conscription = slavery. Enough said.

    13. Re:10th Amendment by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      You just can't stand to live by rules. Just admit it. You think you're above the rules of society. We can't function as a society without rules. Stop being so childish. You just aren't that special. You aren't above all this. Either we come to agreements about how we live together or we battle each other like Afghan warlords.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    14. Re:10th Amendment by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Yes, societies need rules. The question is how many people agree on them. If almost everyone believed/followed the same rules, you'd have a xenophobic conformist society closer to Japan. If almost no one believed/followed the same rules, you'd have an argumentative factional society closer to Afghanistan.

      A society can still hold together if people disagree on the rules. There are ways to compensate. People could self-segregate towards others who feel the same way. They could give a space for rebels. They could exile rebels. They could take rules less seriously. They could shrug and change the subject. They could institute defusing rituals. They could talk endlessly until they bring everyone around. They could fight or argue, but without real heat.

      A government could simply decree what the rules are. But as they do that, they increase the risk of rebellion. If people continue to disagree with the decrees, eventually the above mechanisms would no longer be sufficient to stave off the dissolution of that society.

      There's a spectrum, let's call it independence versus conformity. America used to be a far more independent society than we are now. I believe we coped with geographical separation and self-segregation, and perhaps with a shrug and a change of subject.

      Now, we are more conformist, but cope less well, with defusing rituals (political correctness) and meaningless argument.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    15. Re:10th Amendment by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      i'd rather be clusterfucked by a bunch of nuts trying to change my ideology, than by a bunch of corporations trying to turn me into a "consumer" instead of a human being.

      See story at top. You say you want a revolution?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  65. How about political realitites? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now is the time, GOP congress and President? An especially "pro-business" well pro-big-business with deep-pockets administration in an anything goes legislative spree is the *perfect* time to peel away some fair use rights. It would be foolish if they didn't try, not that I condone this.

    Look at the success of Patriot Act II, just attach it to a spending bill and it passes while we were all sleeping. No debate, no nothing. The RIAA knows this is a good thing, for them.

    Whatever your political persuasion, its fairly obvious that legislative reform should have happened a long time ago and the current congress and executive branch are pulling every dirty trick they can.

    Greg Palast chronicles a lot of the abuses we don't hear about in his book The Best Democracy Money can Buy. Worth checking out if you want to know how stuff like this happens and why non-monied interests have little say in the affairs of government.

    1. Re:How about political realitites? by mirio · · Score: 1

      Do a little reading and you will discover that Democrats received MUCH MORE funding from the media than the Republicans took in.

    2. Re:How about political realitites? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Who's writing the laws and calling the shots right now? The minority party? I don't think so.

    3. Re:How about political realitites? by Wah · · Score: 1

      yes, which is why they suck too, and why this country is getting so royally screwed by this government in regards to this industry.

      What should be the golden age of information is looking more and more like a dark ages.

      --
      +&x
    4. Re:How about political realitites? by incabulos · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing, and perhaps a bit scary that the government often resorts to the same sort of deceptive measures as criminal types. Take attaching the Patriot Act II to a harmless looking bill as an example. A more direct approach had failed miserably, so trojan-like, they tried to sneak it in via other means. The parallels between this, and virus, malware and spyware authors attaching malicious code to an otherwise harmless or useful looking tool is amazing.

      You would think that if Congress were genuine in the belief that these acts were designed to help their constituents, there would be no need for this kind of cloak-and-dagger tomfoolery. The only logical conclusion is that their actions are motivated by malice, greed, corruption, treachery and general wickedness, just like the criminal types whose actions mirror their own.

  66. Graft, Corruption and the March of the Inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Senator Hatch has been an industry shill for decades, like a lot of Republicans.

    If our alledged courts accept "market realities" as carte blanche to break the law, then it's only a matter of time before SCO and its pimp Microsoft lose to Linux.

    Linux is going on to OS world domination. Not because pimply-faced geeks know it's kewl, not because linux makes Lara Croft's breasts extra realistic and alluring, not because grandma hasn't crashed Solitaire in a week, but because intelligent, hard-nosed business people, maybe even some of the business people that pull Senator Hatch's strings, know high quality, rock solid value when they see it.

    Even those people protected by having senators in their pockets know they aren't protected from their shareholders. It's inevitable. And if "market realities" can insulate ossified business methodologies from the law, the real Market Reality of linux should get this protection as well.

    The Linux wagontrain is moving fast. It's not circling up for a desperate last stand, huddling behind the water barrels and flour sacks of bad legislation. So long, RIAA. Nice to have known ya, Daryl. Too bad you lost the election Senator. You're still two months out of Californy, and there's bad water all the way.

  67. Ridiculous by Decameron81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the official RIAA web site:

    "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry."

    The RIAA is not a governmental institution. And as such it is doomed to be interested in protecting only one group of companies/people. Proposing and accepting laws like the one that would excempt them from anti-trust laws would be like putting the RIAA one step above of what it really should be. It would be too much power for them to use it wisely.

    But the truth is that both the RIAA and the government are getting so linked and interlaced one with another, that it makes me wonder how much I want the recording industries to get in control of my life.

    You see, they play the role of the weak side. They are always being "robbed" by "evil people" (they would try to convince you that "evil people" stands for "everyone"). So they have a "right" to make you pay piracy taxes on the CDs you buy, make you pay by giving you less content and eventually pay more for it, make you pay by instilling fear in your everyday life.

    I can only see that offensive and absurd to say the least. I've never heard anyone call thieves his own customers, and then expect them to keep buying.

    Diego Rey

    --
    diegoT
  68. Orrin Hatch Whored Himself out for $150,000 by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Since Republican supporters of Orrin Hatch have modded my other reply to your question down, I'll repeat my answer here.

    When will the people of Utah wake up and see that he does our state no good and harms our nation as well. Anti-trust laws are there for a reason. To keep companies from running rampant and having ultimate power to do as they will without regard. Nice move Orrin how much money did you take to get this law written?

    To answer your question, Orrin Hatch whored himself [opensecrets.org] out to the entertainment industry for $150,000 or so. Interestingly enough, he is brazen enough to take $100,000 from the computer industry at the same time (one wonders if that isn't Microsoft priming the pump for TCPA/DRM ... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  69. Re:Blame the Free Market? Yes, they will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody blames greedy doctors, or at least they shouldn't. The pharmaceutical companies are the ones that are vastly overcharging for drugs. Doctors rarely receive more than about 40% of their real fees unless you pay them out of pocket. Pharmaceutical companies, however, jack up the prices unnecessarily just to raise their profits.

  70. Orfice Hatch is going to hell. by acidbass · · Score: 1

    Yeah its off topic, but needs to be said. This just makes me sick, i wanna puke, and i wanna move outta this ridiculous excuse for a nation. The gov't for the people, by the people? BS! A gov't for the wealthy, by the wealthy. With 2 weeks of vacation a year, the poor hard-working slaves of america who break their backs to earn a decent living , have to pay $20 an Eminem cd for their kids to have a commercailly acceptable christmas - Its a joke. Orfice Hatch is raping the poor souls who keep this joke of a government alive. The poor HAVE to vote this time. I know youre only allowed to vote on a work day during working hours, but you have to vote, even if you have to take a sick day, its worth it this election. We cant have an all republican or all democrat government anymore. Its the same thing as having a dictator, or oligarchy. We need diversity and we need change! It may be too late already with the automatic electing machines in place. So whats next? Soon they will pass laws to take away all vacation time and force people to buy at least one britnay spears cd a year or risk going to jail due to new market realities. Seriously, when is the madness going to stop? I'm physically sick that i live in a country that allows this kind of crap.

  71. Re:When did young girls and grandmas become immune by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

    It doesn't make any difference for me, or most slashdot readers, but it does to the average American. It is relatively easy to convince Joe Sixpack that an 23 year-old "evil hacker" has been "pirating" songs on the internet, and costing them millions. The plan just falls appart when the RIAA is instead suing a 75 year-old grandmother, or a 12 year-old kid. Only then it's clear to most people that normal, otherwise law abiding citizens are the ones that are getting sued for sharings songs on the internet. It's just way more shocking if children and grandmothers are the ones being sued.

    If the average American sees normal people being sued, he might start thinking that the law is not beneficial to the US, and must be repealed

  72. Re:Dumb fan-boy dorks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what are you talking about? I don't even think you have a clue.

    =========

    You're right. Even a hooker has standards, didn't think of that. Sorry.

    ~The Prophet Lactus~

  73. FIXED LINK by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Orrin Hatch's sellout detailed here (FIXED LINK).

    I had the link in the original reply (which Republican supporters of Orrin Hatch have modded into oblivion), but forgot to include it in my recap above.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  74. Doofus, doofus, doofus by JCMay · · Score: 1
    Might I remind you of this:


    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


    Gore got the majority popular vote, but popular votes don't elect presidents in the United States. They never have. It's merely a historical accident that the United States populace "votes" for president at all: it's required nowhere in Federal law.
    1. Re:Doofus, doofus, doofus by ukmountie · · Score: 1

      The electoral college of course cast the votes. However given the situation in Florida it can be questioned whether the electors from Florida truly represented the wishes of the voters of that State.

      In any case as I said. I don't think on matters like this there is much difference between the two parties, and that is the real problem.

    2. Re:Doofus, doofus, doofus by JCMay · · Score: 1

      The electoral college of course cast the votes. However given the situation in Florida it can be questioned whether the electors from Florida truly represented the wishes of the voters of that State.


      But they aren't supposed to represent the wishes of the voters of the state; they are supposed to represent the wishes of the legislature. It is only by historic convention and the goodwill of the legislature that the general populace votes for President in any particular state. It would be legal and constitutional for a state legislature to apportion the Electors themselves, with no direct input from the state's populace.


      In any case as I said. I don't think on matters like this there is much difference between the two parties, and that is the real problem.


      That's okay. The guy I voted for didn't win either! Bush is no conservative!
  75. Death Rattle of the Music Industry? by thepuma · · Score: 3, Interesting



    Isn't this simply the music industry grasping at straws to save itself?

    The simple fact is that no legislation can force individuals to buy their music from any specific source, and if people start getting their music some other way, there's very little the music industry can do to stop it.

    When some other music distribution system finally takes away most of the RIAA's customers, an exemption from anti-trust lawsuits will be useless to them. Noone will be suing them for anti-trust when they are no longer a monopoly!

    --

    Free your ecomony and enact the FairTax

    1. Re:Death Rattle of the Music Industry? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      When some other music distribution system finally takes away most of the RIAA's customers, an exemption from anti-trust lawsuits will be useless to them.

      Hellooo!!!! The very reason for the anti-trust exemption is so that the RIAA can ELIMINATE the distribution systems that are primarily on entirely carrying non-RIAA music! The Slashdot article has a link to the antitrust case against the RIAA.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  76. FOR SALE: America by Petronius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The proposed relaxations of the media ownership rules this year, the 'stuffed turkey' Energy bill, the Medicare bill, the Boeing DOD deal, the Halliburton 'rebuilding' of Iraq, and now THIS.
    This is what GWB stands for: if you're a big business that can fund my reelection campaign, you have a friend in the White House.
    Happy Thanksgiving, don't choke on the turkey.

    --
    there's no place like ~
    1. Re:FOR SALE: America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      SOLD

  77. Re:When did young girls and grandmas become immune by skti · · Score: 1

    I think that in the case of the Grandma, she hadn't broken the law. She was falsely accused. The girl on the other hand, did have Kazaa, and had downloaded some music, but it seems kind of silly to go after a young girl from a rather poor family, who probably didn't really understand that what she was doing was illegal.

    --
    "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won..." ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi
  78. Re:When did young girls and grandmas become immune by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    Pointing out these specific examples is a bad idea, certainly. But the pressing issue at hand is that the RIAA is perfectly keen on litigating everyone into poverty while seeking immunity themselves.

    I'll be giving my Senators a few words of wisdom tonight.

  79. Re:When did young girls and grandmas become immune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that this law is obnoxious, but what difference does it make that it is enforced against young girls and grandmas. It is just as obnoxious enforced against a 30 year old white male.

    In this case grandma didn't even know what "file swapping" is. I believe the RIAA accused her of using a file swapping program that wasn't even available on the operating system she used (a mac). Also, minors are almost always treated very differently by the law than adults.

    I think people tend to see these kinds of actions by the RIAA as beating up on little kids and then trying to rob grandma.

  80. This just in... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    The mob recently announced that it is seeking permanent anti-RICO exemption. More at 10...

  81. Hatch's conflict of interest by thumbtack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Senator Hatch is a songwriter, who stands to benefit from legislation like this. In 2002 he made $18,000 in songwriting royalties. He stands to benefit directly financially from any copyright legislation,

    Imagine the outcry from Jack Valenti or Cary Sherman if Wayne Rosso or Anne Gabriel were writing the legislation. The screams of the MPAA and RIAA would be heard around the world. The mainstream press would be doing their normal reporting by press release and Wayne and Anne would be run out of town on a rail..

  82. Use the power against them by paiute · · Score: 1

    If you want to bring down this evil, then do this: take all your old poems, stories, song lyrics - in short, anything creative you have ever done, and send to the Copyright Office for registration. Send it as a collection so that you pay only $30 for the whole. Then wait for the first movie or song that infriges on your copyright and take advantage of the Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Get an injunction. Sue for damages.

    Wouldn't you love to see every Bertney Speers release met with a shitstorm of infringement actions?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  83. Do Something Real by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    I am getting tired of ppl on /. writig abt doing something.

    Do something but no stupidities like writing to them.do you think they care more abt your vote than the magabucks from the megacorps.

    that only way to fight fire is with fire.Morally very dubious but remember most fights against unjustness were unjust themselves.(Remember 1916 in ireland,the british soldiers who died were not the ones who wanted the irish under english rule but the absent aristrocracy).

    Make an example.Select a politicain(not a spelling mistake).Anyone ,but someone who is prominent like Hatch himself.Go after him.Fund His opponents.Organise ourselves and raise FUD against hatch.Pester him,find out his secrets(he is sure to have them),make allegations against him(need not be true,politics never cares for the truth,heck call him a paedophile or something.)Make his life hell.Make him fear what the next morning would bring him.

    In short go after him no holds barred.Use all means right or wrong,just or unjust, to make him lose.

    And then we wont have to whine about corrupt politicians because they will be afraid to trample over our rights knowing what happened to a collegue of theirs.The meek might inhereit the earth but they will never run it.

    Stop believing that anybody listens to reason because in this world of ours might is still right.

    And if this sounds morally dubious remember this is war and everything is fair in a war.

    Oh and if your mom asks just say they started it.

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  84. Stealth Bill Amendments by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is one of my biggest complaints against congress in general ( aside from their hell bent agenda to deprive us of our rights )

    They 'sneak' thru radical changes on the back of seemingly unrelated or benign bills, or adding things AFTER committee hearings are complete. ( not to mention we have to many redundant and insane laws already... )

    This practice should really be illegal, and *everything* should be in the open and 100% straight..

    Yes I'm being idealistic, but perhaps if enough people get fed up enough on all the secrete agendas, etc that run our government, we all might be able to do something about it. Short of a total revolution..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  85. I'm sick of the empty whining. what can we -do-? by *weasel · · Score: 1

    This is the single biggest slipstream attempt at purchased legislation since then-congressional aide Mitch Glazier snuck the 'work for hire' catch into the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999.
    Mitch Glazier was hired as the RIAA's top lobbyist 3 months later. (details)

    So we all know this is outrageous.

    But who do we call? Where is a list of representative's email addresses? Where is a list of senator's email addresses? Is the FSF, or EFF setting up a fund I can donate to, to work against this? Is there an email campaign going?

    I haven't bought the RIAA's musical offerings in years, so I've already cut off my funding for these domestic, economic terrorists -- but is there someone I can give support -to- that has a voice to tell our government congress how asinine this is? how asinine Orrin Hatch is?

    I mean, Orrin Hatch is a songwriter who works for an RIAA member label, isn't this at the least a clear-cut case of conflict of interest?

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  86. RIAA exempt from Antitrust-Laws? I can see it... by MadMoses · · Score: 1

    After the day this law is passed, Microsoft will publish a music CD with Steve Ballmer performing the Monkey Dance Song and join the RIAA...

    --

    Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
  87. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    While I can't agree with your position of "I did something illegal and got caught, but luckily escaped litigation, so they're wrong" mentality, I do agree that suing your customers is a terrible way to grow more business. While it might net them a few extra pennies, it certainly is going to hurt their income in the long run.

    We keep decrying these lawsuits, but in reality, it's the best thing that can happen in the long run. As more and more people get sued, their friends and family are more likely to say "fuck that noise, I'm not giving these scumbags any more money." And then more people are likely to take the same path I have, buying music from independent or foreign labels like Century Media or Nuclear Blast not affiliated with the RIAA. In addition to doing the right thing, the artists you're supporting actually make money off of your record purchases, and probably sound a whole lot more unique than the homogenized radio garbage being spewed from MTV and Top 40 stations currently.

    They're digging themselves a hole that they won't be able to climb back out of. Don't stop them.

  88. Stealing is stealing by kannibul · · Score: 1

    No matter how you look at it, theft is still theft, no matter what the justification is.

  89. Orrin bought with money, let's buy coleman w/votes by Alcimedes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So they bought Orrin Hatch. Crap. Now what do we do? I'll tell you what we do.
    We buy our own Senator the old fasioned way. With voice and votes. If you don't like what Orrin is doing I suggest you contact Norm Coleman. He's been more than willing to go after these assholes before, and if we can show that enough people care, I'm sure he'll continue to do so. Do something about it rather than sitting around and squaking like a bunch of tired old men.

  90. You ARE joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your government, under the guise of poverty and hardship(their lack of revenue), is outsourcing broad public responsibilities to corporations. They now decide where you live(Sprawl), how well you live(opportunities strictly mapped to education), what food you have in the 'fridge(GM), any significant opportunities you may have in life(no CEO from mailroom). Don't kid yourself about vertical mobility; there are enforced limits. To live well in US society you work for or pander to them. Even if you feel you are "independently successful" or an artist, it is their system (roads, infrastructure, workforce), and grace, that keeps you that way.

    Even your police force, road commisions, county government is not there to protect YOU, but THEIR interests, property values, revenue streams, employee and schoolchild attendance.

    Why? Does this give the majority a better life?

    1984 is appropriate as it has already arrived and passed.

    1. Re:You ARE joking, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say 1984. It's more like Brazil (the movie), where the concerted efforts of the entire society result in an unbearably oppressive system. Big Brother in 1984 was the intelligent supremacy by a core group. I don't believe that's the case at all. There is no cabal. The cabal is us, and everyone who is part of society causes society.

  91. Proposition: the US government is insane by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    What does the (increasingly named like commercial products) EnFORCE Act have to do with the RIAA? The US government system is insane, how can laws be created that then have other totally non-connected laws attached to them? Could someone please explain this? As someone outside America i kinda feel confused as to some of your governments ways of doing things.

    Also could nvidia sue the government for a breach of trademark (enforce sounds allot like geforce) or is that going too far?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  92. Go EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long now before the USA implodes? As an Irishman living in Germany whose lived in the states for a while I can just say I am *Delighted* I don't live there right now. It just looks as if its all going wrong.

    EU's not perfect by any means, but by Golly ... compared to any other major economic powers its just the dogs nuts.

    Come join us.

  93. Nobody likes to challenge anti-obscenity law by freality · · Score: 1

    Hats of to Hatch, for bringing the debate down another rung. Why not throw in an anti-terrorism clause to make it a sure win? Nah, probably not necessary.

  94. TFACA by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Yes! It's a movement now! TFACA (The Fight Against Clever Acronyms) is born! Someone make a web site!

    1. Re:TFACA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFACA? How unimaginative!

      Try "Americans Against Acronyms (Riaa Go to Hell)", or "AAARGH" for short.

    2. Re:TFACA by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [tries to pronounce "TFACA", winds up saying "Tea Fucka"]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  95. Anti Dog-eat-Dog Rule by sillypixie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow, that's right out of 'Atlas Shrugged'. Crazy.

    All you gotta do is change Orren Hatch to Orren Boyle...

    In fact I can't think of a better definition of a second-hander than the RIAA. Except maybe the RIAA's lawyers...

    Pixie

    --
    don't mess with those geekgrrls
    1. Re:Anti Dog-eat-Dog Rule by sillypixie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ouch! Modded from a 1 to a ZERO within 10 minutes of posting the comment...

      I must be a bad, bad person... or somebody out there is an Ayn Rand hater with mod points to burn.

      Whoohoo! The downwards spiral into trolldom has commenced! Bring it on, baby...

      *grin*

      Pixie

      --
      don't mess with those geekgrrls
  96. Madness by jevring · · Score: 1

    I already vowed never to set foot in that country, and I'm reassured in my choice every day I see stuff like this.
    Is there no end to the madness?
    If this bill passes, others like it will pass, and soon, everyone that has some kind of majority in any market will be exempt, and that's not good.
    Pray to whatever diety you choose that this bill never passes, and that whatever dissease they have over there doesn't spread to other parts of the world.
    This stuff makes almost all other worldy attrocities pale in comparison.

    --
    Move sig!
    1. Re:Madness by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yep we're not safe outside America either. Last week bush visited my city and for 4 days it felt like we were under seige. There was a no-fly zone over London except for the massive helicopters. Forget "a policeman on every corner" i saw police every 20 meters around buckingham Buckingham palace with extra fencing. There were also snipers around places that Bush was visiting. All over the news all you saw were a sea of police i never new we had so many! The cost of this massive extra police force that took police from doing useful jobs (i couldnt care less if Bush was shot) will be paid by us not him. Not to mention the US secret service which originally wanted full diplomatic immunity (so if they accidently shot someone they could get away with it) and to close down half of London! fucking pricks.

      Now take a look at http://www.downhillbattle.org/
      "One option proposed for Article 4.1 of the intellectual property rights chapter in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty would mandate that countries must send noncommercial infringers such as Peer2-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison." enough said?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  97. This suprises anyone ? by Adam_Weishaupt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The core of the conservative agenda is to transfer control of our government and our commons to big corporations; reduce taxes on the rich while squeezing the middle class; and strip labor of its power to organize while enhancing organized corporate power by supporting trade associations, Chambers of Commerce, political alliances, and monopolistic mergers.

    --
    "You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
  98. "Free Market" is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "Free Market" is an oxymoron


    Why?


    Money is power, right? That's what it's for. In an unrestricted (i.e. "Free") market, the more power you have, the easier it is to gain more (a la Microsoft), ending in a monopoly. This is inevitable, 2+2=4. The only remedy is anti-monopoly legislation (i.e. "State intervention"). If the U.S. gov't-for-rent did roll back all laws prohibiting monopolies, they would be reducing state intervention, and making the market more free to follow it's own natural tendancies (i.e. implode to an attractor state - plutocracy).


    The trouble is, the notion of the free market, just like communism, makes a beautiful theoretical system, and people get so attached to their ideology that they are unable to accept that neither of these two extremes actually work in the real world.


    P.S. - some friendly advice so you don't get burned - you may want to compare total per-capita health care spending between say Canada and the U.S., and level of coverage after all that money is spent, before you use the health care system as an example of how well the market works...

    1. Re:"Free Market" is an oxymoron by AlterTick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      P.S. - some friendly advice so you don't get burned - you may want to compare total per-capita health care spending between say Canada and the U.S., and level of coverage after all that money is spent, before you use the health care system as an example of how well the market works...

      I think that's exactly his point: the prices in US health care are so high because it's not ruled by the iron fist of government, but the government is pouring limitless amounts of cash into it via medicare et al, which prices everyone but government out of the market. As far as "level of coverage", I'd take the US system over the Canadian any day. Sure, it costs me money to see a doctor and buy antibiotics for an infection, but if I were to need, say, an MRI to check if I have cancer, I better hope it can wait 6 months or more. Or if I needed open heart surgery after October, I might have to wait till the first of the year because my province has run out of cardiac surgery funding for the year. But hey, it's all free, right? The Canadian health care system is an underregulated monopoly with no performance requirements. Privatized and regulated performs better in this case.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    2. Re:"Free Market" is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, medicare and medicaid pay less than half of the "market value" for most medical services. The underfunding through this (government required) channel is what drives the "market value" higher.

    3. Re:"Free Market" is an oxymoron by AlterTick · · Score: 1
      Actually, medicare and medicaid pay less than half of the "market value" for most medical services.

      That's exactly my point. If medicare/caid covered the full value, there'd be no problem (at least for those covered). If medicare payed nothing, market forces would bring prices down.

      --
      Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
    4. Re:"Free Market" is an oxymoron by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      So there wasn't any problem that medicare was meant to address, everyone had low health costs and could easily get the services they were in some cases literally dying to get?

      Medicare like other social initiatives were brought into being to address probelms the free market didn't address to the satisfaction of the citzens. It might not be the best way to solve the problem they were intended to alleviate, but beofre the program started there was still a problem with the less regulated system which suggested a solution was needed.

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
  99. Dear american friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..come to europe where everything is better.

    American friend, you're welcome!

    (Really!)

  100. OT: Re:Oh great... by Fatllama · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I put you in water, would you get wet? Or would the water get you instead?

    1. Re:OT: Re:Oh great... by A+Big+Jerk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice TMBG ref - I don't know if anyone caught that or not (or if they care, for that matter).

      --
      >> Buy yourself some extremely long bed sheets. You'll be making an escape rope out of them very soon.
    2. Re:OT: Re:Oh great... by princewally · · Score: 1

      I got it. I laughed. I wished that I hadn't burned my mod points yesterday.

      --

      -
      "Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
    3. Re:OT: Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I "caught" it. It's not that obscure.

  101. Yes by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    Isn't our government supposed to behave near elections?

    Yes. The only question is what exactly are the behaving like?

  102. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by MunchMunch · · Score: 1
    The fact that those girls were 12 and 15 is, I feel, vitally important. The mistake I think you make is assuming that the emotional response is meant to be an end in and of itself. Instead, it is a means to a more clearly presented argument against or for laws, because of the special effect legal minors may have on how we interpret laws to be just or unjust. Obviously these are civil and not criminal charges, but the disparity is best exemplified if, say, you were appalled that media was making an issue of a 14 year old being tried as an adult for some crime. No matter what you think of the single-case guilt or innocence, there is a valid issue as to whether or not a minor can sustain full adult charges not just before enjoying the full adult spectrum of societys benefits and responsibilities.

    Additionally, when confronted with a cases against minors, the amount of sympathy or lack thereof largely depends on the crime or civil charge accused. For example, a 14 year old accused murderer will generate much less sympathy than say for the 12 year old filesharer. The reason is not just because the age issue serves as an emotional device, but that that device also is a means to another end-- to magnify our perspectives on the law, and how just or unjust we think a law is when applied to the most sympathetic subject. This does not mean that the emotional sympathy should guide a decision of whether that particular case is just or unjust, but rather emotional sympathy allows us to take seriously the implications of the absurd power the RIAA is wielding here, and thus take our sympathy to a general case represented by that 12-year old and apply it to a general interpretation of whether a law is just or unjust.

  103. I read that title... by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    and my blood boiled..

    fuck, they're doing what I expected..
    they're gonna try becoming monopolies legally and take over the market permanently, and force people into buying only their music.
    greta, they're gonna ruin music.

    wonder how long until this becomes a new fad, wonder when microsoft or sco are going to press for an anti-antitrust bill so companies like them can become a huge ass monopoly..
    now, I feel, the legal system is truly going to hell. before, it was fucked up, but if this passes, the domino effect will start, very much like the copyright domino effect. where everyone is copyrighting random technologies just to control them. now... we have this.
    I feel this is only the beginning to the new form of government in the US...Corpocracy.. the United Corporates of America, UCA. think that sounds funny people? good, because soon, you might have to say it.

    This is all because Bush is too busy playing in his sandbox. With this Recent FBI expansion move... I have a feeling now if people dont want RIAA music, men in suits will be at your door, asking you why havent you bought any music lately and throw you in prsion for being a terrorist to the corpocracy.
    We need to write to people who care, start an anti-*aa petition while we still can, or an anti-monopolist petition and get this shit known, because it's only a matter of time that these companies will be more powerful than the government.

  104. Who says you can't get files with a Mac? by rafiki_1234 · · Score: 1

    On a bunch of posts I've read of the 66 year old with the mac and how she couldn't have possible downloaded anything. Maybe she didn't, or a family member did unbeknownst to her, or perhaps the RIAA screwed up. However, it's not impossible for her to be on that list just because she was using a mac. I have Acquisition and Poisoned installed on my iMac G4. While I don't download often at all, I can if I want to. Name the file or file type, I can get 'em quickly and easily.

    1. Re:Who says you can't get files with a Mac? by Devistater · · Score: 1

      Thats not the point, read closer. The point is RIAA got an IP (supposedly hers) from someone sharing files on KAZAA. Thats it. Mac doesn't have kazaa. Therefore she could not have possibly done what they said. More likely someone screwed up somewhere with the IP process, or RIAA gave wrong tiems or something, they just didn't want to admit mistake. ALL of the court cases from RIAA have been from file sharing p2p services, and I think only from kazaa networks so far.

    2. Re:Who says you can't get files with a Mac? by rafiki_1234 · · Score: 1

      Poisoned can access Kazaa's network for files, among others. As it happens, it can't share them back however, which is pretty much counter to the P2P spirit. I hear the developers are working on it though.

    3. Re:Who says you can't get files with a Mac? by Devistater · · Score: 1

      Yes but they were suing them for SHARING not for d/ling. All the lawsuits by the RIAA so far have been for sharing. BTW, did you catch the article I submitted about RIAA trying to get exemption for getting sued?

  105. What has come of this once free nation? by mhoover · · Score: 1

    I once was a bright eyed boy
    who dreamed the American dream
    freedom, happiness and apple pie
    I was a naive little boy

    As I grew older
    realization came to me
    that we live under a tyrant
    with the initials GWB

    He and his cronies
    my money did take
    and raped me of my freedoms
    for securities sake

    Our government has been sold
    corporations and organizations
    have purchased the vote

    What can I do
    I am just one man
    lost in the sea
    of corporate irresponsibility

    --
    The dingo ate my sig.
  106. Corporate Vaccination by jefu · · Score: 1
    The sad fact is that most corporations of any size are, effectively, immune from laws. Look at Enron - it seems unlikely that anyone responsible for the idiocy will be more than slapped on the wrist and the highest execs are likely to walk away fairly well off.

    Our favorite corporation Microsoft is clearly immune .

    Now the RIAA and MPAA will get legal immunity?

    This will start a stampede for major corporations to get laws passed that classify their worst actions as being in line with "market reality". Be nice to give them a hint or two. Reality aint what you want to have true. Reality is what is true. And if reality means that your company loses money, or (gasp!) doesn't make as much money as it did last year, that can't be legislated away.

    I'm not much into copying most music (composers like John Adams don't show up on most of the file sharing networks), or movies. But I'm feeling more and more like starting - just because of the way they seem to want to run things all their way - and because of the way they seem to be able to buy out politicians with impunity. Venal politicians are not news, of course. But the US seems to be doing a great job of elevating greed, stupidity and ignorance to the status of cardinal virtues.

    1. Re:Corporate Vaccination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats when we employ the only tactic we, as the general public, will have left: Civil Disobedience and outright violence. I'm looking forward to the day actually.

  107. *sigh* by bonch · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Again, Slashdot, in a tact of classic propoganda, latches onto a few examples. A 12 year old girl! A 66 year old man!

    You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?

    Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works. I don't get why Slashdot advocates the piracy of music while in general decrying, say, software piracy. Actually, I do--one is just more convenient than the other, so they're used to it to the point where it's been justified in their minds so that they don't feel guilty. I think that explains the passionately reactive nature of a lot of people's opinions on the matter--it's all self-justification to avoid guilt.

    1. Re:*sigh* by Computer! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.

      Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.

      It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.

      The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.

      "Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"

      If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    2. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And WHAT exactly does piracy have to do with cartel-building by the big media companies?

      What political stance would allow you to support this bill? It's in nobody's best interest except the cartels themselves. Left and right need to bond together to stop this heavy-handed, anticompetitive nonsense.

    3. Re:*sigh* by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, they latch on to the young and old targets because:

      1. They're good emotional jumping off points.
      2. Who the fuck in their right mind expects a 12 year old to understand copyright law when most well-educated adults don't?
      3. TV = Free imperfect music w/ ads. Radio = free imperfect music w/ ads. Computer = .... not free imperfect music w/ ads? Huh?
      4. People are being threatened with lawsuits for the whole purpose of extorting "small" cash "settlements" out of them before they get a chance to defend themselves. Not that they could afford to if they tried.
      Besides - bear in mind that the issue at hand right now is the fact that effective monopolies (just like Verizon - yea, they HAVE competition, but go try and find it in any significant way) are trying to become immune to laws that govern that govern the United States. You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated". Fix your distribution chain and make the product more attractive to buyers so they don't go to the black market.

      Yea yea, yap yap - the law says this, the law says that. The law in Kentucky says you can't fish in the Ohio river without an Indiana fishing license. Doesn't mean it's a good law or that anyone with half a brain should pay it any mind. Laws are meant to protect CITIZENS not CORPORATIONS that have, on more than one occasion, proven that THEY have as little disregard for the law as everyone they're yelling at (can we say... "price-fixing").

      I hate to be the one to provide the rude wake-up call, but the RIAA, the MPAA, the BSA - they aren't interested in protecting SHIT. There's no money to be made in protecting business interests. There IS money to be made in holding illegitimate customers upside down and shaking them and then trying to turn EVERYONE into an illegitimate customer SOMEHOW.

      Frankly - the law can suck my nuts in this matter. When they stop threatening to hand out low-price laws on Capitol Hill to these nutjobs and hold them to the same standards as everyone else, I'll give the law the respect it deserves. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, though.

      And look at that, while I was typing some other mod abused their power by modding the parent a Troll solely because they don't agree with the subject matter. I love Slashdot... I think Slashdot needs to run a censorship article on some of these idiots that get mod points sometime.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    4. Re:*sigh* by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't get why Slashdot advocates the piracy of music

      I don't get why people think this. I haven't yet seen any Slashdot articles advocating piracy and only a small handful of comments that actual advocate it.

      What you seem unable to differentiate is the advocation of piracy and the contempt people have for:

      tactics used by the RIAA & MPAA to "enforce" their copyrights,

      publicized lies, propaganda, and assumptions by the RIAA & MPAA claiming harm from P2P infringements WITHOUT EVIDENCE,

      modification of laws by the RIAA/MPAA to remove rights or benefits from consumers/citizens (as in this article),

      proposed tactics/laws for acting against P2P (such as destroying the contents of a computer they "find" in violation -- without trial or judicial oversight),

      attacks on P2P to make them illegal or shut them down even though they have legitimate legal uses,

      hypocrisy of arguing that P2P has no legally legitimate uses and then using P2P to (a) send messages to users and (b) purchasing the download statistics to rate songs for improved marketing,

      issuing of supoenas without judicial oversight

      attempts to enforce an ancient business model that has little relevence in the modern world,

      copyright laws that violate the principle in which they were created (i.e.,limited exclusive right of creators followed by public domain to promote progress, not perpetual exclusive right which hinders progress).

      There are possibly other complaints too, these are just off the top of my head. As you see from this list, it's not just a "I want free music" tirade. There are tons of legitimate complaints about copyrights and the RIAA & MPAA.

    5. Re:*sigh* by Theatetus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?

      Ummm... yes, I do expect people to make sure they have the right person before they sue. Maybe I'm old-fashioned that way.

      they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works.

      Here's what's cute to me: if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal. But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal. Something is wrong there.

      Record distributers do not have a "right" to make money by distributing music, though they have a right to try. Musicians do not have a "right" to make money recording and performing music, though they have a right to try.

      I'll be perfectly honest that I support "pirating" music (though I've never done it) because *anything* that makes big record studios lose money is GOOD. They have been nothing but a negative force in music since the 1930's.

      We no longer need centralized A&R, production, or distribution. EVERY SINGLE THING a record studio does can be done more efficiently with commodity hardware, software, and communications. Anything that moves us closer to cutting out unneccessary middlemen, even if it tramples on the imagined "rights" of music rentiers, is good.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    6. Re:*sigh* by krzysztof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the huge problem -- corporations do not have a right to a profit. They have the right to do business and attempt to make a profit. If they are unsuccessful, well, losing money != violation of rights.

      So often these days, corporate profits go down, and some Congressman thinks, oh, they're losing money -- someone must be breaking the law! Uh, no. Maybe if the music industry had a product worth paying for, people would buy it. (You know, that whole "capitalism" thing...)

    7. Re:*sigh* by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1
      But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal
      Pretty sure that's not true. You don't have the right to distribute. You do have the right to resell, but that means giving up what you originally bought.
      EVERY SINGLE THING a record studio does can be done more efficiently with commodity hardware, software, and communications
      Except the manufacture of boybands and trendy pop stars. That is what the recording industry is surviving on now, possibly because those of us that want better (real) music can find it from independent artists that give away their music for free. That's what keeps the music industry awake at night.
      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    8. Re:*sigh* by Deagol · · Score: 1
      But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal.

      You sure about that? I'd love it if it were true, but I'm skeptical about this.

    9. Re:*sigh* by GospelHead821 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that people are demonstrating that the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that the music isn't worth paying for. Certainly, I would say that is unfair to the music industry. It's two-faced to claim on one hand that the music industry isn't producing anything of value and then claiming on the other hand that you want as much of it as you can get for free. From the standpoint of economics, people aren't strictly "honest." They're out to get the most utility from their money. According to economics, even if the music industry is producing something of value, if it's available for free, people will take it for free. Obviously neither of the extrema: economics or idealism, are going to correctly describe the system. Consumers will tend to err on the side of idealism, because it benefits them more, while the industry is going to try to err on the side of economics, since it benefits them more.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    10. Re:*sigh* by Theatetus · · Score: 1

      To parent and uncle poster, yes, I am sure it is legal to give away or resell a CD you bought. You do not have to give up any backup media you created when you do that. What you can't do is give away the copy you made. Remember, it's not like software: you're not licensing anything. You're buying recording media holding some content with legal limitations on the content's redistribution.

      Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's copyright law as it now stands.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    11. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Laws are meant to protect CITIZENS not CORPORATIONS"

      Ah! but you have to understand that, according to the law (for example: Louisville R. R. v. Letson -- 1844), a corporation IS a citizen! The railroads lobbied for and got this judgement passed back in the 1800s and corporations have run completely amok since then.

    12. Re:*sigh* by Vindicator9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      sorta like how Red Hat produces something of value that's available for free, and then has the audacity to expect to make money off of it?

      There's so many ways that the RIAA could shift its business model to make a killing off of file sharing, and they have instead chosen to not move with the times. They deserve what all organizations deserve that fall behind the times: bankruptcy.

    13. Re:*sigh* by Deagol · · Score: 1
      So let me get this straight... If I sell my 350-cd collection to Second Spin for, say, $1050 (based on a $3 per cd average), but keep my FLAC archives of said CDs, that's perfectly legal?

      Well I'll be damned.

      I've got a new plan for aquiring music: 1) Purchase used CDs from Second Spin (no money to the RIAA); 2) rip and save in lossless format; 3) sell CD back to local used CD chain (or a friend). The net result is a perfect copy of the music for little or no money.

      Tell me again how this is legal? Simply because I own the physical media of my backups and there's no requirement for me to destroy it?

      So how about ripping copies of rental DVDs? Gotta make sure my kids don't scratch those fragile DVDs. :)

    14. Re:*sigh* by cnkeller · · Score: 1

      Good post; points if I had 'em.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    15. Re:*sigh* by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a piracy problem? Too fucking bad. Like it or not, black markets are 'market realities' that reflect problems in the product being "pirated".

      Hardly. In the case of music, this "black market" as you call it, reflects, more than anything else, an undeniable disregard for the property rights of others, as well as out-and-out laziness on the part of consumers. If you want it to change, MAKE it change. There are perfectly legitimate ways to do this that are perfectly legal. Oh....but they require something that few Americans seem to have these days - DISCIPLINE.

      "No new music for a few months???? Oh, but how will I EVER survive???"

      In the grand scheme of things, this is the epitome of "trite". If all the people constantly whining about the RIAA, the price of CDs, and the general quality of music would engage the market and let it work for them, we'd be talking an entirely different ballgame.

      Right now, legally, the RIAA has the upper hand, and will continue to seek every opportunity to protect its interests (and it has every right to do so). The only indisputable, absolute power had be every consumer is the control they have over their wallet. USE IT!

    16. Re:*sigh* by Rinikusu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And here's something else: The RIAA/MPAA aren't BLEEDING Money out of their ass. No, they're still making MILLIONS, but their profits are DOWN. They're not "losing money", but are instead profiting less. People are still buying overpriced CD's by the metric-ton, just not in the volume that the industry is accustomed to.

      One of the things that peeved me about a company I worked for was a reduction in employee benefits. The company was in a tighter position than usual, but they were still profitable. They announced the reduction of benefits and payscale freezes because they wanted to show "higher profits" on the books, to enhance share value. Now, 2 years later, the company isn't quite at what they were in the late 90s during the tech boom (who is?), but they are still making a great deal of money and.. they have not restored the employee benefits they "took away". It's not that the employee has a "right" to those benefits, mind you, but it's really shitty for a company to use a declining economy to reduce employee benefits, and then when it's recovered to fails to reinstitute those benefits. It's basically that scenario that reinforced my recently discovered cynicism regarding employment: Fuck them before they fuck me. But that's another topic..

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    17. Re:*sigh* by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks to me like the RIAA is running credit reports BEFORE deciding who to sue, so they get people who have some money, but not enough to mount a serious legal defense.

      If you don't think so, explain how they managed to randomly pick four college students to sue, all with more than $10,000 in the bank -- a very rare thing among college students. If the RIAA had actually picked any four *random* filesharing or server-running students, and not vetted out their assets first, chances are the students would have had a combined net worth of under $1000.

      So no, I don't buy that the RIAA doesn't know in advance what your *financial* odds are =before= they file a lawsuit. Conversely, I *do* believe that they don't actually know if you're a filesharer or not.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:*sigh* by brianosaurus · · Score: 1

      I would have to disagree with your premise, though if you modify it slightly it would be true:

      People are demonstrating that the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that not all of the music is worth what they are currently charging for it.

      The success of the iTunes Music Store, and others, show that when the price is right, people will buy.

      Skip that. Current CD sales show that people are still buying lots and lots and lots of CDs. Look at the Billboard charts. CDs are still selling like mad. The RIAA's own statistics show that the decrease in sales corresponds with the recession and a reduction in the number of new releases. They are engineering their own "losses" in order to make it appear that there is a problem.

      I have no problem paying a fair price for a CD. I do have a problem buying products from companies who treat me like a criminal with no justification.

      --
      blog
    19. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more subtlety in the problem than that. What the music industry produces has value--that cannot be reasonably argued against.

      But there are TWO arguments being made against the music industry.

      The first argument is that the value of the product is less than the cost of the product. This explains why people won't pay for music (cost is higher than market value), but they will download it for free (less than market value). Some argue that if the music industry priced their products at closer to the actual market value, there would not be so much downloading. I'm not saying that's a correct argument, I'm just stating the position.

      The second argument is entirely different, and entirely valid. Consumers have been used to having certain rights with their media (the right to make backups, the right to change media format, the right to time-shift time-scheduled media, the right to use short samples, and the right to lend or resell their media, among others) Now, they are being told that they no longer have any of these rights, and they are upset. All of these rights could apply to media in a digital form (although lending and reselling can only reasonably be expected to apply to original media, not copies), but they don't (at least in the US). This argument is that if consumers actually had the same rights they had ten years ago, much of this "piracy" would have to be recategorized as "fair use", and the "piracy problem" would evaporate, much as the "bootlegging problem" evaporated when Prohibition ended (people still drank, it just stopped being illegal)

    20. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your comment for the most part, but I'd like to make a little statement. The definition of "limited" in adjective form doesn't just mean not unlimit, regardless of how it's often perceived to be taken. In all rational senses, the human race will almost certainly end at some point and the current system of laws will no longer exist if nothing else because of our sun dying. So, taking to the broad stance of not unlimited as the real meaning of unlimited would allow for perpetual copyright extension or even a law that states unlimited copyright.

      The more sane definition of limited however is specifies as "small in range or scope". Now, given that the average life expectancy of humans in most developed countries is around the 76-77 year range, about half the populace born at the moment of a copyright work's creation will be dead prior to a copyright going public domain, as things stand. I don't see how a lifetime for most people could be seen at all as a limited span of time. So, I would claim that copyright as it stands is unconstitutional, so piracy can't even occur because there is no legal law to cover it.

    21. Re:*sigh* by JayBlalock · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?

      Yes. Absolutely. It is THEIR responsibility. Period.

      Filing baseless lawsuits is very much illegal. That cases *continue* to crop up where they're suing people who have nothing to do with piracy pretty much proves A)that they are NOT fulfilling their legal obligations to investigate the cases before launching, and B)that apparently they don't really care.

      There is a word for what they're doing, and it is "barratry." A barratry suit hasn't been brought in a long time, but they are quickly proving themselves to be a perfect target of one. The *first* time it was conclusively shown that they had targetted an innocent party, it became their legal responsibility to overhaul their method of detecting pirates. Which they, from all evidence, have not done.

      They may be within their legal right to protect their copyrights, but they are *NOT* in their legal right to harass and\or blackmail innocent citizens with threats of legal action, because they cannot be bothered to actually investigate the lawsuits they're filing. And if they are unable to investigate their cases prior to suing, then too bad for them - the rights of the citizenry to not be blackmailed by overeager corporations outweighs the RIAA's right to a slightly higher profit margin. Period.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    22. Re:*sigh* by luisdom · · Score: 1

      only a small handful of comments that actual advocate it.
      Like this:
      I don't buy music, and I "steal" it. Well, I really would "steal" it if there was something worth "stealing". I'm exercising civil disobedience, because I don't agree with most laws in my country (and in your country, if you are in the US) regarding copyright. Because they force me to abide by the law but not them. They price-fix, they commit every kind of illegal monopolistic action without me-the-society being compensated.
      So I call to civil disobedience because is the most harming (for them) way of sending the message that current laws are not right. And if you think of it, it is just a mini-revolution: we are being opressed by our government and have to get rid of that opression.
      And no, I don't want "free lunch". I only pay for what is worth to me, and if it is expensive, I don't get it even if I want it and could steal it: a canon ixus v3 or a tungsten t3, for example ;)

    23. Re:*sigh* by RALE007 · · Score: 1
      You do know they just sent out notices to a whole bunch of people they saw sharing illegally, right? Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?

      Just incase you're not being sarcastic, uh, yes?

      --
      Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    24. Re:*sigh* by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Maybe if the music industry had a product worth paying for, people would buy it.

      Well, they do have a product worth paying for. Just not worth paying what they want to charge.

      Even at used-CD prices ($10/CD), music is way more expensive than video.

      I just bought a season of babylon 5 (brand new, shipped, from Amazon) for $55. That's over 15 hours of video, on a half-dozen DVDs. I couldn't get that much music for that price. I couldn't even get that many CDs for that price.

      The extended edition LotR:TTT is about $30 shipped or local. That's almost 4 hours of video for the main movie, plus hours and hours of bonus footage, for less than the price of the movie's worth of music.

      I challenge anyone to come up with a valid reason why audio CDs cost so much more than video DVDs. So either DVDs are horribly underpriced (and I don't see movie studios going out of business right and left here), or CDs are horribly overpriced. The value/price of a CD is miniscule these days - it's amazing the recording industry is doing as well as they are.

    25. Re:*sigh* by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I don't get why Slashdot advocates the piracy of music while in general decrying, say, software piracy."

      It's because you're missing the point. Slashdot isn't advocating piracy of music. They're not even advocating free music. What they want is compressed music in digital form. The Record Industry has fought that kicking and screaming instead of making a business of it like a company that responds to supply & demand would do. Your first hint about the Slashdot Community's motives here should have been iTunes. Slashdot's advocating piracy, but thinks iTunes is great? You should have caught that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    26. Re:*sigh* by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal.

      Right.

      if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal.

      Wrong.

      Fair use allows backup copies. When you give away or sell the origional copy, those mp3s are no longer backup copies, and therefor they are infringing.

      It's extremely unlikely that you will ever get caught, but that doesn't make it legal.

      I'll be perfectly honest that I support "pirating" music (though I've never done it) because *anything* that makes big record studios lose money is GOOD.

      Piracy (in the modern sense) isn't punishment, it's support. By pirating and sharing those files you are increasing the mindshare owned by that product, which increases its popularity, and therefore its profitability. The "Record Industry" is largely a marketing operation, and you're doing their work for them for free. Not even for free, really, since at any time they can sue you, effectively making you pay them for the privilege of doing their work for them.

      Hopefully you can see my point. It occured to me with regards to Microsoft, and I think it's easier illustrated in that context, but the same principle applies to any abusive copyright holder. Essentially the problem is: how do you break the monopoly stranglehold MS has on the software industry by giving their product away for free? You can't. If anyone can get the same software "everyone else is using" for free, why would they bother considering alternatives? By pirating MS Office you aren't "sticking it to the Man", you're actively perpetuating his regime.

      Think about it.

      If you want to affect change, the only way to do it is by supporting the bands/labels/companies that do things the way you think they should, and NOT supporting, in any way, the status quo. Don't be the "punk" who rails against the "evil corporations" while sucking down 2 packs of cigarettes a day.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    27. Re:*sigh* by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      First of all it's not *their* copyrighted works. Those copyrights belong to the artists or possibly the record companies.

      Second of all, they're not staying within their legal rights, and that's what this article was about (at least I don't think they have the right to grant themselves an exception, even if they go through "proper channels"). If you bothered to RTFA or maybe comprehend-TFA instead of trolling you'd know this.

    28. Re:*sigh* by GospelHead821 · · Score: 1

      I agree entirely with the second point. Rights that we once enjoyed have been taken away and it is indeed, very upsetting.

      I'm not so sure about the first point, though. Your argument rests on the "market value" of a good. The market value of a song of which an MP3 exists is zero. The marginal cost of that song is zero, so the necessary sale price of the song is zero (by economic theory, the profit maximizing cost of a good is the marginal cost of that good). If music can be reproduced for free, then it is valueless, economically speaking. So yes, the sale price of the music is greater than the market value - and as long as the industry tries to sell the music for a non-zero price, this will remain true. It is because of this econonic truth that it is unfair to insist that music companies lower the price of music to its market value.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    29. Re:*sigh* by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      That would be a great idea were it not for the fact that your credit report does not reveal your bank accounts, much less their balances.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    30. Re:*sigh* by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      Tell me again how this is legal? Simply because I own the physical media of my backups and there's no requirement for me to destroy it?

      Yes, that's exactly why. You own the physical media of your backups, and there is no requirement for you to destroy its contents.

      Does it sound unreasonable or illogical that the legality of giving you a CD depends on whether it was the copy or the original? It does to me, but that's still how the law stands.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    31. Re:*sigh* by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      Fair use allows backup copies. When you give away or sell the origional copy, those mp3s are no longer backup copies, and therefor they are infringing.

      That would make more sense, wouldn't it?

      However, that's not how copyright works. Copyright only matters when the actual reproduction occurs. A later change of ownership of the original media does not retroactively change the legality of a given copy. That works both ways -- if I duplicate a CD without authorization and then by the CD later, the earlier copy doesn't magically become legal.

      Don't look for common sense in copyright...

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    32. Re:*sigh* by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Movies make a run through theaters. While not all of them are blockbusters that rake in massive quantities of dough, the majority of them pull enough money in to recoup production costs as well as at least modest profit. The DVD sales, despite marketing and production costs of their own, are, for the most part, gravy.

      Music sales are a bit different. There is no theater run. There are just CDs. That is the record company's only chance to recoup production costs and make a profit. I won't even bring up profits for the musicians or concerts, since that's a whole different can of worms.

      Something is wrong with this system. But it will not be fixed anytime soon. Clowngress has different priorities than the voters it represents. Hell, most of the voters are not all that enlightened about the real issues. They get their information from television, i.e. the entertainment industry.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    33. Re:*sigh* by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I meant by "perpetual". Not the literal sense, but the de facto sense. The point of copyright was (and should be) to allow the creator control for a short time. That allows them to be sufficiently compensated for their work, and allows the public to build from their work with minimal delay. As it stands now, copyright laws impede progress rather than promote it. Sure, there's incentives to create new works, but there's a huge barrier against developing someone else's ideas further.

    34. Re:*sigh* by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      And if you think of it, it is just a mini-revolution: we are being opressed by our government and have to get rid of that opression.

      When was the last time you contacted any of your Congressmen about the problems you perceive in the system, and provided a solution?

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    35. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tactics were just as much extortion for the other hundreds of people they threatened to sue, too. Fuck the RIAA, and fuck YOU if you think that by virtue of their monopoly they are immune to righteous bitching of the people about their mafia tactics.

    36. Re:*sigh* by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?
      well, if i was trying to catch someone in an illegal act, i'd definately make sure i was correct in accusing them. Otherwise, i'd expect a countersuit. so would i expect them to make sure they accused guilty people, no. In fact, i hope they start sending out more and more blanket notices like this. It only makes them look worse in the eyes of the public, and eventually they'll try to sue someone with alot of spare time, money, legal ability and hopefully innocence.

    37. Re:*sigh* by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Copyright only matters when the actual reproduction occurs. A later change of ownership of the original media does not retroactively change the legality of a given copy.

      Wrong.

      USC 17, Ch 1, Sec 117:

      it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: ...
      that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.


      If you sell or give away the origional your continued posession is no longer rightful, and your back-up copies must be destroyed. Failure to do so is an infringement of copyright.

      In the next paragraph it says you may opt to sell your back-ups along with the origional rather than destroy them, but you may not retain them.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    38. Re:*sigh* by cooldev · · Score: 1

      So I call to civil disobedience because is the most harming (for them) way of sending the message that current laws are not right....And no, I don't want "free lunch".

      Curious. In years seeing this argument rehashed here and on other sites, it still seems like the primary issue people have with copyright is that they can't have everything for free. You know, the crazy idea that intellectual property has value. The crazy idea that if I create something I own it.

      Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not going away any time soon, no matter how much you steal. (I wonder if car thieves steal because they are opposed to automobile manufacturers' business practices. Anybody know? :P)

      There are tons of legitimate complaints about the RIAA, MPAA, and others, but when you violate their copyright you just look like an immature criminal. When you put your money elsewhere -- independent companies and legal alternative distribution schemes -- you're twice as effective: you hit them where it hurts without looking like a criminal and giving them additional ammunition, and you give resources to alternatives so they can grow to legally challenge the status quo.

    39. Re:*sigh* by natet · · Score: 1

      Ok, before you rant, you really ought to read the stories they link to. Perhaps you could learn something.

      It wasn't a 66 year old man, it was a 66 year old grandma that couldn't possibly have been guilty because she only owns a mac, and the software the RIAA accused her of using doesn't have a mac version, only a windows version. So they didn't even take the time to make sure they had correct information before they began to throw accusations around. That my friend is libel!

      --
      IANAL... But I play one on /.
    40. Re:*sigh* by Theatetus · · Score: 1
      all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

      This is why I distinguished between music and computer software upthread. Computer software enjoys additional copyright protections beyond that given to other content of electronic media.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    41. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have checked your spelling before posting. It's spelt M-O-N-E-Y, not D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E.

      That's how you change laws, not this silly idea of capitalism. If you stop buying their stuff, then they don't make their profit targets, and their stock goes down.. Is that what you really want?

    42. Re:*sigh* by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.

      It's not manufacturing new crimes. The civil prosecution of people who appropriate and distribute unauthorized copies of music is not a crime, it's a civil wrong for which their is a civil penalty: getting sued in court, even if you are only 12 years old. There are criminal prosecutions for violating copyright, but these are few and far between. All of the people getting sued by RIAA are getting sued civilly, and are not being prosecuted for allegedly committing a crime.

      You are certainly correct about the moral aspect of all this. It doesn't feel wrong to listen to music for free, when you can listen to it on the radio for free - especially when RIAA consists almost entirely of shady corporations whose only "value added" benefit to artists is the marketing clout from their unholy alliance with FM radio and MTV/VH1/etc.

      But that has nothing to do with the law. What is happening to the music industry is that technological progress has made the production of perfect copies very easy, and in the hands of anyone with a computer. The music industry is floundering, because the means of distribution is out of their control.

      This, however, does not change the law, and even 12 year old children can be sued for "stealing" music in roughly the same way that they can be sued for shoplifting.

      The point of all this is that instead of pretending that copying music is legal, act to change the law. That's what the industry is doing - trying to change the law to benefit it. What we should be doing is to our best to prevent this from happening, and to change the law.

      Because the means of distribution of music is now up for grabs, the only thing the labels have going for it is marketing clout. The way to defeat them, once and for all, is to break the alliance of the music industry and radio. If we can prevent the industry from using their influence in what gets played on the radio to dictate to us what music is cool to listen to, artists and consumers will be freed from the shackles of RIAA.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    43. Re:*sigh* by kaltkalt · · Score: 1

      "piracy" is a loaded term, as 'wrongful' and 'illegal' are built in to its definition. Listening to music without being extorted money is the way I interpret what you call "piracy."

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    44. Re:*sigh* by Eristone · · Score: 1

      Right now, legally, the RIAA has the upper hand, and will continue to seek every opportunity to protect its interests (and it has every right to do so). The only indisputable, absolute power had be every consumer is the control they have over their wallet. USE IT!

      The problem with this part is that the RIAA is using the fact that people are voting with their wallets to say that piracy is up and P2P networks are evil and should be destroyed. Music sales are down? It has to be people getting things off Kaztilla instead of going to the store to buy it. And the whole economy/unemployment thing can't have anything to do with sales slacking.

    45. Re:*sigh* by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Oh, jeeze -- thank you.

      There have been groups (probably still are) that lobby to have this case overturned/reconsidered/new-legislation created.

      This one case has lead to so many problems in the USA -- repeal this, and re-balance your nation.

    46. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you forgot radio. Music has the equivilant to the theater (that it is not a profitable is their fault, they are using it as advertising . . .)

    47. Re:*sigh* by BelugaParty · · Score: 1

      Obviously, when a company creates a product (in this case a CD) it is the companies responsibility to make sure that the market they want to reach can support the price both of production and the subsequent markup they assign (the record industry is notorious for inflating the value of cd's as well as inflating cost of production sales etc...). If a consumer doesn't think a CD is worth $9-14 then the product doesn't sell. The market has shown that it will pay smaller fee's for less bloat and more music (singles of various artists) through iTunes.

    48. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want what is inherantly free to be free, this is simply logically consistent. If copyright law was reasonable, (~20 years, no exceptions) there waould not be such a problem.

      I do not think that it should all be free, but that would be a better solution than the current one (~100 years and counting)

    49. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take my car, I don't have a car. If you take a copy of my car, I have a car, you have a car, hey wealth has been generated, everyone's better off. Intellectual property makes NO macroeconomic sense.

    50. Re:*sigh* by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      wasn't a 66 year old man, it was a 66 year old grandma that couldn't possibly have been guilty because she only owns a mac, and the software the RIAA accused her of using doesn't have a mac version, only a windows version

      To but to bed this fallacy once and for all, there IS software available for the mac to enable sharing on the Kazaa network. It is conceivable that she could have this software installed under Mac OSX (wether she did it or a visiting child did it).

      THe OpenSource movement on slashdot should know that when there is a lack of software available, something always pops up soon.

    51. Re:*sigh* by El · · Score: 1

      I've noticed another phenomenon in music. CDs can range from about 30 minutes to 80 minutes of music... and yet Tower Records et. al. still charge $18.99 for each CD! This poses an ethical dilemna for musicians: assuming they have 60 to 80 minutes worth of tracks in the can, should they release 1 80 minute CD or 2 40 minute CDs and make twice as much money? It's suprising how many artists are still releasing 30-40 minute CDs when they can fit 80 minutes...

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    52. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My reasons are very emotional rather than rational. Sure we could debate all day long
      the nuances of IP law, capitalism, value, markets
      and so on. I've been over it all countless times and I have my own well considered position whatever its merits.

      However, fact is that the RIAA made an enemy of me. Their behaviour has led me to the simple conclusion that they are evil, nasty minded, greedy little scumbags. That impression wont go away anytime soon.

      Its more than simple pro-piracy.
      Every day I encourage friends and strangers to pirate music, sure. More importantly I actively direct people to alternative music, non-RIAA material. But I would do anything I could personally to contribute to the downfall of the current record companies status quo. I used to enjoy music but it has mainly sucked for the last 10 years.

      We need to clear out the deadwood to begin again afresh. Imagine what the *real* music market would be like with choice and independent small outfits again.

    53. Re:*sigh* by jimsum · · Score: 1

      A possible reason: Volume.

      If CDs sell in much lower quantities than DVDs, you need to make a higher profit per disk to pay for the production (and marketing) costs.

      --
      -- Pot is safer than Beer
    54. Re:*sigh* by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      That is the record company's only chance to recoup production costs and make a profit.

      Actually, most artist contracts state that the ARTIST has to pay the recording costs.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    55. Re:*sigh* by Peaker · · Score: 1

      but when you violate their copyright you just look like an immature criminal.

      But people don't care what they "look" like, at least not when they're copying music.

      People just don't believe in the morality of the copyright laws, and don't believe that it is practically changable in the politic situation these days.

      Continuously violating copyright has the potential of finally killing it, and many see this as a very fortune outcome.

    56. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How may times have you watched 'The Matrix' vs. listened to 'OK Computer'? Substitute personal favorites and evaluate again.

      I can stand to listen to many albums (songs whatever) maybe five times in a month. Every month.

      I can't concieve of watching a favorite movie more than twice in a month. Maybe even twice ever.

      I suspect many people have a similar relative tolerance for repetition. Maybe a CD, despite having less content by any measure that excludes repetition tolerability has more value than a DVD. Yet consumers value them differently than I propose. Clearly there are many factors involved in the aggregate consumer's concept of value.

      I considered including a personal list of value factors, but a list is tedious and raises the question of factor weighting. Also, it seems that probably my list and weighting matter only to me, and the list and weighting of the aggregate consumer matter only to the content marketers.
      In the many gaps between aggregate and individual value metrics lie the reasons that a fraction of potential customers is permanently elusive. Criminalizing the application of these reasons is unlikely to increase sales significantly.

    57. Re:*sigh* by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh huh. And soundtrack CD's cost almost as much as the DVD that contains the soundtrack AND the film...why?

      DVDs are a great deal. You get a lot of entertainment for not a whole lot of money. CDs are an awful deal. Why do the record companies pretend this is not the case?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    58. Re:*sigh* by luisdom · · Score: 1

      In Spain we have a public forum in the Senate where you can rant about anything... and they say that some senators even read it!
      The problem is that in my country political parties are more important that in yours, and they practice voting discipline. Which means that when you join a party it seems that you loose all opinions (at least publically) and you are not allowed to disagree to the official opinion. Which leads to reduce the direct influence of a politician you convince. Indirectly the influence affects the opinion of the whole. But it is very dissapointing to find that something a congressman has said to you is not applied in the end (and this has happened to me -in a conference at a lan party, BTW-).

    59. Re:*sigh* by luisdom · · Score: 1

      Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not going away any time soon, no matter how much you steal. (I wonder if car thieves steal because they are opposed to automobile manufacturers' business practices. Anybody know? :P)
      It's not that is a bubble that I have. Again, I don't want free lunch. And I'm not stealing, I'm infringing copyright. The analogy with cars would be that I steal a cd to the manufacturer (or particular), which is not exactly the same. And I don't see it as a correct behaviour in general; but think of some tea that was thrown to the sea... was it good or bad behaviour?

    60. Re:*sigh* by Solandri · · Score: 1
      according to the law (for example: Louisville R. R. v. Letson -- 1844), a corporation IS a citizen! The railroads lobbied for and got this judgement passed back in the 1800s and corporations have run completely amok since then.

      IMHO the perfect way to counterbalance this is to take the laws that limit campaign contributions by people, and apply it to corporations. If some company or PAC wants to donate half a million to some politician, then they can't be considered a citizen. If they want to be considered a citizen, then they can be limited to $2000/yr like the rest of us voting citizens.

    61. Re:*sigh* by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge Sec 117 is the only section of USC 17 that allows for back-up copies at all (feel free to prove me wrong). Although it specifically says "computer program", it was referenced to by an RIAA lawyer in an interview I read a while back while describing what was legal to do with copyrighted songs and what wasn't. According to his interpretation, Sec 117 allows you to make "back-up" copies for time-, space, or media-shifting (copy CD for use in the car, copy LP to CD, rip to mp3, etc) as long as you retain ownership of the origional, but that these copies are the same as an archival copy of software in that it is for personal use and must be destroyed in the event of a transfer of ownership of the origional copy.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    62. Re:*sigh* by 555-5555 · · Score: 0

      a comment about red hat they earned consumer respect before charging for their product still offer it for free and give you something worth having (tech support) when you pay for it huge difference

    63. Re:*sigh* by JamieF · · Score: 1

      CDs sell in vastly higher quantity than DVDs. See this article - in the second table it shows that in 2001, 906 million CDs shipped, compared with 7.9 million DVDs.

      As for per-work shipments (how many copies of a given CD vs. how many copies of a given DVD), that's harder to find. Anybody got a good source of data on this?

    64. Re:*sigh* by GreenKiwi · · Score: 1

      I challenge anyone to come up with a valid reason why audio CDs cost so much more than video DVDs. So either DVDs are horribly underpriced (and I don't see movie studios going out of business right and left here), or CDs are horribly overpriced. The value/price of a CD is miniscule these days - it's amazing the recording industry is doing as well as they are.

      Simple. The CD is of more value to you. You will use it more... how many times do you actually watch a DVD? How many times will you listen to a CD?

      For most people I know, they will happily listen over an over to a CD... many times in a week or month. They generally don't watch moves over and over and over.

    65. Re:*sigh* by tambo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ah! but you have to understand that, according to the law (for example: Louisville R. R. v. Letson -- 1844), a corporation IS a citizen! The railroads lobbied for and got this judgement passed back in the 1800s and corporations have run completely amok since then.

      Then I vote that we hold them accountable just as you would citizens.

      If you, an individual, steal from people, you are removed from society temporarily - you go to jail. Corporations that steal from their employees, customers, shareholders, or the government should be barred from the marketplace for a set number of years.

      If you, an individual, steal a lot and repeatedly, or if you commit really heinous crimes, you will be removed from society permanently - either permanent incarceration or the death penalty. Corporations that prove hideously offensive should be dissolved.

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is nonsensical that if you walk into a Walgreens with a gun and score $5 off the cash register, you can be imprisoned for like 15 years - but if you perpetrate white-collar fraud on a massive scale and steal $5 billion from America, the maximum penalty is like five years. If you don't just get off with a fine, that is.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
    66. Re:*sigh* by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Actually, most artist contracts state that the ARTIST has to pay the recording costs.

      And this payment comes in the form of an advance payment from, guess who? The record company. In the end it all comes from the same pot of money.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    67. Re:*sigh* by JamieF · · Score: 1

      >I'll be perfectly honest that I support "pirating" music (though I've never done it)
      >because *anything* that makes big record studios lose money is GOOD.

      Really? Tyler Durden has some ideas for you.

      >EVERY SINGLE THING a record studio does can be done more efficiently with
      >commodity hardware, software, and communications.

      Anybody who has ever recorded music on a PC knows differently. Consumer / hobbyist grade != professional grade. The junk that comes bundled with a PC is suitable for demos and teenage garage bands only. Even for a home studio built around a PC, it's normal to buy all sorts of equipment to replace or augment the commodity crap that's built into the PC. Nobody would just take the little bitty condenser mic and plug it into their sound card and expect that to sound good. That's why stuff like the AudioBuddy exists.

      There's a reason that musicians record through really expensive microphones in sound isolation booths into expensive consoles manned by highly trained recording engineers. It ain't tradition.

    68. Re:*sigh* by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      The crazy idea that if I create something I own it.

      That's the problem that most people don't realize. Nobody owns an idea. You might be the first to come up with it, but that doesn't mean you own it. However, if there was no protection of your idea, there's little incentive for you to make it public, hence hindering progress. On the other hand, if you had perpetual control of the idea then only you can decide how it's used and could (a) keep it from ever being used, or (b) keep others from developing it further. This also hinders progress.

      The point of copyright law is to give you (most) control of your idea for a limited time so that you can exploit it if you wish, but then it must be made public so that others can develop it further. The "most" refers to the fact it's been recognized there is a need to allow some uses outside of your control, known as fair uses.

      These goals have been violated by current copyright law. It now impedes progress, and in the case of the DMCA even is de facto removal of other public rights such as fair use.

      So, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's generally not an issue of getting stuff for free. Your concept of idea ownership is the problem. It's the same concept that industry has, and unfortunately is the direction that the government is going. The other main problem is the propaganda that copyright infringement is "stealing", another poor concept you seem to have.

      There are two things that will likely make the copyright infringements effectively disappear -- fix the copyright laws to be fair to artist and consumers, rather than for maximizing company profits, and change the business model for developing, marketing, and selling music. Right now the model is to sign artists, sell them services (recording, promoting, managing, etc.), and overcharge the consumer to make up for losses on these services for most artists.

    69. Re:*sigh* by alex_ant · · Score: 0

      I know it's very unfashionable to say a thing like this in a place like this, but here goes: The music industry DOES publish a LOT of product that's worth paying for. Like the back catalogs of scads of legendary musical acts of all genres from the Beatles to Bob Marley to Run DMC to whatever else. Now maybe one will be too trendy and hip to admit liking any of this music - "pfft, I only listen to independent underground electronic music" or whatever. Fine. That's great. So, you do that, and simply don't take what isn't yours (RIAA music). How hard can this be to fathom. If you don't like the RIAA's music, and you think the RIAA is going to go down in flames any day now because of it's horrible, archaic, stupid, contemptuous business model, fine - let it. But no matter what you think of the RIAA's business model, or its product, that doesn't give you a right to illegally, immorally infringe upon its copyright.

      "But," you protest, "when I buy something from the RIAA, I'm not supporting the artist anyway because the RIAA takes all the money for itself and screws the artist over and when I steal music, er uh share music, I'm helping to rescue the innocent virtuous artist from the grasp of the oppressive corporate overlords." Well, I'm sorry, but the artist should not have signed such a shitty contract. When you sign with the RIAA, you will be granting the RIAA rights over your work. It's as simple as that. Don't want that, don't sign. Nobody is putting a gun to your head. "But I can't play the Staples Center if I don't sign because Clearchannel won't let me!" Boo hoo. Don't support stupid artists!!!

      (By the way. There is a sentiment in the slashdot community that "copyright is only copyright. It's not anywhere near as serious as theft, because the RIAA doesn't actually LOSE anything when I 'steal' a song." Well, actually, under the law, copyright infringement is typically treated more harshly than theft, and rightly so, especially in a digital medium where a single person's copyright violation can lead to mass flawless duplication of product.)

    70. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      In the case of music, this "black market" as you call it, reflects, more than anything else, an undeniable disregard for the property rights [emphasis added]

      I stopped reading your post after that. Nobody who continues to make the bogus claim that "copyright" equals "property rights" (and that "copyright infringement" equals "theft") -- even though that claim has been thoroughly debunked on numerous occasions -- is worth my time.

      Copyright is nothing more than legalized monopoly designed to prevent publishers from screwing authors. Today, authors can publish their own material, publishers are increasingly becoming unnecessary, and copyright is being touted as a property right.

    71. Re:*sigh* by alex_ant · · Score: 0

      The RIAA isn't a corporation, it's an association of corporations. The RIAA can't "go bankrupt" unless all of its members do. Yes the RIAA could shift its business model, maybe it actually even should. I hope you didn't mean to suggest though that the RIAA's "stupid business model" is adequate moral grounds for mass copyright violation.

    72. Re:*sigh* by Dwonis · · Score: 1
      In your post, if you replace "idea" with "information", or replace "copyright" with "patent", then I think it would be more accurate.

      Patents are monopolies on ideas. Copyrights are monopolies on information (data).

    73. Re:*sigh* by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      They pay the advance and then they get it back. They can only lose it if the release sells poorly AND the artist declares bankruptcy. Don't tell me the record companies can't afford to LOAN money.

      So really, what other expenses are they paying for? CD fabrication costs MUCH less than it did. Not a whole lot in the cd case anymore. Only other thing is distribution. Most contracts have the ARTIST paying for the promotional stuff as well.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    74. Re:*sigh* by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      The 14th amendment requires states to grant all citizens equal protection of the law; the federal government can discriminate all it wants.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    75. Re:*sigh* by puppet10 · · Score: 1

      and dont forget the record companies are trying to make it impossible for the artist to declare bankruptcy.

      (i havent been keeping up on whether theyve succeeded at this goal yet or not though)

      --
      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------
    76. Re:*sigh* by cooldev · · Score: 1

      Continuously violating copyright has the potential of finally killing it, and many see this as a very fortune outcome.

      Nah, by the time people grow up enough to have enough influence, enough of them wake up to realize that IP has value and that copyright provides incentive to create new IP.

    77. Re:*sigh* by BeerSlurpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, protest against it by leaving the company for a better paying job. The best way to punish companies like this is for them to see their best and brightest jump ship. Even if this happens on a "small" scale, it can stil have an enormous impact on productivity and profitability. The phenomenon of turnover is much more expensive than the mere cost of the lost productivity while they find a replacement.

      I cant count the number of companies in this country that are mired in mediocrity because they insist on paying all their employees bottom dollar and having shitty performance metrics. All the crappy employees work just hard enough not to get fired and dont mind the mediocre pay because its about what they deserve anyway. The good employees who deserve more just hop around until they find someone smart enough to recognize their value and make use of it.

    78. Re:*sigh* by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Maybe not, but you can get a damned good idea of how much money someone *probably* has, and I know some banks are not all that "private" about your account info. At this point I think it's up to the RIAA to prove that they're NOT scanning account balance info prior to issuing a legal hit (given the beyond-coincidence of four students with over-average worth).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    79. Re:*sigh* by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      But you don't have the right to make the copy in the first place. The backup right refers to Software doesn't it? And I doubt if music is software.

      You're buying recording media holding some content with legal limitations on the content's redistribution

      No, limitations on copying. That's why its called copyright. Limitations on distribution are usually contained in Licences (like some commercial software). The limitations might be total or they might be mere requirements that all the software and packaging etc must be transferred.

    80. Re:*sigh* by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      Patents are monopolies on ideas. Copyrights are monopolies on information (data).

      There's a problem of semantics here. A song is not "data" or "information". It is the structure of the song or written work that you have a copyright on, not the information in it. You can present the same information from a book without violating copyright if you present it in a different structure (i.e., put it in your own words). Similarly, writing down and selling a transcription of a song (without permission) still violates the copyright because it's the same "idea" in a different medium, even though the "data" is different.

      By "idea", I meant the idea of how to structure or organize the information, which is what is really copyrighted.

    81. Re:*sigh* by jimsum · · Score: 1

      I think DVD sales are vastly higher than 7.9 million. I read an article that Finding Nemo sold 15 million copies in two weeks. Maybe your figures are for music DVD's; not all DVD's.

      --
      -- Pot is safer than Beer
    82. Re:*sigh* by Vindicator9000 · · Score: 1
      When saying RIAA, I really meant RIAA members. I shall specify in the future.

      I wasn't suggesting that mass copyright violation is right, only that it is happenning, and there's very little way to end it without infringing upon peoples' rights to make legitimate, legal copies. I was trying to make the point that, rather than alienate their customers by pursuing the HUGELY unpopular lawsuits (as well as locking down legitimate copies, and shutting down services that have other legit uses), the RIAA members should instead look at shifting their business model to one that's more sustainable over the long term, and that they should look to companies that have been successful using similar business models.

      Of course Red Hat makes you pay for tech support. That's something that people can't pirate. They're giving away what they have little copy control over, and building their business on what they can control. The RIAA members should learn from this.

    83. Re:*sigh* by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Precisely my point. If there were no piracy, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But there is, so it does.

      I doubt that lawmakers are going to engage themselves in trying to ascertain whether or not unlawful activity is "really" having the stated economic impact on the injured party- no matter how you look at it, the music belongs to the RIAA, and it is they who will set the terms for its consumption. Don't like the terms? Don't buy it. But as we've seen, it's entirely counterproductive to turn right around and steal it.

    84. Re:*sigh* by Eristone · · Score: 1

      Precisely my point. If there were no piracy, the RIAA wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But there is, so it does.

      But you missed my point. Even if there *wasn't* piracy, the RIAA would blame it on piracy. When Napster was around, sales were up. Napster went away, sales were still up. Economy crapped out, sales went down. But the RIAA is going to blame it on the stuff that came after Napster instead of the economy. Now, with the rebound starting, if sales don't start to slowly climb, then they may have a point. Bet you that they do though. And bet you that the RIAA pushes it under the blankets and talks very softly about the increase.

    85. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This proposed legislation will allow music companies to overcharge us even more than they do now for riduculous crap. All they want is more money, and they don't want to have to face future anti-trust actions that force them to reduce CD prices. I encourage everyone to write their Congresspeople in opposition to this bill, because it will take away consumer's rights to protest market exploitation. Until the music industry comes to its senses, which it may never do, I will never buy another new CD or track from sites like ITunes, and I will significally reduce my purchases of used CDs as well.

    86. Re:*sigh* by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Why are you bringing IP (Intellectual Property, a name for Trade Secrets, Copyrights and Patents) into the discussion about copyrights?

      How can they "realize" that it promotes progress more than it stiffles it?

      To me it is quite obvious that the many inefficiencies of copyright (The vast majority of work created by authors in the closed-software world, for example, are poor rehashes of work that was already done in the past). In a Free Software world, there's no need to inefficiently reimplement things as a result of copyright restrictions.

      A Free Software world does not require wasting resources writing copyright protection schemes, licenses, legislation, policing, etc.

      Combine this with the fact that incentive to create intellectual works exists in any case, and with the fact that the free market works even without stupid restrictions on it, and you come up with a simple conclusion: Copyright hinders progress ever since the digital revolution.

    87. Re:*sigh* by Clever+Pun · · Score: 1

      Actually, it seems to me that people could simply be saying that "the music industry is producing music worth owning, just that the music isn't worth paying for", at the prices that the RIAA is offering it. Look, for example, at the huge success of iTunes - $0.99 USD for one track, and it's legally yours.

      This is a great example of niche marketing at its finest - Apple listened to consumers say that they often only wanted one or two tracks from a CD but not the whole thing, and filled that niche. If the RIAA does ever start some sort of online music service of its own that doesn't suck, I'd expect it to look very much like iTunes.

    88. Re:*sigh* by Clever+Pun · · Score: 1

      Here's what's cute to me: if I rip and encode a cd and give you the resulting mp3s, that's illegal. But, if I rip and encode a cd, keep the mp3s and give or sell you the CD, that's legal. Something is wrong there.

      Interestingly enough, if you download a song that's on a CD that you bought and paid for, it's STILL illegal. Yes, that's right, all mp3s MUST be hand-ripped for legality.

  108. Here's a thought. by wjsteele · · Score: 1

    If media companies can become Antitrust exempt... why can't software companies? Think about it... they both are media companies. Now, if they pass it, would MS still be a monolopy?

    Hmmm.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  109. Another coalition of the "willing," then by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Apparently the RIAA claims to represent thousands of labels, many of whom have never joined the organization.

    Sort of reminiscent of the presence of nations on Powell's "coalition of the willing" list who had no idea they were going to be there. The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, for example, expressed surprise that Powell had included his nation, and said he had no idea why they were on the list.

    The indy labels are playing the role of the Solomon Islands, here -- having their name put to something they don't necessarily believe in as a way of strongarming the impression that the RIAA truly represents their industry. It's a strategy aimed at members of congress who're already inclined to believe the RIAA's arguments. In the same way the "willing" thing was meant to convince the U.S. population, or just enough to matter, anyway -- it didn't make any dent at all in world opinion, because everyone knew Bush et al were just trumping up as big a list as they could get to bolster their shaky legitimacy.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  110. Baseball does not have an exemption. by JKConsult · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's a commonly held misconception that baseball alone has an antitrust exemption. In fact, this is not true. There is nothing in antitrust law, be it the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or the Taft-Hartley, that grants Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws and their penalties. The "exemption" is purely judicial.

    The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

    Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

    If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

    1. Re:Baseball does not have an exemption. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent post, but I would still call what baseball has an exemption. There are many kinds of exemptions. If they don't have to follow the law, they are exempt from it. Period. You can't just change words because you don't like how they sound.

  111. You can Do That?! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    I bet Bill Gates is kicking himself for having not thought of that! Those pesky laws bothering you? Just buy yourself an exemption from your favorite Congressman! The DMCA is the bastard child of Orin Hatch, Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti, too, wasn't it? Yes yes, all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, unless they donate enough money to their Congressman and can get an excemption!

    I think that as long as political contributions are allowed, there's going to be a lot of quid-pro-quo. The only solution I can think of that would really be effective in stopping it would be to ban political contributions completely. If they could be handled in an anonymous fashion so that the politician had no idea who donated to him, that'd probably work too, but that'd be pretty tricky to implement effectively.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  112. you all need to write your congressperson by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and BITCH up a fucking storm that ol' Orrin is in league with the businesses he wishes to protect....ask things like "how much was he paid by the RIAA/MPAA to support this bad bill?", and demand that your congressperson NOT support the bill.

    Of course you could ask them to bitch-slap Orrin as well, but that's probably not going to endear you to your elected official.

    People, we can take back America, but it requires you voters doing your job, knowing the issues, and screaming at your reps for doing stupid shit. Do you know how to contact them--let alone who your reps are? If not, you need to find out.

    Send a nasty-gram to Orrin Hatch as well...tell him you're not happy with him selling his office like that. Even if you're not in his state, that sort of thing can make a difference as well. It is the right and duty of the populace to complain about stupid shit. This is one of those times.

  113. No baseball exemption. by JKConsult · · Score: 4, Informative
    I posted this upthread, but I think it's important for everyone to realize that baseball does not have an exemption (nor should they, or any other business, especially the **AA's, those bastards.) It's a commonly held misconception that baseball alone has an antitrust exemption. In fact, this is not true. There is nothing in antitrust law, be it the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or the Taft-Hartley, that grants Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws and their penalties. The "exemption" is purely judicial.

    The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.

    Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.

    If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.

    1. Re:No baseball exemption. by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whether legilstive or judicial, it does have an exemption. Courts interpret law, and the courts have interpreted, and upheld, that anti-trust legislation does not apply to MLB. You admit yourself that the courts have ruled that congress must pass a law _including_ MLB in order for them to be bound by it.

      The courts have made MLB exempt by requiring their explicit inclusion in legislation. Until congress makes it illegal for anti-trust behavior to occur in baseball, it is legal. There's no exemption written into the law, but it's not necessary - the exemption exists nonetheless.

      To compare with another popular /. topic - Time-shifting of video is legal. It is not explicitly allow for under US law, but it is legal because the courts have viewed it as fair use. They've essentially changed the legislation to include timeshifting, and in order for it to become illegal, congress must act to include timeshifting as an infringing act.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:No baseball exemption. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The most amusing part about MLB's anti-trust exemption to me is the fact that baseball is the one professional sport in the US right now that has a flourishing non-affiliated industry. I'm not sure quite what causes this, if it's a cheaper sport to run a team, or if it truly is "America's Passtime", but there is apparently a lot of baseball to go around. Perhaps it is because NCAA baseball is not as strong as football and basketball, due to the fact that it's hard to play baseball in March in half the country.

      The success of independent leagues like The Northern League is slowly starting to break MLB's stranglehold on minor league baseball, and at that point, it doesn't matter if MLB has anti-trust exemption or not, because they're not a monopoly.

      (For those not aware of how professional baseball works in the US, Major League teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, etc. have affiliated minor league teams at various levels (traditionally, A, AA, and AAA). The Major League teams hold a draft where teams are granted exclusive rights to young players, and then those players usually work their way up through these farm systems. But if a person doesn't want to play for the Yankees organization, they are effectively shut out of the entire system, barring a trade to another team. With the rise of non-affiliated minor leagues, we're seeing a few players reject the team that drafts them, signs with an independent for a year, and then get picked up by a team they want to play for (JD Drew is probably the most notable)).

    3. Re:No baseball exemption. by LochNess · · Score: 1

      Your comments about MLB are a distinction without a difference. Yes, it is true that there is no legislated anti-trust exemption for Major League Baseball. However, as you say in your post, the courts have consistently said that they're exempt from the laws.

      What difference does it make how they got their exemption?

    4. Re:No baseball exemption. by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      There are two major kinds of laws: legislation, like bills that go through Congress; and case law, written up by the courts. Major League Baseball's exemption may not be in legislation, but that doesn't make it any less of an exemption.

  114. Media Corps and the Two Party System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entertainment industry has traditionally supported the Democrats to evade attempts at censorship or other regulation. They prefer to self-censor or use crap like ratings (which time and again only exacerbate the (perceived) problem).

    Essentially media was in bed with the Democrats over social issues, not financial ones; as an oligapoly they are now finding a friend in the Republicans, whose commitment to their right-wing base is clearly no more than lip service. But they have a friend in the Dems too, which is why crap like this FCC competition-killing has gone through.

  115. Time to get more involved in government by nathanplsi · · Score: 1

    First thing: Hat's off to the folks who run Slashdot and those who post here (well, most of you : ) ). I'm pretty much guaranteed to learn something new here everyday.
    With all the 'crap' (for lack of a better word) that's been going on in Congress lately, I've decided I need to get more involved in the workings of our government.
    Things that have really set me off lately:
    1) Texas redistricting
    2) Overhyped intel on Iraqi WMD as justification to go to war.
    3) Energy Bill
    4) Ban on gay marrage Constitutional amendment
    5) RIAA and MTBE exemptions
    6) Health care bill
    I think we all know that Congress is available to the highest bidder, but it has become so obscene in the past year.
    Politically, I'm pretty middle of the road. Can anyone recommend any organizations that might be worth looking into (ie government reform, watchdogs that bite both parties, etc...)?
    Thanks,
    Nathan

    1. Re:Time to get more involved in government by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1
      TownHall
      Down Size DC
      Electronic Frontier Foundation

      This should keep you busy for awhile.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
  116. Where can I buy my own senator? by motek · · Score: 1

    Are foreign nationals allowed to make purchase like that, too?

    --

    --
    I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
    1. Re:Where can I buy my own senator? by Smilodon · · Score: 1

      I believe foreign nationals are restricted to presidents only. Not as much "bang for the buck", but you get a nice room in the white house...

  117. Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The scale of the problem is completely lost on you. Who determines the constitutionality of a law? The courts. Who is packing the courts with corporate-friendly judges? The executive branch (with advice and consent of the Senate). Who is mounting massive campaign efforts to replace citizen-friendly Attorneys General with corporate-friendly ones? Corporations. Who is pushing so-called "tort reform" legislation through state and federal legislatures to protect corporations from responsibility for their crimes? Corporate-owned legislators, governors, and the president. It's a massive attack against the citizens of this country and the world. Get on the clue train.

    --
    - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    1. Re:Scale by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you want to get on the clue train, here are the directions to the tracks:

      First, our Constitution gave the States a great deal of power to battle the federal government. Our country grew in a rate never seen before 1914. In 1914, the country found its first failures, which have been compounded since then. In 1914, we passed the 17th amendment, which ripped the rights of the States out and put them directly into the hands of those our founding fathers knew were not smart enough to wield such powers.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tucker7.html

      Since 1914, our country has moved directly into inflation (devaluation of the dollar through the Federal Reserve). Since 1914, our country has had few years of actual growth (compared to the true rate of inflation based on new dollars printed). Since 1914, our country has slipped from a strong State-oriented Republic into a Democracy of fools. Since 1914, our once strong web of States has become a Nation (a word never used by the founding fathers).

      That's the beginning of the clue many need to realize why we're in this mess.

    2. Re:Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do Americans set such store by their "founding fathers"?

      This isn't a troll, I'm genuinely interested. I mean, I'm British, and I never for a moment find myself wondering "I wonder if Hengest would have approved of this?", or "But is Tony Blair really acting in the spirit of Cnut?", or "Doesn't this new law contradict the writings of William the Conqueror?"

      I'm also not aware that the French spend much time worrying about whether their government is run in accordance with the wishes of Charlemagne.

    3. Re:Scale by dada21 · · Score: 1

      Definitely not a troll question. It is difficult to explain in easy terms why we have such admiration for men who were obviously so different from one another in many ways, but held a rebellious desire that was much needed in the world at the time.

      Our founding fathers had some ideas that were taken from many different leaders and intelligent individuals of the past, but they had put them together in a way that no one else had ever done, successfully.

      Read this for more information on an eloquent article by a wonderful politician:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul109.html

    4. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      You can argue till you're blue in the face about what happened in 1914, but corporations are taking over this country now and your only response is to bash government. Government is the only tool we have to solve this problem. If you want to throw that tool away and let the corporations run everything then you must be rich already. Do you think corporations will suddenly back off and let us be free once the regulations are gone? That's the height of naivete.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    5. Re:Scale by dada21 · · Score: 1

      No one will back off of anything. Government intervention makes it difficult for us to fight "bad" corporations because it is difficult or impossible to enter that market.

      I believe I can offer a better cable TV service, but I am not allowed to offer it in my neighborhood. I _KNOW_ of companies that can offer better water service to my town, but my city doesn't allow it.

      Competition is all you need to throw out the bad companise. Regulation only works to create new monopolies at the expense of everyone.

    6. Re:Scale by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      The depth of naivete:

      Thinking the government will suddenly back off the regulations and let us be free once the corporations are gone.

    7. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      How much control do you have over corporations? Hell, you aren't even allowed to see their internal documents, let alone know what they are doing and exercise any influence over them. Now, how much control does the constitution give us over government? That's not even the right question because government is us -- We, the people. One of us will be in charge. Corporations or government(the people). Which do you want it to be? You can't really be that foolish.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    8. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      I believe I can offer a better cable TV service, but I am not allowed to offer it in my neighborhood. I _KNOW_ of companies that can offer better water service to my town, but my city doesn't allow it.

      You might "believe" that you can offer a better cable system, but the reality of doing so is a whole lot more harsh than you're letting on. The capital investment required is huge and the incumbent carrier would squash your business like a bug because a lot of it's capital investment has already been depreciated and amortized. Also, if you somehow managed to squeeze into a niche, the incumbent would cut you off at the knees by using the same trick they used against C-Band satellite dishes. They just go to the content provider and politely put them on notice that they will stop carrying their programming unless they cut you off. The program provider will think about it for about a nanosecond before zapping off a letter to you to let you know that there is some [insert fake reason here] that they can no longer provide you with their program material. Come back down to reality, here, and get off that limb of ideology. Cable is clearly an area in need of regulation. Once an incumbent is in place, no one else can realistically penetrate the market without a new, disruptive technology (as cable itself once was). As far as water service, you're telling me that you have two separate water systems in your community? Two purifying plants with two sets of distribution pipes? That's a highly unusual situation but it would be the only way to truly have competition. Otherwise, water service is one commodity that should definitely be owned by the people rather than a corporation. Water service is too important for our livelihood to be owned by an entity chartered to bring profit to its shareholders. Those two things just shouldn't mix. Capitalism is insoluble in water.

      Competition is all you need to throw out the bad companise. Regulation only works to create new monopolies at the expense of everyone.

      Yes, yes, yes. We can all see that you wear your ideology on your sleeve. You seek purity. Purity is an unattainable goal. The harder you try to enforce it, the more extreme and totalitarian your position becomes.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    9. Re:Scale by dada21 · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that the satellite providers were squashed by cable? I don't think so. The infrastructure was paid by excessively high prices due to the monopolization. You can roll out individual infrastructure using newer technology for a fraction of the old cable costs. I know, I own a cabling company. The days of doing it Lucent's way are over.

      As for water -- no I don't want necessarily two water providers, I just want it privatized and not run by city unions. John Stossel from ABC's 20/20 did a report on it in "Mr Stossel Goes to Washington" which is available on video. He found that in many towns that privatized the water business, they saved money and had a better product. See http://secure.mediaresearch.org/fmp/medianomics/20 01/kd20010131.html for details.

      What government does, it does poorly. Private roads are better maintained and last longer and cost less than public roads. Private loans are made to better candidates with the ability to pay that public loans (look at the default rates!). Private schooling offers a more complete education than public schooling at a lower price. Private health care had a better price and better coverage before government enforced mandatory coverage in the HMO Act of 1974.

      The list goes on and on.

      I am not a utopian, I just want the freedom to be responsible for my own mistakes and successes. I do not want to pay for your mistakes, and I don't want a piece of your successes.

    10. Re:Scale by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      Words to look up in your dictionary:

      How much control do you have over corporations?

      Stock. Stockholder.

      Hell, you aren't even allowed to see their internal documents,

      Top secret. CIA. FBI. Patriot Act.

      let alone know what they are doing and exercise any influence over them.

      Audit. Corporate earnings statement. Stockholder voting.

      Now, how much control does the constitution give us over government?

      1 person, 1 vote.

      That's not even the right question because government is us -- We, the people.

      citizen. employee.

      One of us will be in charge. Corporations or government(the people). Which do you want it to be?

      I choose your third option, which unfortunately you do not even see: the people.

      "We the people" are not the government. "We the people ... establish" the government. You are confusing our government with communism, and we aren't quite there yet.

      Now look up the words "consumer" and "taxpayer", and tell me which one has more freedom.

      You can't really be that foolish.

      Can you be that foolish?

      Do you understand that big government is as bad, if not worse than, big corporations? Do you understand that the big corporations you hate are controlling the big government you love?

      I freely admit that government is the only thing that can control a monopolistic corporations. I also realize that nothing can control a despotic government (without bloodshed), and we getting very, very close with the trend of presidential orders pioneered by Clinton and exploited by Bush.

      The worst evil of all: a government-sponsored monopoly!

    11. Re:Scale by dada21 · · Score: 0

      Foolish? Corporations are owned by people. Those owners are allowed to look at the books. If the owners aren't, why did they invest? Duh.

      The government doesn't allow us to look at any of its secrets. The PATRIOT Act has now cemented that ability. Freedom of Information Act requests go unanswered all the time.

      If a corporation you own stock in doesn't give you an answer, you can sell your stock. You can stop buying their product. You can offer a better product at a better value. You can't do that with government mandates and regulations.

      It seems to me that it is you, sir, who are foolish. You believe you can't control big business, but you can control government. That is definitely and obviously not the case.

    12. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Words to look up in your dictionary:

      Wow. Way to start it off with arrogant contempt, there, ideologue.

      Stock. Stockholder.

      Only applies to publicly traded corporations, and stockholders still don't get to read meeting minutes.

      Top secret. CIA. FBI. Patriot Act.

      These are the extremes of government. The vast majority of what government does is, by law, open to the people's scrutiny. In addition, the functions you mentioned have been corrupted by corporate influence. We can take that power back if we choose.

      Audit. Corporate earnings statement. Stockholder voting.

      Arthur Anderson. Fraud. Shredded documents. Misstated earnings.

      1 person, 1 vote.

      What's wrong with that?

      citizen. employee.

      Citizenship is a job. You get exactly what you put into it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You don't expect freedom to be handed to you on a silver platter, do you?

      I choose your third option, which unfortunately you do not even see: the people.

      Yes, excellent! The people! Why didn't I think of that? Now let's get busy. Oh, wait. We need some way to organize or we'll all just be running around in a kind of anarchy or something. I've got it! We'll form some kind of organization of the people, by the people, and for the people. Hmmm. What could we call that?

      "We the people" are not the government. "We the people ... establish" the government. You are confusing our government with communism, and we aren't quite there yet.

      Wow, what an extremist you are. You've very selectively edited the Constitution, then equated rule by the people with communism. That's just ideological hyperbole that doesn't have any place in an honest debate.

      Now look up the words "consumer" and "taxpayer", and tell me which one has more freedom.

      Again, very selective in your word choice. I notice that you didn't use "citizen" in your false dichotomy. Look that one up.

      Do you understand that big government is as bad, if not worse than, big corporations?

      Absolutely not. Government is chartered to act in the interest of the people. Corporations are chartered to act in the interest of their profit. Which one do you think is more likely to act in your interest?

      Do you understand that the big corporations you hate are controlling the big government you love?

      Duh! What do you think I'm bitching about? That's the whole problem. If we could pry the corporate hands off of government and put it back in the hands of the people then things would be much better for us. It wouldn't be perfect but we could choose our destiny instead of having it forced on us by greedy corporations who just want to strip-mine us for our labor.

      I freely admit that government is the only thing that can control a monopolistic corporations.

      Excellent. A point of agreement. This is where progress is made.

      I also realize that nothing can control a despotic government (without bloodshed),...

      Another point of agreement. Good, good.

      ...and we getting very, very close with the trend of presidential orders pioneered by Clinton and exploited by Bush.

      You guys just can't get over Clinton, can you? Why are you so obsessed with him? You give him way too much credit as a pioneer. You'll certainly never get me to defend Clinton, but the despotism was pioneered much earlier in US history. Harding was a good one, and, more recently, Nixon and especially Reagan really set the bar for secrecy and power mongering. But Bush has taken it to a whole new level.

      The worst evil of all: a government-sponsored monopoly!

      Hmmm. I don't know, I think I'd give the nod to a monopoly-sponsored government as being worse.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    13. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Corporations are owned by people. Those owners are allowed to look at the books.

      You mean the books that they're allowed to cook due to deregulation? And the owners have a vested interest in cheating.

      If the owners aren't, why did they invest? Duh.

      You tell me. They kept investing in Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia didn't they? Why didn't the books show investors their problems? Could it be that the regulatory dogs had been called off and they were free to cheat?

      The government doesn't allow us to look at any of its secrets. The PATRIOT Act has now cemented that ability. Freedom of Information Act requests go unanswered all the time.

      Well, now you're talking about corruption. This could be remedied by giving control of government back to the people. There's theory and then there's practice. The people must remain vigilant to make government work for them.

      If a corporation you own stock in doesn't give you an answer, you can sell your stock. You can stop buying their product. You can offer a better product at a better value. You can't do that with government mandates and regulations.

      In a government of the people, we have something much more powerful: control of the mandates and regulations that are proscribed. That's a much better sort of control than the indirect type of controls we have on corporations. It sounds to me like you just don't want to have any rules. That's just juvenile.

      You believe you can't control big business, but you can control government. That is definitely and obviously not the case.

      Why do you believe we can't control government when it's written right there in the Constitution that we can? That just defeatism. If we take those words seriously and exercise our power we can make government work for us instead of the moneyed interests who are now at the wheel.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    14. Re:Scale by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      Top secret. CIA. FBI. Patriot Act.

      These are the extremes of government. The vast majority of what government does is, by law, open to the people's scrutiny. In addition, the functions you mentioned have been corrupted by corporate influence. We can take that power back if we choose.


      You are talking about the extremes of corporations. Please allow me the same privilege.

      "We the people" are not the government. "We the people ... establish" the government. You are confusing our government with communism, and we aren't quite there yet.

      Wow, what an extremist you are. You've very selectively edited the Constitution, then equated rule by the people with communism. That's just ideological hyperbole that doesn't have any place in an honest debate.


      Read it again. I have equated the assertion that "the people are the government" to communism. It's still not true, of course, but that is the only ideology to try to make that claim.

      Now look up the words "consumer" and "taxpayer", and tell me which one has more freedom.

      Again, very selective in your word choice. I notice that you didn't use "citizen" in your false dichotomy. Look that one up.


      The above is an analogy, not a dichotomy: both are paying money. Which one has has more freedom?

      and we getting very, very close with the trend of presidential orders pioneered by Clinton and exploited by Bush.

      You guys just can't get over Clinton, can you?


      "You guys?" How many people do you think I am?

      I was trying to hint that both major parties are to blame for the situation, and that neither will help us solve it.

      The worst evil of all: a government-sponsored monopoly!

      Hmmm. I don't know, I think I'd give the nod to a monopoly-sponsored government as being worse.


      That's what we have now.

      Do you understand that big government is as bad, if not worse than, big corporations?

      Absolutely not. Government is chartered to act in the interest of the people. Corporations are chartered to act in the interest of their profit. Which one do you think is more likely to act in your interest?


      Both corporations and government are run by people acting in their own self interest. Corporations will act in my interest if they think they will profit. Government will act in my interest if it thinks it can get my vote. 90% of the people in Washington DC are NOT controlled by my vote.

      Do you understand that the big corporations you hate are controlling the big government you love?

      Duh! What do you think I'm bitching about? That's the whole problem. If we could pry the corporate hands off of government and put it back in the hands of the people then things would be much better for us. It wouldn't be perfect but we could choose our destiny instead of having it forced on us by greedy corporations who just want to strip-mine us for our labor.


      You don't say how we can "pry the corporate hands off of government". I well tell you how: smaller, decentralized government.

      In a large, centralized government, such as we have now, the voter has little power. The corporations have lots of money which they can concentrate on this small group of governors.

      In a smaller, decentralized government, where more power is in the hands of state and local governments, the voter has much more power. His vote matters more for the people who have the power. Corporations still have lots of money, but it would be diluted because they have to spread it far and wide to people who are paying more attention to the voters.

    15. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      So you're telling me that the satellite providers were squashed by cable?

      No. I'm saying that personal C-Band satellite receiving units (those big old-style dishes) were killed off by cable companies who saw them as a threat to their monopoly.

      As for water -- no I don't want necessarily two water providers, I just want it privatized and not run by city unions.

      What kind of free market is that? That's just one of those government granted monopolies you decry. Let the people run it for the people's benefit. There's no reason to bring profiteering (especially monopolistic profiteering) into the realm of our basic necessities of survival.

      John Stossel...

      Oh, you lost me right there. John Stossel is an ideological, sensationalist nutbag. You might as well be citing the Weekly World News. "Give me a break."

      Private this...Private that...Private...Private...Private...

      Your ideological certainty is pure faith. Without going into detail on each case, keep in mind that the system we developed after the Great Depression (The New Deal) gave a rising tide across the board while still allowing capitalism to flourish to such an extent that we became the richest country on earth -- BY FAR. To somehow say that a system that created such great wealth and prosperity while still providing things like education to ALL people (not just those who could afford it) is broken and needs to be torn down is pure folly. It's just selfishness. You're so afraid that someone might be able to slide by and ride the system that you're willing to destroy the whole thing. The society you envision is not a pretty one. It would reward the greediest and vilest among us with the greatest rewards (we're already very close to that system now). Do you really want a system where the cruelest among us are the most admired and emulated -- where money is the sole measure of a man's worth? God help us all if you get what you want.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    16. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      I have equated the assertion that "the people are the government" to communism. It's still not true, of course, but that is the only ideology to try to make that claim.

      That's like saying, "I'm not saying it, but I'm saying it." You're equivocating on your extremism. Either way, you're demonstrably wrong. Have you ever heard of a political system called democracy? That's a system of rule by the people. For proof, just look up any criminal court case in US history. They're titled, "The People vs. the accused". Who is the court referring to when they say "The People?"

      "You guys?" How many people do you think I am?

      I'm talking about all you right-wing Clinton-haters who still can't stop bitching about Clinton. Hell, I didn't care for the guy much and I'm still just amazed at how you guys just can't seem to stop blaming Clinton for everything from the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Code Red worm. Just let it go, man. He was just a middle-of-the-road politician.

      Both corporations and government are run by people acting in their own self interest.

      That's not necessarily true. Good government is transparent and we can hold our representatives' feet to the fire if we remain vigilant (which is a requirement in a democracy). There's no easy form of government, except maybe a benevolent dictatorship. Good luck finding a benevolent dictator.

      Corporations will act in my interest if they think they will profit. Government will act in my interest if it thinks it can get my vote.

      Well, if a government that is only acting in its own self-interest gets your vote then you deserve, and are in fact asking for, bad government.

      90% of the people in Washington DC are NOT controlled by my vote.

      Really? That low? I would think it would be higher than that. It's a little self-centered to think that your personal vote would affect even ten percent of a government that represents almost three hundred million people in a republican format.

      You don't say how we can "pry the corporate hands off of government". I well tell you how: smaller, decentralized government.

      Well, that's one approach, but I don't think that will work. Smaller government means less regulation. Less regulation means more corporate shenanigans. Where there's money to be made there will be crooks to exploit and twist the system to their advantage. A better way is to end corporate personhood. Our founding fathers were a pretty sharp bunch but they never anticipated that corporations would become so rich and powerful or that a court would one day define them as "persons". They erected a wall between church and state to prevent the aquisition of one by the other. We need to erect a wall between corporation and state to prevent the same.

      In a smaller, decentralized government, where more power is in the hands of state and local governments, the voter has much more power. His vote matters more for the people who have the power. Corporations still have lots of money, but it would be diluted because they have to spread it far and wide to people who are paying more attention to the voters.

      No. No. No. Corporations are one of the prime advocates of decentralized government because state governments are cheaper to control than the federal government. I can verify that through personal experience. I live in West Virgina, which is a modern-day colony for coal mining corporations -- America's energy sacrifice zone. We are the ones who pay the real cost for the eastern US's cheap electricity. Most states let the EPA regulate their mining operations but here we have the Department of Environmental Protection which actually uses taxpayer money to defend the mining corporations when the citizens file suit to stop their abusive behavior. Corporations are very fond of decentralized power because their operations are usually concentrated in just a few localities. They become huge fish in a small pond instead of j

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    17. Re:Scale by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      You tell me. They kept investing in Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia didn't they? Why didn't the books show investors their problems? Could it be that the regulatory dogs had been called off and they were free to cheat?

      Blaming it on deregulation is lame. If I shoplift once the store clerk looks in the other direction, its my fault not his.

      We don't need regulators constantly watching them just because they might do something wrong. All we need is to punish them if they do something wrong.

      Why do you believe we can't control government when it's written right there in the Constitution that we can?

      Do you really believe the government pays any attention to the constitution?

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    18. Re:Scale by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      We don't need regulators constantly watching them just because they might do something wrong. All we need is to punish them if they do something wrong.

      A simple analogy will show you how foolish that approach is. Let's take all the traffic cops off the highways. Then, when big crashes happen, we'll punish the person who caused it (if they survived it.) You need monitoring to discover the wrongdoing. How do we discover or control abuse of the system without regulators?

      Do you really believe the government pays any attention to the constitution?

      That's our fault. If we don't keep an eye on what they're doing and elect those who work in our interest and follow the constitution, then we don't deserve proper representation. And if you think government doesn't pay attention to the constitution, just watch how well the corporate pirates respect the constitution now that they are in power. At least with government, we have a chance. Corporations will just keep herding us into cheap labor pools for their benefit. Just watch. It's all about cheap labor. Slavery would be an ideal outcome for them. Keep defending corporate power and you'll find out the hard way.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  118. Doesn't anyone study law anymore? by michaelepley · · Score: 1

    The 10th amendment, for all its powerful language, means essentially nothing. It merely neatly summarizes the concept (embodied in the entire structure of the US) that the national government is one of limited powers, where sovereignty flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. Moreover, its meaning or implications has never been tested or used, and is far to vague to derive any black letter law from, especially on a topic so removed as RIAA antitrust exemptions.

    1. Re:Doesn't anyone study law anymore? by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you believe that. Have you really read the Constitution? The 10th Amendment had once confined the federal government to only those functions listed in the Constitution -- primarily courts and national defense, and a few other minor functions. But the court-created doctrine of "compelling state interest" opened the flood-gates for politicians to do practically anything they want, with the federal personal income tax providing most of the required funding.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    2. Re:Doesn't anyone study law anymore? by michaelepley · · Score: 1

      I and about every other lawyer I've ever know would believe that. The powers of the federal government were largely held in check early by the efforts of the states, the immaturity (as in age) of the country and its government, and the desire to hold the union together. The judicial activism activism of the early 20th century and the New-deal era politics were what drastically changed the landscape. And most of this was predicated on a need to suppress post civil war southern states rights, and a revised interpretation of the commerce & necessary and proper clauses, and many other factors, not simply on the doctrine of "compelling state interest". Certainly the federal income tax drastically increased the federal power, though chiefly because it ameliorated the requirement of porportial taxation.

      As an aside, the recent ACLU action in the California recall election had promise of becoming the first serious test of the 10th amendment as federal election laws and civil rights legislation conflicted with California's consitution and its fundamental right to conduct elections. Alas, the ACLU decided not to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.

      And yes, I carry a West publications copy of the US Constitution everywhere I go, and read it often.

  119. Cheap! Cheap! Cheap? by jefu · · Score: 1
    Maybe not so cheap.

    We don't know what they might be providing his wife or relatives. We don't know anything about what they might have promised to do with respect to his opponents in the next election -- they could easily fund a PAC or other interest group set up to destroy the guy. It doesn't take much imagination to think of ways to reward this guy that don't go on the books. How about making sure than when he goes on an "Investigative" trip to Hollywood that lots of pretty girls (or boys) and whatever else turns him on are available in his hotel?

    Having a public money trail is not a bad thing - but it can't (ever) show all the benefits that occur to a politician willing to sell himself to a person or group with money and good lawyers available to chart a course around the legal niceities.

  120. Praise the LORD!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of stuff that makes you want go out in the street and praise the LORD for all the Freedom(R)and Democracy(TM)in this country.

  121. only Republicans believe that: by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    o Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

    o The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

    o Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

    o "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

    o A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

    o Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

    o The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

    o Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

    o If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

    o A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

    o HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

    o Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

    o Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

    o Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

    o A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

    o Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

    o The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

    o You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

    o What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

    o Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

    1. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the best post I've seen all month.

    2. Re:only Republicans believe that: by eyeball · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are my hero.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    3. Re:only Republicans believe that: by cmburns69 · · Score: 1
      Do you actually beleive the world (or all republicans) are that one-sided? Given your line of reasoning, only Democrats:

      • Believe everything they read in the media, but only as long as it confirms their biases


      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    4. Re:only Republicans believe that: by johnos · · Score: 1

      brilliant

    5. Re:only Republicans believe that: by xalres · · Score: 1

      I'd call you a cynical SOB if it weren't so damn true. But then, I'm a cynical SOB.

      --
      If whales learn how to use weapons we're all screwed!
    6. Re:only Republicans believe that: by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      > Do you actually beleive the world (or all republicans) are that one-sided?

      They do vote on the party line and those who don't get powerful threats from above. Let's not be that naive, its a two-party system, parties vote on agreed agendas. The GOP deserves to be called on its actions. Your Senator may be a great guy, but if he keeps voting in the Bush agenda then he is one-sided.

      Calling em like one sees em.

    7. Re:only Republicans believe that: by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      That's not exactly true. They may all have very strong incentives to vote the party line, but that doesn't mean they always do. And, every single one of them helps to set the party line.

      The media will have you believe that the world is black and white, and it's reflected in the viewpoints that get the most air-time. Many people seem to have an extremely cynical view of the government. Some people (mostly politicians) have a very positive view of government. But I think the reality is somewhere inbetween the extremes. The government is not all good, and not all bad. Republicans do not try to thwart dems at every turn, and neither do the dems thwart the GOP whenever they can.

      I would be a naive fool if to say that the government is completely free from corruption. Power does corrupt. But you would be a cynical fool to believe the government does a poor job of balancing people's interests.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    8. Re:only Republicans believe that: by invenustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see here....

      Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

      Under Clinton/Gore/Reno, the prison population of the United States DOUBLED, primarily due to nonviolent drug offenders.

      Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

      In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. That didn't stop the Clinton administration from using federal officers to shut down cannabis buyers' clubs for terminally ill patients in San Francisco.

      "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

      Funny, I thought that was what Wesley Clark said at the Democratic debate the other night. "Let India write the software."

      Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

      Yeah, damn that evil Republican President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996! Oh, wait....

      HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

      It sure was impressive how the Democrats filibustered that corporate-welfare-laden Medicare bill this week. Oh, wait....

      Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

      Go look up the Democrats' voting records on all the Iraq war and spending resolutions. Great opposition party you've got there.

      Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

      I'd like a link to a mainstream Republican who has publicly stated that creationism should be taught in schools.

      Saddam was.... a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

      "In light of the U.S. military strike against Iraq, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to a short delay in the debate and vote on whether to impeach President Bill Clinton...."

      Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

      Those are both laws signed by Bill Clinton. I'm not sure what you think they prove about Republicans.

      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    9. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what exactly is your argument? That democrats are just as evil as republicans? Welcome to real life!

    10. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why do you automatically assume that anyone who is against the Republicans is a supporter of the Democrats? It is possible to believe that Bush is a bad president without also believing that Clinton was perfect, you know.

    11. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow I think this drivel would be modded offtopic, as it should be, if it were against democrats.

    12. Re:only Republicans believe that: by gaj · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I'm not a Republican, I do most often vote Republican, so since no one else has had the poor sense to do so (at least at the time of this writing), and though you are very obviosly a troll, I'm off today, so WTF, I'll reply. I suppose I could make a similarly jaundiced list of items about Democrats, instead I think I'll just be lazy (I did say I was on vacation) and respond to your list.

      o Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

      Being a drug addict may be an illness, I don't think we have proof of that yet, and it depends somewhat upon how far you are willing to stretch the definition of "illness". Addiction can also be a moral failing, in the case of relapse, especially if going back to the drugs will hurt others (e.g. you are a parent). It is not, of itself, a crime. It can be related to a crime, if crimes are comitted because of the addiction. Since you're referring to Rush's case, I assume, I'd say it's possibly all three; there just isn't enough information to know for sure. Personally, I don't think drugs themselves should be illegal at all, but rather, users should be held fully responsible for any crimes they commit under the influence. As for the prayers, I'm an apathetic agnostic (I don't know and can't be troubled to try very hard to find out), so I'm not qualified to speak to that issue.

      o The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

      Wow, what incisive insight! Or it could be the case that you are intentionally conflating the group of people that thinks the former, but still thinks it was a good idea to kick Saddam's ass, with the latter, who just think it was a good idea to said ass kicking. Personally, I think the U.N. is not withought value, but is secondary to our own laws and interests. As is probably obvous from my cavalier attitude, lack of spelling ability and strength of convictions that I'm willing to back up with serious arguments rather than empty retoric, I'm an Amarican conservative. However, in this context "our" means "the interests and laws of any given soverign nation". Of course, sometimes those iterests conflict. In those cases, the U.N., or some other vehicle for diplomacy, can be usefull. If that route doesn't work, however, M1A1s, A10s and F18s are the appropriate vehicles.

      o Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

      Yeah, that's a problem. I (and many independant conservatives) think that government should relay regulation on Big Doobie as well. Big Eco-Terrorism, however ... well, reference previous comment about A10s.

      o "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

      Hmmm ... not sure how that is a Republican thing. Sounds like you just pulled that one out of your ass, frankly.

      o A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

      Yeah, and the abortion issue is just that issue. The way both sides of that issue disingenuously oversimplify makes me sick. I don't see how anyone can support abortion in the third trimester, especially in the last six to eight weeks; with modern technology the baby is often able to be saved, virtually always in the last month. OTOH, in the first weeks of pregnancy, I don't see how the blob of cells can be termed a "human". If we just knew for sure at what point sentience is awakened, this would be a much simpler issue. As for multi-nationals, if they break laws or cause real harm to people through their action or inaction, they should be whacked with the largest of c

    13. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1
      To Be A Good Democrat ... You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

      You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

      You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

      You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

      You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

      You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

      You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

      You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

      You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.

      You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

      You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

      You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

      You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

      You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.

      You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't, because the right people haven't been in charge.

      You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.

      You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.

      You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

      You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

      You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    14. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for Vietnam, which one? North Vietname has nothing to trade. South Vietnam isn't Communist.

      Umm, there is this little matter of that war we lost over 25 years ago, resulting in there only being one Vietnam. Maybe you were thinking of Korea?
    15. Re:only Republicans believe that: by mysticalreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many Americans are responding to this saying "The republicans aren't the bad guys! It's those damned DEMOCRATS!"

      I'm Canadian. And as an outsider, it doesn't matter. Republicans and Democrats are so slightly different. As far as i'm concerned, this is a comment on how the entire Country seems to behave, not just a particular political party. The country is moving togther, probably most citizens are aimless, but you cannot divide this into party politics. You know how every outsiders says they can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Why do you think that is? Do you think they are ALL wrong? I don't know what party is responsible for the above listed actions, but i know they are all Americans.

      This makes more sense as comment on the country, not on a particlar political party.

    16. Re:only Republicans believe that: by nullard · · Score: 1

      You forgot the "under oath" part. Purgery is an impeachable offense

      There is no such thing as Perjury in a Grand Jury. Since you cannot take protection under the 5th amendment, you cannot be prosecuted for lying.

      --


      t'nera semordnilap
    17. Re:only Republicans believe that: by ricousa · · Score: 1

      Having read all the replies, I can only think that we are in sad shape. What surprises me is that there isn't more agreement going here. What's currently going on with this country and its behavior, both at home and abroad, is not only sad but is a setback. We are turning into an evil monster feeding on itself and others. We are on a fastrack to crapsville, and we are trying to drag anyone and everyone with us.

      What happened to government that represented the common person and not big business? What happened to being able to have intergrity in your country's world relations decisions? What happened to having pride in your country for the RIGHT reasons? Since 9/11, everything has been spun as the U.S. trying to reverse the horrible wrong done to us, and our reaction has been to act like an overly-righteous rich kid in a candy store.

      The best of all of this is that we have spent so much time dealing with issues outside of our boundaries, that we are willing to neglect ourselves. I can't think of any reasonable taxpayer that cares more about setting up a wonderfully fair, representative government any where else but here. It is starting to get pretty sick.

      Well, hopefully we can get another self-serving, pig-headed POS president in office to be the solid role model for our future cheating and stealing generations. We need someone who is just slightly more illiterate and incompetent to lead us, so that we can help to raise that ever so high opinion of the U.S. abroad.

      I am neither Republican nor a Democrat. I am an American, born and raised. And that is why I am so disgusted. You can always divide people into at least two sides...and keep feeding this illness.

    18. Re:only Republicans believe that: by natet · · Score: 1
      I'm a republican, and I want to debunk this. I am not going to answer all of them, that would take too much time.

      Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

      Wrong. Drug addiction is always an illness, and I am always saddened to see anyone in its grips. There is a long standing practice of not prosecuting those who choose to try and get help on their own and check themselves into rehab...

      Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

      Wrong again. I was appalled at the results of the microsoft trial. Every time someone like Orrin Hatch opens his mouth, I cringe (I have to admit that I voted for him some 10 years ago. I truly regret it and appologize to everyone now). I have no problem with medicinal marajuana, but think that it needs tighter regulations than were employed when it was used commonly in California.

      A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

      I am pro-life to be sure. Mostly because I think that some of our most brilliant people have had physical defomities from birth. What a different place the world would be if their mothers had decided for them that their lives would be too hard to live with the problems they would face... Further, I personally belive that partial-birth abortions aren't about the mothers health. At that point, the child is viable. Better just to take the child, either by inducing labor, or c-section and put it up for adoption.

      A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

      Don't you think that it is in the realm of possibility that Bush was acting on the best information he had at the time? Clinton on the other hand knew he was lying at the time he was doing it. Well, I guess he could have tried to block it from his mind (looking at Monica, I might have tried to erase it from memory too).

      Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

      Yes, Jesus loves me, and everyone else. In the case of Homosexuals, He loves them, but doesn't love what they do. I don't believe that anyone is 'born that way.' Saying something over and over again may make you belive it, but it doesn't make it true. I am also fairly certian He doesn't share my hatred of Hillary, that is all my own :) (jk, I don't hate Hillary, I just ignore her).

      --
      IANAL... But I play one on /.
    19. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Evil+Midnight+Poster · · Score: 1

      Of course, only Democrats believe that...

      Being a drug addict means you deserve sympathy and understanding, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then you should fired and given the maximum sentence.

      The United States should forfeit all sovereignty to the United Nations and let France, Germany, and Russia (who did not want to enforce the UN resolution) dictate our foreign policy.

      Sexual harassment is a private issue unrelated to governing, unless you are a Republican running for governor of California.

      If condoms are kept in schools, adolescents will ask for and use them.

      A good way to fight terrorism is to, without UN approval, lob a few missiles into a Sudanese medicine factory during a perjury scandal.

      Democratic politicians only have the interest of the public at heart.

      A president lying under oath isn't an impeachable offense. A president that wasn't under oath and hasn't been proven to have lied, should be impeached

      Government should change the Constitution to include Affirmative Action unless it applies to a Latino conservative judge nominated to a federal bench.

      George Bush's driving record is of national interest, but Ted Kenedy's is an unfortunate occurance.

      You don't support states' rights, and think Attorney General Janet Reno should use SWAT teams to arrest an unarmed little boy.

      Of course, I don't believe all Democrats think like that. Just offering a counterpoint.

    20. Re:only Republicans believe that: by gaj · · Score: 1

      yeah that.

      I should have stopped responding to the former message after my third interruption. Finishing up in a hurry leads to looking like an idiot. Oh well, nothing I haven't done before.

    21. Re:only Republicans believe that: by gaj · · Score: 1
      Or, you're wrong.

      To quote from the second source:

      Perjury before a grand jury is covered by a special statute with odd features. If one lies before a grand jury and then recants--tells the truth--before the grand jury or the prosecutor is aware of the lie, the witness has a defense to a perjury prosecution. In some perjury prosecutions a witness tells one version in the morning of his appearance before the grand jury and tells a different version in the afternoon. The grand jury perjury statute states that the government can make out a case based on the contradictory testimony itself. It need not prove which statement was true and which statement was false.
    22. Re:only Republicans believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow how open minded of you...you really show your ignorance by making such blanket statements like this...

      i believe this is the dumbest shit i have ever seen....

  122. Oh great... by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1

    Support freedom of money people. Only support banks that allow the free copying, distribution, and listening of their money in any format you choose.

  123. Market Realities? by FreeTheFurniture! · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know it was touched on in the article, but this is a 360 that makes my neck ache (full text from 2001):

    The RIAA clearly has work to do inside the Republican Party, traditionally the protectors of property rights. Among the biggest public critics of the record companies' actions has been Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). On the floor of the Senate earlier this month, he said the federal appeals court decision against Napster was "shortsighted from a policy perspective" and called again for the record companies to strike deals with online rivals.

    Racicot acknowledged that Hatch and other Republicans will be targets of the "education" effort.

    "He's one of the American citizens we hope to be able to talk to and educate on this issue," Racicot said.

    Hatch has not yet moved for new legislation, saying that he still hopes online companies and copyright holders can reach their own agreements. RIAA executives said they would not press for new laws either.

    "Right now I think the market has the tools in the music space it needs," Rosen said. "What we have to do is a significant education effort.

  124. That's it. by jensend · · Score: 1

    I've defended Hatch on /. before, saying that the recent mistakes and outright idiotic actions of his which get Slashdot coverage are not indicative of his overall record; he represented Utah very well, overall, for many years. However, this is the last straw. He's gone senile. Justifying putting special interests above the law by citing "market realities"? What on earth does he think the law was passed for in the first place? Perhaps it hasn't occured to him that it was to correct such lopsided and unhealthy market conditions? Geez.

  125. Heard it too - something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story said that these companies were on the RIAA's list of record companies. This is bogus because they were never affiliated with anybody who was affiliated with RIAA. They never signed up to be in the RIAA, the RIAA just found their name somehow and added to the list. It took upwards of 2 years to get off the list for one company - and they weren't alone.

  126. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a dedicated troll who suspects that taco likes gay sex with michael. But for once, I agree to what you are saying. I will help you.

    I GOT A GREASED UP YODA DOLL SHOVED UP MY ASS!!

    GO LINUX!

  127. They are all the same... by werwerf · · Score: 1
    Here in Spain we have our local RIAA version, SGAE.

    They practice thievery and general mob practices on a regular basis. I know what I'm talking about, I worked for two years on a .com that had to pay "revolutionary taxes" to them because we sold venue tickets...
    The last one? The have been able to pass a ruling that forces CD-RW makers to pay them a "tax" for every unit sold.
    Of course, the final users are the ones who have to pay... So I end up paying a "tax" to a private (yes private, it is not institutional) institution to be able to record my last vacation pictures on CD!!!!

    I don't understand were these people get the force from, but something has to be done...

    -----
    There was a SIG here.
    It is gone now.

  128. Oh great...Absentee citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bingo. Anti-trust exemption or no anti-trust exemption. A LOT of problems would go away if people only realized how much power they have with their monetary vote. Unfortunately, just like the other kind of voting, absenteeism hurts both. We wouldn't be complaining about how bad our government is, if we as citizens had done like Jefferson suggested, and been forever diligent, on matters of freedom. We as citizens have only ourselves to blame for the present mess. Not the corporations. not the congress. Not the UN. They all did what comes natural, but we were not there to play our roles in shaping their behaviours. We would all decry an absentee landlord, and the effect that would have on the property. But no one sees a problem with the citizentry being absent. So remember the above next time you express your moral indignation at corporation, or government, and ask yourself. Were was I when I could have made a difference?

  129. I'd love to. by twitter · · Score: 1
    But come on now guys, these quotes are the same type of crap pulled to get these laws in place 'for the children.' ... What is worse, is that we are now throwing grandmother's in the picture.... lets keep the standards high, and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.

    Having a memory does not constitute mud-slinging. The RIAA is the organization that has brought 12 and 15 year old girls into the picture by shaking them down for thousands of dollars. You might also rember that this is not the first time the RIAA has threatened children. Back in the 80s they sued the Girl Scouts of America for singing "America the Beautiful" around the capfire. That's low standards and there's nothing wrong with remembering what kind of an organization we are talking about while their whores are busy asking for privelges.

    No one deserves that kind of privelege, least of all an organization that's best known for extortion.

    I'd really love not having to think about how the RIAA threatens shoolgirls, but no good would come of it. The RIAA has acted badly and deserves the bad reputation they have.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:I'd love to. by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1


      Well then why not do some research.... Lets get the profiles on everyone involved... statistically speaking, there are bound to be some cancer patients or someone who had cancer (I can see it now, "RIAA sues cancer survivor!"), someone with HIV, a disability, has no car ("RIAA sues poor man who cannot afford a car!" -pay no mind as to whether he lives in an urban area where cars are not common). Im sure there are others with equally nasty terminal type diseases and stories that will wrench the heart of the public.

      Why stop there? Lets grab headlines about big government giving parking tickets to grandmothers (again, the fact that they were parked illegally is not of consequence), issuing tickets to children riding bicycles without helmets, etc... Is the government now on par with the RIAA?

      If a car T-bones a bus, killing 10 passengers, is the driver more guilty if they are children? Is he less guilty if they are drug dealer convicts on their way to a maximum security prison?

      I am being overdramatic for a reason- to point out that it is not the attempted enforcement of a law or its victims that should be an issue- its the law itself. Whether they are shaking down 12 year old virgins, or 40 year old crackheads to me shouldnt be the issue. Your argument just seems to be supporting sensationalism for laws and organizations you do not particularly like.

  130. compassionate conservatism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    RIAA/MPAA are "natural monopolies", gun manufacturers are immune to liability, insecure airlines get bailed out, oil companies get handed the Treasury. American people are out of work and afraid. You can really feel the compassion in this "conservatism", where everything is up for grabs.

    "We come in peace. Shoot to kill." - _Mars Attacks_

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  131. Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Ewwtahh, and am so embarased by this guy. Would someone please oust him for me?

  132. By that logic... by Xebikr · · Score: 1

    "File-sharing" should be legal, because of "market realities".

  133. make a stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had a billion dollars
    I could write some better laws ...i'm really sorry it comes to that. as a DJ, musician, and a supporter of indie labels i believe its time we make a stand before this gets (more) out of hand. This is worse than payola, if left unchecked we will be subjected to the backstreet boys for all eternety. if that's not motivation, i don't know what is.

  134. what happens to small record companies? by schatten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what happens to the independent record companies who want to persue a marketing model outside of the RIAA?

    Or even the indie film companies who are now suing the MPAA?

  135. Whoa! by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I was with you until the final paragraph. I think groups like Nickleback or Allannis Morrisette would have something to say to your assertion that nobody can reach the sales of Elvis, et al. As for movies, I can think of a few in the past years where special effects have been necessary to create a great movie (Forrest Gump, Gladiator, the Matrix, LOTR).

    There have always been crappy albums and movies that have made huge amounts of money but have been lost over the years. I have always loved the line from the '40s movie mogul (Sorry I can't remember which one it was, probably Mayer) who said "We're here to make money, produce a few stars and, if everything works out, art.

    There's really no difference between the record and movie executives of today compared to the past in their approach to providing product to consumers. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of new markets and opportunities, they are choosing to litigate and congressate (for lack of a better term) to protect their old sources of revenue.

    myke

  136. Meanwhile, back at the Redmond Hall of Injustice.. by Beta+Moo · · Score: 1
    Billy: Damn it, Steve! Why aren't we doing this???

    Steve: um... developers, devel...

    Billy: Shut it you fool! Blast. It's impossible to get some good help around here.

  137. Yes, the powers NOT delegated by abb3w · · Score: 1

    Look for Article I, Section 8, Clause 3... and yes, I know it's always been massively abused. (On the other hand, I do think the federal highway system is a good thing.)

    Doesn't anybody read the WHOLE constitution any more, instead of just the parts they like?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Yes, the powers NOT delegated by michaelepley · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the federal highway / road system was originally predicated on Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 ("To establish Post Offices and post Roads;").

  138. Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by ScottGant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, they're not a government body. They only have power because they say they have power. If everyone ignored them, there is nothing they can do about it.

    It's time to forget them. They are the past. The genie is out of the bottle, and they can't ever put it back in. It's time to look for a new business model I'm afraid. They want to only hold on to what they had and not pursue what is the future.

    Remember, they only have power because everyone believes they have power. They were not voted on, we didn't elect them. The President didn't appoint them.

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    1. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Remember, they only have power because everyone believes they have power. They were not voted on, we didn't elect them. The President didn't appoint them.

      They have power because they control the music that 95% of the public wants to listen to. While I'm a big fan of the independent artist or label I also like some of the music offered by the RIAA labels. So what are my choices? Don't listen to it? Steal it? Neither of those choices are acceptable to me. My current preference is to buy used-CDs from my local music store. If they don't have something I want then I'll go to iTMS. I won't buy new CDs for $14-$20 from the major retailers.

      They will continue to have this power until the majority of the artists that we know and love decide to ditch them. Do you see this happening any time soon?

      Permanent Anti-trust exemption? Who do they think they are? Major league baseball?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by mkro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have money.

      --
      I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    3. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by luisdom · · Score: 1

      They were not voted on, we didn't elect them. The President didn't appoint them.

      Right, but they appointed the president, they are the great electors.

    4. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking, and can I get a drag?

    5. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by stripe · · Score: 1

      Kinda simple really. Vote they way you feel. I always voted for Democrats in the past because I felt they had less influence from the religious right. However now I am so pissed off at Boxer & Feinstien and their support of these Hollywood extortionists that I will vote for whoever has the best chance of kicking them out of office.

    6. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by Kwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If everyone ignored them, Senator Orrin Hatch would happily cough up the Bill of Rights and half of the Constitution for them to use as toilet paper, provided they gave him better royalties on his non-selling album and higher campaign contributions.

      As it is, it's only because we pay attention that they don't attempt even more outrageous power grabs.

      They may not be elected, but when they can get laws passed that favor them over the good of Americans in general, they have power.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    7. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I always voted for Democrats in the past because I felt they had less influence from the religious right. However now I am so pissed off at Boxer & Feinstien and their support of these Hollywood extortionists that I will vote for whoever has the best chance of kicking them out of office.

      Well said. It's like I've found my political twin.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    8. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by FreekyGeek · · Score: 1

      They have power because they have money. Money equals lobbyists and campaign donations.

      Remember: the only honest politician is the one who stays bought.

    9. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      You would think that with all that money, they could at least pay me to buy their products. Until they do, I'm voting with my own pocketbook. So far this year I've bought movie tickets once and bought a new CD once.

      Their money may be able to buy off my Senators, but it's still not enough to buy a position of authority over me. I'm still the one in charge of deciding what movies and music I'm going to buy.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    10. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by VisualThoy · · Score: 0

      In America, first you get the sugar..
      then you get the power..
      then you get the women...
      -HJS

    11. Re:Why do we even listen to the RIAA and MPAA? by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      You would think that with all that money, they could at least pay me to buy their products

      Whats the point of paying you to pay them?

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  139. conflict of interest by spamspam · · Score: 1

    just the fact that mr. hatch IS a recording artist and makes money from selling his songs should be more than enough to get his butt dismissed from ANY legislation in this industry. orin - it's called a conflict of interest.

  140. Probable results by GatorMan · · Score: 1

    I think we're going to see a lot more sites like MyGlobalSound.com popping up on the web. What they're working for is a streamlined indie music exchange system, where 'new' artists can get their exposure without corporate backing. It is a great new promotions, sales, and resources platform for musicians. MP3.com once held a great position here, but has since been wiped, and this is the best replacement I've found. I think features like the War Room, My City, and Hit the Globe are way ahead of the curve.

  141. Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's really simple if you have a well honed sense of irony.

    Our difficulty stems from how we defined the problem. We tend to think of the problem as being "Money in elections." It is not. Attempts to simply limit fundraising are not going to fix the system.

    By limiting the supply of money in elections, we ensure that it becomes a critical resource. The marginal value of the next dollar is higher, and the marginal cost (to the politician) of obtaining it is higher. The politician must make each donor's contribution go farther, and on the other side of the equation the donors are assured that even modest contributions will have a large impact on the candidate's behavior.

    In short, the system of making it harder for candidates to raise money virtually ensures that political influence will be cheap to buy.

    Of course, simply having politicians become more expensive to buy is not really any better. If anything, it would be great if I could buy an hour of my congressman's time for the price of a latte. In a sense, democracy would be restored. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to drive the price low enough that an ordinary citizen could "buy access".

    What really needs to be extirpated is not money in elections, but the influence of people with money.

    This can be done in two broad ways:

    (1) Ban fundraising altogether.

    (2) Limit the utility of raised money.

    Naturally, banning fundraising would take a constitutional amendment, so its best to focus on limiting the utility of raised momey.

    One way to limit the utility of raised money is to impose spending limits. This has two problems. The first is consitutional, of course. The second is that influence will be bought through soft money and "advocacy". Regulating advocacy in particular would require vigorous and unacceptable limitations on free speech.

    The best way to limit the utility of money is for the public to make up the difference between the best funded candidates and the least funded ones that meet some minimal criteria of electability (e.g. signatures from a fixed percentage of the electorate stipulating they wish this candidate to receive public funding). This means as a candidate, I can gain no competitive advantage through fundraising. The costs in this scenario tend to be self limiting, since time spent by a candidate in raising funds actually puts him at a disadvantage. The candidate bears the costs of raising money in time spent away from campaigning. In the current system costs to the public are not limited, since the candidate can pay off his contributors with somebody else's money (the taxpayers).

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's real campaign finance reform.

      1. Only people who can vote (registered) for a candidate can donate money to that candidate. This would keep corporate money, out-of-district money, and out-of-state money out of the election.

      2. Only people registered with a party could donate money to that party. Partys could not give money to candidates; they could only use the money to recruit new members, run issue ads, and finance their conventions (i.e. party business).

      3. No limit on the amount of money a person could contribute. Only exception would be a percent of annual income, say, 10%. This would keep rich people from donating money in the names of poor people. (If Joe Sixpack donates a million dollars given to him by his boss, but earned only $18,000 last year, both could be prosecuted under election laws.)

      4. No limit on spending by a candidate with donated money. Limit spending his own money to 10% of annual income.

      5. Full and immediate disclosure of all sources of donations. This would let the voters see exactly who is trying to buy a candidate and let them decide accordingly.

      So, if I were running for mayor of Anytown, USA, I could spend 10% of my annual income and all of the money donated to my campaign by citizens of Anytown who were registered voters. No money would be allowed from out-of-town corporations, etc..

      If I were running for the U.S. Senate, I could accept money from any registered voter in my state.

      Does money win elections? Ask President Steve Forbes.

      The rules outlined above are not perfect, but wiser people than me could tweak them a bit.

    2. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good start. It would do away with money from PAC's and special interest groups like PETA, the NRA, NOW, and unions. Money from groups and corporations is what really buys Congressmen. This is supposed to be a nation composed of individuals, not groups.

    3. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another better way to limit the influence of money in politics, limit the value of buying a politician by limiting what government is allowed to do.
      Would medical professions be lobying congress if congress was prohibited from regulating medicine?(or spending government money on medicine?) Oil and mining intrests if the federal govermnent did not own land with oil and minerals? Timber industry if the government if not for the national forests?

      If the government got out of a lot of things that they should not be doing there would be a lot less money in politics. (unfortunatly this would not help IP isssues too much)

    4. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      2. Only people registered with a party could donate money to that party. Partys could not give money to candidates; they could only use the money to recruit new members, run issue ads, and finance their conventions (i.e. party business).

      What if I like the Democratic presidential candidate, but the republican candidate for the senate?

      You should instead limit it to one candidate per race(I don't mean as in black or white, I mean as in president, Senator, etc.).

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    5. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately since the New Deal, and probably before then, the 10th amendment, which is the greatest limit on federal government's power, and thus our greatest protection from corruption, has been ignored.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    6. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it has not been ignored, it has been broken.

      The 14th amendment prevents states from restricting the 'privileges or immunities of citizens' and gives congress power to enforce this.
      'privileges or immunities of citizens' has been interpreted to include just about everything from abortion to religion to gay sex.
      Most of what the 10th reserved to the states only is now prohibited from them. Take a good look at just about any major US Supreame Court decision. they all cite the 14th amendment this way. (Roe v wade, recent homosexualtiy ruling, religion in schools (or anywhere else) Bush's election rulling . . . . The list is huge.)
      The first amendments 'congress shall make no law' became 'nobody shall make a law'. So every case involving these issues goes to the courts, and since there is no laws about them, the courts get to decide what the 'law' is. Needless to say the courts have been making a lot of dumb 'laws' for quite some time.

      The goal of the 14th amendment was great, the implementation badly flawed. It needs to be repealed and replaced with something better.

      Take a look here for a better description of what I am trying to say here

    7. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll (or can't read)

      you donate to the dem pres. candidate's campaign, and the rep. senate candidate's campaign. (assuming you can vote for them as well)

      You don't give to the party, neither party could give to those candidates anyway. Only give to the party if you want to promote the PARTY, not a particular candidate.

    8. Re:Campaign Finance Reform = Cheap Influence by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      The tenth amendment was ignored. If the courts didn't ignore it, many federal laws would have been thrown out.

      Also, I don't believe the 14th amendment can be improved upon much. The real problem is courts interpreting the constitution according to their agenda, rather than what it actually says.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  142. Searching ... searching ... by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Freedom, Egality, Due process, Right to protect one's home, Right to own weapons, Pursuit of happiness...

    Can't find "Corporate Profits" anywhere. It's about time politicians in the US realise that corporations don't have a voting right, and thus are not full citizens.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
    1. Re:Searching ... searching ... by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      Hey careful, you're giving them ideas.

    2. Re:Searching ... searching ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      corporations don't have a voting right, and thus are not full citizens.

      Wrong, they vote with their money

    3. Re:Searching ... searching ... by daveking · · Score: 1

      Jesrad: corporations don't have a voting right, and thus are not full citizens.

      AC: Wrong, they vote with their money

      Jesrad is correct stating that corporations have no right to vote. They have very few rights, and not even a right to their own survival. We (natural persons) are able to create and destroy our own corporations, just by following specific legal procedures.

      If the AC intended to imply that the people who operate some corporations do conspire to abuse corporate wealth to subvert our political system, then the AC is correct. But that behavior is illegal and not accurately described as 'voting'. It has several accurate names but I like to call it 'representation-jacking'.

      I think we would all agree that:
      1: Paris is the capital of France.
      2: The influence of corporate wealth in US government seems to frequently exceed the influence of the electorate.

      We must understand the process of abuse clearly if we are to solve issue 2 and repair the system.

      Issue 1 is not a problem, just a trick to get us all back into agreement.

      --
      ------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
  143. antitrust immunity by Zarn · · Score: 1

    You enforce the law.
    You can't be sued.

    How is this different from being a three-letter agency?

  144. Re:Blame the Free Market? Yes, they will by MarvinMouse · · Score: 1

    Actually, to get around the healthcare problem, you can resolve it by just adding another layer to the formula. The government doesn't take over healthcare, but rather takes over health insurance, and thus avoids the obvious prisoner's dilemma that naturally jacks up health insurance costs and doctors prices. If rather than handling the doctor's themselves, but rather handling insurance and saying we'll pay this much for these operations, and making it illegal for any other insurance company to pay for those essential services. This means that "non-essential" medical services can charge whatever they want, but general services will be reasonably priced, and the citizenry will all be able to access this. Thus leading to a healthier population, and avoidance of the prisoner dilemma between doctors and insurance companies where doctors place whatever price they want (which will naturally be the highest an insurance company will pay), and then the other insurance companies all have to offer that service at that price, and then the doctor again will up the price, etc. leading to a natural race to the bottom.

    Now, I am not saying that everything should be handling 100% by a federal medicare program, that would be crazy, but if you put only the essential services as that, and then let the population buy insurance for other services you acheive the best of both worlds. You gain free market expansion while you maintain a minimum level of healthcare for the general population.

    --
    ~ kjrose
  145. Bush appears to have a figurehead mentality by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trade with Cuba is wrong because Castro is one of THEM. Iraq needed to be cleansed because Hussein was one of THEM. Kim Jong-il and the Ayatollah Khamenei are also evil men, and therefore their countries are evil.

    Vietnam and China, however, don't have such controversial leaders. Jiang Zemin has few blemishes on his record, and therefore China has few blemishes on it's record (despite having human rights violations codified into law). And who knows who Tran Du Luong is or what he has done? Obviously they can't be put onto the axis of evil, because they aren't lead by a James Bond supervillian.

    I think few people in this country reacted when George Bush gave his "axis of evil" speech because it was so patently ridiculous to point at three countries with improving diplomatic relations and call them the devil. When Bush gave his "you're either with us or against us" line, people seemed to accept it as a liberally used figure of speech. Now that Bush is claiming that the people who wanted a UN resolution before declaring war in Iraq were supporting Osama Bin Laden, it has become clear that this is actually how the man thinks.

    Bush believes himself to be good, therefore everything he does is good and above questioning. Clinton did bad things and therefore is bad, therefore everything he did should be overturned and turned over to the press. Ashcroft is a good man, acting in what he believes to be the public's best interest. Therefore whatever Ashcroft does is in the public's best interest. This logic is, of course, flawed. I'm sure Ashcroft believes he is acting in the public's best interests, but his viewpoint of the world is greatly skewed by the line of work he is in.

    In a way it is an extension of the monarchy. Bush has actually said on occasion that he has been chosen by God to rule. Once again, this was taken to be the liberal sprinkling of praise for God that peppers oscar acceptance speeches and winning locker rooms. But in light of actions, it is becoming apparent that the man truly believes he has a divine mandate to rule... That god works through him and therefore he is above reproach. As his decisions are perfect, so too must be the decisions of those people whom he chooses, and such the divine mandate trickles to his staff and people.

    This is not just a crackpot theory on how the president thinks. This is a theory based upon how the president himself claims that he thinks. Honestly, I would be surprised if he found any problem with either the accuracy of the theory or the morality behind the thought pattern.

    1. Re:Bush appears to have a figurehead mentality by fwaggle · · Score: 1

      Trade with Cuba is wrong because Castro is one of THEM. Iraq needed to be cleansed because Hussein was one of THEM. Kim Jong-il and the Ayatollah Khamenei are also evil men, and therefore their countries are evil. So, because Khamenei is evil and a total dick, 70 million other Iranians have those qualities as well? I see. That would mean: - Since Bush is an idiot, then, of course, all Americans are idiots. - As it's clear that Blair is a coward, then all British people are cowards as well. - And I guess every North Korean has dreams of taking over the world through nuclear warfare. No arguement there. Here's something interesting; Finland's president and prime minister are both female.

    2. Re:Bush appears to have a figurehead mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's something interesting; Finland's president and prime minister are both female.

      Sorry for posting as AC - I want to preserve my already used mod points (my account is "plj") - but you're wrong about Finland's prime minister; she only governed about 3 months before she had to resign due to political scandal - it became public that during election campaign she had obtained documents about discussions taken place in White House between her predecessor and George W. Bush.

      Too bad that those documents were classified, and because during pre-election time she was still an ordinary parliament representative she shouldn't have access to those. Thus, either she, or person who gave her those documents, or both, have committed to a crime - this is still under investigation by Finnish NBI.

    3. Re:Bush appears to have a figurehead mentality by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 1

      Here's something interesting; Finland's president and prime minister are both female.

      So... Everyone in Finland is female?

    4. Re:Bush appears to have a figurehead mentality by fwaggle · · Score: 1

      How did you know that?

  146. do something productive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    fill out senator hatch's web form. use mild language that expresses disapproval.

    http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/ /iaw

  147. Re:SOLD! by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Campaigns take money these days. Lots of it. If you don't have name recognition, it takes even more. I live in a county with a population of 17,000 and we just had a well constested Sheriff's race. The winner (and - thank goodness - the best man for the job) spent over $8,000, and he was pretty cash strapped. I would guess he did about 1/2 the advertising as the other two top candiates, and I know he painted some of his own signs to save money. He probably talked to more than half the residents in the county face to face, door to door. There are no radio or television stations which cater to this county, and there is single weekly newspaper, so there was no big $$$ media.

    Why are candidates so dependent on cash? VOTER APATHY! Yes, it's still our fault. We don't do research, we vote by name recognition and the "message" which has been tested and massaged by the political machine. Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe that I'll get a chance to talk one-on-one with the next presidential candidates, but I'll be doing a little legwork prior to the democratic primary elections.

    I already know that Dubya is not a man I can trust to protect my values. IMHO, his eye's are bigger than his stomach, and his mouth is faster than his brain - I probably wouldn't vote for him if we mostly agreed on how the country should be run.

    I don't know much about Dean, yet, but I will. He doesn't carry the baggage a congresman usually carries, but he's got a record to follow. I find looking at the "other" sides literature is a good starting point. Find out why they think he shouldn't be in office. Once you know how he handles his missteps, then look at his purported successes. Look at how he's handles problems, then judge his actions based on intent and available data. When you invest money in mutual funds, do you take a look at the historical data or do you look at the methods and values of the manager? Most folks who choose based on the former are sorely disappointed in their investments over time - you're constantly moving money into last year's great performer.

    Now, I'm nearly as lazy as the next guy, so I won't even look at the candiates until a moth or so before the primary, when I'm stuck with four or five lousy choices from the original field of fifteen or so. But hey, at least that's manageable.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  148. The RIAA-is-Stupid Fund by Wingie · · Score: 1

    I have resolved to start my own anti-RIAA fund: everytime they make /. I will put five bucks into a jar, and every time I have twenty I'll go and buy myself a CD-worth of independent music. I suggest that other people do the same--imagine, every /. reader spending five bucks, that's like... a lot.

    1. Re:The RIAA-is-Stupid Fund by StarFace · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I probably already well exceed that quota. I spend about $40 - $70 in CDs every week, and not a single penny of that goes towards the RIAA.

      Good idea though, as long as the spending towards the RIAA stops, no matter how much you like the artist. I've had to stop listening to a number of artists since I stopped several years ago. I don't really regret it either. I've found entire new genres that appeal to me as a result.

      --
      V
    2. Re:The RIAA-is-Stupid Fund by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't just go to the store to get independent music but you should ask the people who work there, preferably managers since the cashiers probably don't know better, which musicians, even if you actually know the answer, are members of an RIAA studio so you know which to buy. If it's a small business it might help even better than a chain store in which the manager probably has little control on which music to buy. Of course they will ignore you regardless but it can't hurt.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
    3. Re:The RIAA-is-Stupid Fund by Wingie · · Score: 1

      Believe me when I say that whenever I buy any piece of music online now I spend twenty minutes before-hand to research whether said label/artist is part of the RIAA.

  149. Destroy 'dem Computers Hatch by tierra · · Score: 1

    tis a sad day to be a Utah'n... trust me, Hatch is not staying in the chair, not if I have anything to do with it. this isn't the first time he's fucked up really bad in the last few months.

  150. Monopolies and Fascism by dsbrain · · Score: 1

    "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in it's essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938

    So, no need for a new name for the type of government we are getting. It already has a name and that is Fascism. And don't forget that fascism, rabid nationalism and ethnocentrism usually all go hand in hand. Like when people call me anti-american or even terrorist for being against the invasion of Iraq.

    What I need now is a nice person from Quebec to marry me so I can leave the USA. Montreal is my favorite place on earth!

    Davey B.

    "This eCS-OS/2 system uptime is 13 days 09 hrs 07 mins and 16 secs"

  151. Land of the free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it isn't!

    America, land with the best laws money can buy!

  152. There is nothing new under the sun by lildogie · · Score: 1

    > I do not have any optomism whatsoever that our government will ever recover from its current despicable state

    Well, it's been at least as despicable before, and still risen up to less despicable. Take McCarthyism, for example.

    I sure wish I had paid more attention to history, 'cause the process for lifting up the quality of government is probably already illustrated in the past.

    But I also believe that it's a see-saw, and we're on the downward swing right now.

  153. The answer to the Rot by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    is to help root it out. Get involved with us in the Dean campaign. We're tech savvy, run off linux, and are dead-set on kicking all the bastards out. If you're not sure if you like what Dean's about, come to a meetup (look up a location near you on meetup.com). We're making a huge difference, and with your help we can go all the way.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:The answer to the Rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need the "huge difference" Dean is trying to make. Go take your socialist candidate somewhere else. He's not welcome in this republic.

    2. Re:The answer to the Rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, here's to another 4 with BushCo

      NOT!!!!

  154. I'll be tuning into C-Span for this one! by God+Hates+Liberals · · Score: 1

    Although many brush past C-Span on their oscillations through the channels, I find that during hot issues C-Span makes probably for the most interesting TV around. Most probably do not have time to watch C-Span long enough to get a good rounded idea of who stands where on what, and must resort to condensed versions, including a few snippets, during the News or on articles online. However, all I've ever really gotten from media concerning the senate is who stands where, the why is always left out in the editing process (except maybe if the senator makes a snippable comment that flows nicely with the story). At any rate, when the Senate returns from break I'm going to be searching C-Span for this one! I've been getting my information from the horse's mouth lately, and its suprising how much you realize you don't know when you actually sit down and listen to lengthy discourses from all sides of a topic. One can always check out senate.gov, however I find that page pretty hard to navigate. C-Span is good, but plan to leave your night open. With popular social memes like 'crooked politician' inundating basically everyone's political views, nobody ever really gives personally generated explanations for this, they just espouse what they've been told. I think its a little too easy to say simply 'the MPAA are trying to seize dictatorial prerogative.' I'll hold my tongue on this one.

  155. Lobbying for an exemption to anti-trust law by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the ultimate admission that you need to be kept on a TIGHT leash? The irony....

  156. (+5 Insightful) by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

    'nuff said

  157. More... by Malcontent · · Score: 0

    A free press is good except if it's arabic and critizes US policy then you should shut them down or bomb them.

    It's bad if other countries torture prisoners but it's OK to send prisoners to other countries to be tortured.

    Free trade is great except if you are in the steel industry.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

    1. Re:More... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      A free press is good except if it's arabic and critizes US policy then you should shut them down or bomb them.

      Who says they have to be arabic?

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A free press is good except if it's arabic and critizes US policy then you should shut them down or bomb them.
      Reporters for Al Jazeera, the Arabic newspaper in question, were acting as couriers for Al Qaeda. The newspaper was paying people to shoot at American soldiers (with one of their reporters conveniently nearby to get the scoop). They were also inciting people to commit acts of terrorism against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

      If an American newspaper had done all this, they would have been kicked out of Iraq, too. They would probably be brought up on criminal charges, too.

      They were lucky they were only kicked out of Iraq. I think we should have blown their asses up.

    3. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Reporters for Al Jazeera, the Arabic newspaper in question, were acting as couriers for Al Qaeda. "

      Bullshit.

      "The newspaper was paying people to shoot at American soldiers (with one of their reporters conveniently nearby to get the scoop)."

      Bullshit.

      "They were also inciting people to commit acts of terrorism against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians."

      Bullshit.

      I guess Americans will believe anything. I suppose you believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks too huh?

      "If an American newspaper had done all this, they would have been kicked out of Iraq, too. They would probably be brought up on criminal charges, too."

      I guess that makes the US just like Iraq.

      "They were lucky they were only kicked out of Iraq. I think we should have blown their asses up."

      Al-Jazeera was bombed three times by the US military. We only managed to kill reporters once though.

  158. Ditto for Democrats on the drug issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up they are WORSE than Republicans on this issue-not by much but still worse.Mandatory minimums-Hell almost all of our drug laws have been passed with overwhelming Dem support
    FDR made mary jane illegal
    LBJ-LSD
    Criminalising drugs has been a "progressive"political cause.

  159. This is ALL YOUR FAULT!!! by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
    Before you guys start going around blaming everyone else, why don't you first start where it REALLY belongs - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU (Americans that is)!!!

    Most of us here are in the 16 to 35 yo demographics. And we are, by far, the ones with the WORST voting record. Almost all of never vote. Oopdy Doo if you vote, but your fellow gen X and Y'ers are not.

    You guys have to knowledge, money, numbers, and best of all the NETWORK of like-minded people to make a difference. But all you do is whine, moan, and complain (which is what gen X and Y'ers do best).

    You want things to change? You can start by raising money, pick a candidate to challenge Orrin Hatch, and get EVERY gen X and Y'ers to vote against him. I guarantee if you can get 60% to 70% of gen X and Y to vote in Utah and 70% of those vote for the other guy, Hatch will be history.

    But will you take that bold step? NO!!! You rather just sit in your cubicles or dorm rooms and complain. Big WHUP!

    1. Re:This is ALL YOUR FAULT!!! by headwes · · Score: 1

      Hear hear...

  160. What does age have to with anything? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Sure the 66 year old grandmother was using a Mac, but what if she wasn't? Being 12 or 14 or 66 doesn't excuse a person from doing something that is illegal.

    1. Re:What does age have to with anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, being a minor does give a great deal of protection from civil prosecution. The 66 year old oughta be clapped in irons though, just on general principle. Hasn't anybody told that generation that we don't want them hanging around anymore?

  161. I'll Inform My Senators by BigDork1001 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sunday I'm having lunch with my Senators and the Senators from Rhode Island. I'll make sure that if they aren't aware of what Hatch is up to they will be and I'll make sure they know why this is a bad idea. Yeah I doubt this has a chance of passing but hey, the way this Administration and Congress are going soon I'll be calling Dubya Big Brother.

    --
    "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
  162. Letter to Orin Hatch by r_benchley · · Score: 1

    Dear Senator Hatch, I am disappointed how you are blindly acting as a mouthpieces for the RIAA and MPAA. Granted, these industries are having problems with illegal downloads of their products being made, but it is not the business of our government to act as hitmen and enforcers for them. It is their own responsibility to adapt to consumer demand and offer consumers a product that encourages the consumer to legally obtain the product. Free does not always win out with the consumer. People are willing to pay for a product if they feel that they're getting a good deal and that the people marketing the product are listening to them and what they want. If people are offered a quality alternative to internet piracy, such as Apple's iTunes store, they do avail themselves of the service. People are more than happy to spend their consumer dollars on a product, so long as they feel that they're getting their money's worth. Paying $19.00 for a CD is unreasonable, and that is why internet piracy of music is so rampant. (The music industry's current model for marketing homogenized music with no substance is also a factor, mirroring the record slump of the late seventies, but that is not relevant as far as issues of government action is concerned.) The music industry made similar complaints when radio stations started playing popular music on the air. They gnashed their teeth, moaned, and wailed. At present, they are still with us, despite their prophesies of bankruptcy and doom. The music industry, and to a lesser extent the movie industry, are at a crossroads. It is their responsibility to meet consumer demand and offer an alternative to internet piracy that is fair. When offered a good product at a fair price, consumers will do the right thing, and make a sound moral choice. When the band Wilco released their last album as free MP3 downloads, they built a good, grassroots, word-of-mouth buzz about the album. When the recording was released in a proper retail CD format, sales of the album were twice as many as their previous album. The record industry needs to adapt, not go running to the government for aid when they're licking self-inflicted wounds created by their rampant greed and indifference to their customers. We have many problems facing this country that need the attention of our capable legislators. We need our men and women in Congress working on solutions to the problems in Iraq, problem with health care, problems with trade deficits. The RIAA and MPAA can take care of themselves. Respectfully, Jack Morrison Greene

  163. Desperation by johnos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It comes to this, without legislative exemption from anti-competitive laws, the **AA can't compete. And they know it.

    The RIAA has been a bit hysterical and made some cruicial blunders. They first went to court instead of to Washington, and their scorched earth campagin isn't working out too well. The various challenges to their subpoenas may invalidate the "shoot first and ask questions later" provisions of the DMCA. I think the MPAA is not amused or appreciative. What they are is scared. This weekend one of the pre-movie commercials at my local Cineplex was an MPAA thingy showing a real working stiff in the movie business to make the point that movie trading hurts real people. Unlike their music buddies, the MPAA has used the courts sparingly and put most of their effort into Washington lobbying. But even that's not gone well. Fritz Holling's bill was a PR disaster. Orrin Hatch's remarks earlier this year that copyright holders should be able to invade people's computers was worse. Even the senate big-wigs felt compelled to issue statements disagreeing.

    And now this. They need the Government's protection to survive. They need exemption from anti-trust laws, no matter what the political consequences, or they're toast. Even if you believe all politicians are dishonest bastards, its hard to see how Hatch's little trick will work. One thing politicians really don't like is political headaches. And most are quite willing to toast contributors if there is a need for expediency. Can you imagine the furor if this got passed? Every representative would be flooded with requests by other industries for a similar exemption. All would demand that if it could be done for the movie and music businesses, it could damn well be done for them. And that's a headache no senator or congressman wants to get. Look for a lot of senators suddenly being too busy to answer Hatch's phone calls.

  164. Legal rights... by michaeltoe · · Score: 1
    so they're used to it to the point where it's been justified in their minds so that they don't feel guilty

    ... you should know as well as anyone that laws are based on what is appropriate for society, not what is appropriate for any individual.

    Yes, Orrin Hatch is correct, there are new "Market Realities"... ones which have effectively proven the RIAA obsolete. People like you who would prefer to drag society back into the dark ages, and reinstitute economic scarcity when it doesn't actually exist, are no different from the same pious conservatives who assaulted the invention of the printing press.

  165. So wrong by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


    The whole reason we elect government officials is to protect us from the government itself.

    No, the reason we elect government officials is in order to:

    ...form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

    Read the constitution sometime. Public ignorance is what allows corporate power to control your government.

    Notice that more and more of our rights are taken away as the government gains more power?

    Notice that government is just a tool that is being wielded by corporations to control us? Notice that we need to grab the tool for ourselves rather than smash it? Notice that without government we have no power to chart the course of our society? Notice that someone will always grab power and, without a democratic government, that will most definitely not be the people?

    --
    - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  166. Root cause by photonic · · Score: 1

    Which leads us to the root cause of all this funny legislation: funding of political parties. I believe here in the Netherlands it is only allowed to donate as an individual and not as a company.

    Of course the parties will complain how to raise their money. Our solution: all parties (and we have more than 2!) that get above the threshold of the last election (say one seat in parlement) get subsidized.

    How much more of these stories do you americans need to wake up and demand a change to this practice?

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
  167. Re:GOBLINS INVADED MY HOUSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michael, isn't this a violation of your parole?

  168. Orrin Snatch by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Ha Ha. I seem to remmeber him being the "working nerd's hero" some time ago when he was going after Microsoft. Same as David Boies used to be, eh?

    Well, nerds, your snakes have turned on you. Pretty sweet if you ask me.

  169. ORIN HATCH = STEAMING PILE OF DOG SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Orin Hatch is a friggin self righteous, dogmatic, republican imbecile. Everything i've seen come out of his mouth has been trash. He exemplifies all that is wrong with the Republican party (and this country)-selfish corporatist out to gut our natural resources for his special interests.

    ORIN GO FUCK YOURSELF (cause yer wife sure aint givin it to yer sorry ass)

    1. Re:ORIN HATCH = STEAMING PILE OF DOG SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Orin Hatch is a friggin self righteous, dogmatic, republican imbecile."

      That may be, but he's been elected, and re-elected, and he's in power. And you're not.

  170. But you people used to love him. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Remember when he went after Microsoft (for the same reasons, he was in somebody's pocket)? You all just _loved_ him then, aye?

    I call it poetic fucking justice, and you can all choke on it.

  171. Re:Orrin bought with money, let's buy coleman w/vo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If voting really worked it would be illegal by now.

  172. We can only hope... by trainsnpep · · Score: 3, Informative
    We can only hope that US lawmakers took history: Back in Boston, in say the mid to late 1700s, there was a company called the British East Indea Company. They controlled a large part of trade with the colonies. They muscled out other competetors. They were therefore a monopoly. Monopoly, class. Add that to your vocab words.

    A Monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: 'Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals' (Milton Friedman). "

    The British East India Company used their power to inflate prices on imported tea. Then, the British Government (which owned the British East India Company) taxed that tea. Hrmm...Does anyone in the class know what the Boston Tea Party was?

    Other Monopolies...Everyone knows Rockefeller Plaza, correct? And Carnegie Melon University? And J. P. Morgan? John D. Rockefeller was a monopoly owner in the late 1870s. He controlled the whole of oil refinery. He didn't care who drilled for it, or who sold it, he just refined it. 96% of it. He cut prices so low that other businesses couldn't compete. Andrew (I believe) Carnegie controlled steel production. He controlled every part from the mining of its components to the shipping. He used a new process (I believe Bessemer...it's been a few years) which made steel cheaper, stronger, and easily manufacturered. J. P. Morgan? The money guy: He controlled most of the banks in America. He actually was so rich and so powerful he brought the whole nation out of depression. He brought all of the bankers under his control, said "OK, how much can you give to the government?", "And you?", "And what about you?". He brought the whole damn nation out of a small but potentially disastrous depression.

    Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act. From this act, "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "

    Source: USDOJ

    There are other anti-trust laws (Clayton Act, also on the above page). The purpose of them is so that no one corporation or organization can come to control a large part of any market. It is a protection to the consumers. We have been without protection from the RIAA for years. We've been forced to pay their steep prices for a long time, until the idea of Napster came around.

    US Lawmakers must remember the past. They must ignore the few million they got from the RIAA in their campaigns. The must not pass any sort of legislation such as what the RIAA is aiming for. The RIAA is a monopoly. To exempt them would only give a hundred new arms to the octopus that it already is. Write your local congress-critter and express your views.


    (Footnote: Please excuse any historical errors. I am a history buff, but it's been three years since I studied American History. I can ensure you it's mostly accurate...)

    --
    --<Mike>--
  173. Bullshit. by seraph93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get over yourselves...they're within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works.

    The RIAA has no right to act as enforcers of laws. That's what the police and the courts are for. Unlike the RIAA, these bodies are subject to checks and balances, not only from other branches of government, but from the citizens of the United States.

    The RIAA has no right to be exempt from antitrust laws. They have no right to be exempt from any law, for that matter.

    The RIAA has no right to expect twenty dollars from me every time they release a new album. I don't want it; I won't buy it, I won't steal it. They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them.

    The RIAA is within their legal right to protect their copyrighted works, but this goes far, far beyond that. How far do they have to go before people see that this isn't about piracy, or theft, or any of the terms the RIAA uses to distract us while they buy our freedom out from under us? How much of the government do they have to own before people stop calling me a hippie and a thief for standing up for my right not to give these assholes any money? What's next, a monthly bill for everyone in the country, whether or not they listened to any music?

    I don't advocate music piracy. What I advocate is my government protecting *my* rights, not the rights of corporations. Look at that Constitution. It says "We the People", not "We the Shareholders". As long as we keep on saying "STFU pirate" and ignoring the real issues, they'll keep on taking our country from us, one purchased bill at a time.

    I am a citizen, not a consumer.

    I am a human being, not a revenue source.

    I, for one, reject our new overlords.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quiet down number 560551.

  174. all that... and you messed up on the second word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would of been much more funny, if you were insulting the right people.

    Republicanism!=Conservativism
    Just the same as
    Liberalism!=Socialism

    Here's a hint..
    Republicans believe in limited government (hands-off economics, states should have the primary power not federal)
    Conservatives believe in the "moral right" (they're the religious nuts.. anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-drugs, etc)

    In a two-party system they tend to get lumped together, but that doesn't mean they're not opposing forces.

  175. RIAA borrowing ideas from spammers? by Tired_Blood · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently the RIAA claims to represent thousands of labels, many of whom have never joined the organization.

    They need click on a link to Opt-out. Also, it takes 4-6 weeks to be removed from the list.

    --
    This is not my sig.
  176. Kodak could sue Flash Ram manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a "market reality" that digital photography was/is cutting out Kodak's core market for camera film. Why aren't they out suing the makers of flash RAM and digital cameras?

    No, instead Kodak is attempting to adapt, leveraging their brand name in photography and adapting by embracing digital media and competing in the market that erodes their old core business.

    Why can't the fucks in the music industry adapt?! Times change.

  177. DMCA=Digitized Music Crippled Again

    this should translate somehow this way imho:)

    people don't take it all too close to the heart. open-minded community strike is near.

    more-or-less i am sure that i've got a brilliant idea which i will disclose as soon as it will be good enough. I am sure that _as_allways_ something open&free will born, which would outrival all and everything patented-licensed-royality-protected.

    i will try to bring the idea/tech out for discussion at around christmas, i hope.

  178. we need a lobbying group! by snooo53 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Although Orrin Hatch is the last congressman I'd trust giving money to, this goes to show that members of congress could be bought.

    If enough people who cared about these issues could get organized and donate $5-$20 to an election campaign, it'd be possible to outbid the RIAA. There's a lot more little guys out there then there are people in the RIAA's pocket. Again, you'd have to find the right politicians (certainly not Hatch) but it is possible. What the anti-RIAA/MPAA movement needs is a lobbying group!!

    --
    The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
  179. congressate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are choosing to litigate and congressate (for lack of a better term)

    A better term would be bribe.

  180. Re:all that... and you messed up on the second wor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, the Republican party most certainly are attempting to be the party of choice for both your ideal "Repbulicans" and the "conservatives". It's the mix of the two that results in most of the dichotomies pointed out in the grandparent post. If you consider yourself a devotee of "Republicanism", you might want to call the Republican party and ask them to change the name of their party as they are confusing people.

  181. Anything for attention by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    The 12-year-old girl? The 15-year-old girl? Or the 66-year-old Grandma with a Mac?"

    I tell ya, CowboyNeal, CmdrTaco and JohnKatz will do anything for attention now a days!

  182. letter to senator by llamalover · · Score: 2, Informative
    Dear Senator,

    I am writing to protest a portion of the bill Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement Act of 2003 mentioned here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html.

    I do not believe the RIAA requires protection from antitrust suits. I request that you introduce an ammendment to remove that provision in the bill or to ammend it to allow independent government oversight.

    I understand the need of the entertainment industry to protect its copyrights. They created or own the rights to the works, so if the works are being used, for a period of time they deserve to profit from them. However, it is dangerous to allow any organization or industry freedom from antitrust lawsuits unless the government is planning to regulate that industry itself. The lawsuits are checks preventing organizations from trampling the rights of others. If organizations form a trust they have a tendency to start acting if not illegally, then unfairly. If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs. Realistically, no one is going to sue the RIAA unless they are sure they have a good case because the RIAA has more money and lawyers than the average person.

    Another reason the RIAA does not deserve antitrust protection is that it does not provide a vital service. I can understand extending it, with caution, to vital industries such as power companies in times of crisis, but the function the RIAA performs is not vital to the national interest. Of course copyrighted material must be protected, but let the RIAA be open to court challenges. I'd be hesitant to extend such important protection to an industry that recently had to refund money to consumers because of price fixing.

    Again, I urge you to amend this bill. Thank you for your time.

    1. Re:letter to senator by nmoore · · Score: 1
      If the RIAA has done nothing wrong, then the lawsuit will fail and I'd assume the losing side would have to pay for the legal costs.

      In general, each side pays its own legal costs unless there is a contract directing otherwise or the suit is judged to be frivolous.

      Other that that minor squibble, nice letter. I hope you send it.

  183. Promotion? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Another reality is that the cost to become a record label isn't that high anymore either.

    One big problem with your reasoning is that only the big boys seem to have the finances to promote their recordings to listeners in moving vehicles.

  184. What'll happen.. by dentar · · Score: 1

    With *AA's exemption from anti-trust, they'll just raise prices to the point that their ENTIRE customer base will just leave.

    I'm a left wing liberal, but THIS one the market actually WILL solve. It will just take a while.

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  185. Re:Please keep children and grandmothers out of it by sulli · · Score: 1
    Come on guys, lets keep the standards high

    ummm ... what web site are we on again?

    and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.

    Hasn't worked. The only way you can get any law passed these days is to claim it's for the children. Call it Briannas 's Law and we might just have something (not least because she has such a modern name).

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  186. Re:Orrin bought with money, let's buy coleman w/vo by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

    How do I know Norm Coleman is actually doing anything? His website doesn't mention any of his views on issues, so I'm mostly left in the dark.

  187. The Reason this Garbage is even possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that rational arguments only work effectively with a small subset of the population. Don't knock emotional manipulation, the masses expect it and respond to it nicely.

    Most people are a complete emotional disaster and are utterly reactive to what they see, hear, and read. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of things in the USA circa 2003.

    So if you want to win 'Hearts and Minds' and get non-geeks to understand what is so clear to many of us, use the same highly effective weapons the enemy chooses.

    Make no mistake, this is ideological war. To win we need to pull out the stops. I don't advocate dishonesty. But I have NO problem with 'Painting the Picture' for those who can't see it already.

    Time to decide if it's worth it, this nation is under attack and an emotional resonse from the majority may be the only way to turn the tide of legislative stupidity.

    How about some creative thinking in this vein?

  188. Adapting. by soulee · · Score: 1

    "Mr. President, the music industry has sometimes been criticized for being too slow to adapt its business models to new technologies. The industry is now responding to such concerns by developing new products and new distribution channels. The EnFORCE Act will ensure that federal law allows the music industry to provide consumers with these innovative products and services." Statement of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch

    I can not believe what I am reading. So apparently, due to changing technologies and the advancement of time, the music industry needs to freeze our culture so they can catch up and charge us accordingly? Imagine if the medical field could get away with this!

    I've heard of things being, "..slow to adapt.." before. They were called dinosaurs. Hmm... remind me... What happened to those?

  189. When I said RIAA/MPAA owns the laws... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    and people accuse me of being paranoid...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  190. Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by PizzaFace · · Score: 1

    Lots of technical types are libertarian, and the rationality of the free market appeals to them. But can't they see that the Republican party's rhetoric about freedom is usually intended to give license to their economically powerful constituents? The Republican party today is about making the rich richer. And if the rich think they can become richer by taking freedoms (e.g. fair use of copyrighted works) away from the people, then the Republicans will happily accommodate. Come on, libertarians, think before you vote.

    1. Re:Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Yep, and Bill (blowMeHard) Clinton passed the DMCA.

      Your point? Both parties are crap.

      --
    2. Re:Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Republicans are good at using words like "freedom" and "liberty" when they mean entirely opposite things to different constituancies. To the rich and powerful, including corporations, freedom means the freedom to do what you want without restrictions. To the common citizen, freedom means the freedom from having things done to you. These two concepts are at odds with one another. The big money interests know what they mean when the Repuglicans start spouting "feedom." Of course, the Democrats are on the same bandwagon. They just have to pretend to be on our side.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    3. Re:Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by Red+Rocket · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Both parties are crap.

      The difference is subtle. Democrats are working for their corporate sponsors but they're kind of hamstrung because they still have to pretend to be working for the people.
      Repuglicans have this really nasty in-your-face, what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it arrogance about them while they ram this crap down our throats and put industry hacks in charge of government.
      And are you really that threatened by blow jobs? I, personally, think spending our tax dollars and our soldiers' lives to kill thousands of civilians in a sovereign country is much more of a threat to our country.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    4. Re:Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      >>The difference is subtle. Democrats are working for their corporate sponsors but they're kind of hamstrung because they still have to pretend to be working for the people.

      Many still don't 'try' very hard. The only real few dem's that I remember that tried to back up our rights was:

      1: Lieberman during passing of Patriot Act. Saw on CSpan where he started yelling "Did anybody read this crap?!!?"
      2: Howard Dean's comments on denying computer-stupid laws.

      Past that, my beef is how Dean screwed up his home state.

      >>Repuglicans have this really nasty in-your-face, what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it arrogance about them while they ram this crap down our throats and put industry hacks in charge of government.

      Wrong, but not far off. Republicans believe is that socialism benefits lowest-common denominator and disincentives people from succeeding past what's expected. Since people in industry have shown themselves to be successful, Repubs put them in and give them command over certain projects in Govt. Course the way that corporates get successful is screwing the little guy.

      >>And are you really that threatened by blow jobs?

      When I'm paying for it, hell yeah.

      >>I, personally, think spending our tax dollars and our soldiers' lives to kill thousands of civilians in a sovereign country is much more of a threat to our country.

      Spit it out. It was the FUCKING democrats that made Reagan turn his back on Hussein. Reagan was his good friend. If it wasnt for pulling out completely and letting HIS guys get killed, we would have never have to go back in there to clean up.

      --
    5. Re:Why do libertarians vote for Republicans? by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      >>And are you really that threatened by blow jobs?
      When I'm paying for it, hell yeah.


      Isn't the president on duty 24x7? Are you saying that the president should never be able to get a blow job until he leaves office? That could be four or even eight years! Eight years without a blow job! Man you're harsh!

      Spit it out. It was the FUCKING democrats that made Reagan turn his back on Hussein. Reagan was his good friend. If it wasnt for pulling out completely and letting HIS guys get killed, we would have never have to go back in there to clean up.

      Oh. You're saying we shouldn't have turned our back on Saddam? We should have kept arming him with US taxpayer money? That's insane, dude. Reagan should never have been arming him in the first place. And what, exactly, did we need to clean up? What great urgency was there that required the expenditure of so many thousands of civilian lives and so many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars? Really -- why was that task so important?

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  191. Hatch sold out for only $1000 from the RIAA by Animats · · Score: 1

    They don't even pay him that much. He only got $14,500 from the whole entertainment industry. His big contributors are from the insurance industry.

    1. Re:Hatch sold out for only $1000 from the RIAA by sakyamuni · · Score: 2, Interesting
      He only got $14,500 from the whole entertainment industry.

      +1 Informative

      Maybe they pulled strings to get his wife a board of directors position somewhere or his nephew a cushy job in the entertainment industry.

      Not to be too cynical about this, but I'm sure Hatch got his quid (maybe just more in the sense of "quid pro quo" than pound sterling). I'm sure there are lots of covert ways the RIAA can scratch Hatch's back in return.

  192. very ironic... by mantera · · Score: 1


    if i had any sympathy for the RIAA, they've squandered it totally with this.

    It's ironic that those who seek to apply the full, unmerciful "justice-is-blind", force of the law to its maximum penalty, even to children, student, senior citizens, single mothers... etc now want to be exempt from the law where it applies to them.

    Have they never heard of "do unto other as you'd to be done unto you"...

    The only market realities are that consumers remain puzzled by why CDs can reach $20, and artists are no much happier; market realities for artists is that many of them had filed for bankruptcy after selling millions of records, thanks to one-sided contracts with record labels, such artists include tony braxton who filed for bankruptcy after selling 15,000,000 records, TLC who filed for bankruptcy after selling 11,000,000 records, run DMC and many others, and in fact, you can sell millions of records and still owe money to your record label. Market realities are that artists in droves have launched lawsuits against their record labels for moden-day slavery, such artists include george michael, courtney love, prince... and many others.

    It's ironic that record labels use the rights of the artists as a noble cause to exterminate consumers into financial and legal oblivion, yet no one has abused the artists more than the record companies.

    Unknown artists face even worse situations than those famous ones cited above.

    This one-sided approach to the law by the record labels isn't unusual. They've mastered it in their contractual dealings with artists. Yet it never ceases to amaze me.

    This is an essential reading for those who wanna know more.

  193. one little sentence by ennerseed · · Score: 1

    NO contributions from businesses, be it direct, personal, or via a special interest group should be "knowingly" to the politician or political party, should be allowed.

    --
    "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:one little sentence by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Your sentence is a bit hard to parse, but, are you suggesting a single-blind trust for campaign contributions? I'd like that. You can contribute all you want to the party or candidate or your choice, but, that candidate will never know it was you who donated. (And if you tell, it's treason, meaning, a capital offense.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  194. only Democrats believe that: by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1
    In the interest of fairness, here is the other hand:

    If you legalize drugs, less people will use them.

    You can solve all crime problems by taking guns away from people who obtain them legally.

    Spotted owls have more rights than children.

    All adolescents have sex, so it's no use teaching abstinence.

    It is the government's obligation to provide everyone with jobs, healthcare, bread, circuses, and to protect them from their own stupidity.

    Perjury is a crime ... unless you are the president.

    The solution to every problem involves raising taxes.

    The words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution.

    Atheism is not a religion and zero is not a number.

    The goverment can provide services more economically than private organizations.

    Now can can just agree that both parties suck?

    1. Re:only Democrats believe that: by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Perjury is a crime ... unless you are the president.

      Perjury in a civil case is rarely prosecuted, mainly because the losing party in any civil case could be accused of lying.

    2. Re:only Democrats believe that: by srealm · · Score: 1
      If you legalize drugs, less people will use them.

      I encourage you to look at the drug statistics in The Netherlands vs. the USA (proportionate to the population of course, to keep the statistics fair).

      You can solve all crime problems by taking guns away from people who obtain them legally.
      As a democrat, I don't believe in this - however I DO believe that ALL firearms should be much harder to get, licensed NATION WIDE, subject to scrutany (ie. finding out WHY they need a gun), and stiff criminal penalties be enforced for improper storage of a firearm and ammunition (up to and including being automatically part of any crime committed with the weapon if it was improperly stored - which includes keeping the ammunition and the firearm in the same place).

      Spotted owls have more rights than children.
      Again, I don't agree - but that doesnt mean I think that because they're non-human, their habitats should be taken willy-nilly or they should be allowed to driven into extinsion. EVERY animal diserves the right to at least survive.

      All adolescents have sex, so it's no use teaching abstinence.
      Absolutely not - however it is also foolhardy to think that all adolescents will take these teachings to heart, and practice it - therefore giving them the tools they need to help them stop their small mistakes as adolescents balooning into life-changing mistakes (babies, STDs, etc) can't hurt either.

      It is the government's obligation to provide everyone with jobs, healthcare, bread, circuses, and to protect them from their own stupidity.
      I agree only with healthcare and bread. Its part of that 'life, liberty, and persuit of happiness' thing. Healthcare and bread help ensure they have life, and are able-bodied enough to persue happiness, liberty is achieved by not stripping people of their civil rights.

      Perjury is a crime ... unless you are the president.
      Perjury is a crime regardless. Nobody is questioning whether Clinton lied. However it should NOT be something that distracts the country, and the president from running the country. Sure, he should do the community service or pay the fine the court imposes, and move on. Did you notice while Clinton was in office, most major issues could not actually hit the front pages because the republicans were too interested in his sex life?

      The solution to every problem involves raising taxes.
      Again I disagree -- however one is for certain, the solution to everyone's problem is NOT increasing the country's national debt, cutting funding for emergency services, or becoming Wyett Erp and spending many billions fighting a war that the rest of the world said they would help you fight (and bare the financial burdon of) *IF* you could actually back up your claims of wrongdoing with something other than hot air.

      The words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution.
      You're correct - what the constitution ACTUALLY says is "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This has been expanded by CASE LAW to be the full fledged separation of church of state - and remember, MOST of the laws in this country are actually fleshed out, expanded upon, or even created based on case law. It can be overturned, but as it stands, the law is basically interpereted as "the government can not be shown to favour any religion over another", which is why things like the Ten Commandments have been ordered removed from courthouses - it is a governmental building, and that is obviously showing favouritism to Christianity. A re-creation of the arc of the covernet, or the Torah or the Koran, or a statue of Buddah would have all been removed under similar pretext.

      Atheism is not a religion and zero is not a number.
      By the definition of religion, Atheism is NOT a religion - it is the staunch rejection

    3. Re:only Democrats believe that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perjury is a crime regardless. Nobody is questioning whether Clinton lied.

      Actually some people do question that. Did he lie to the American people? Yes! Did he lie under oath? Weeeelllll, that is an unproven assertion many people make from a layman's point of view. Does it hold up under legal scrutiny? Not really, in my opinion.

      Look, I'm not saying I approve of his behavior, but the righteous right had a vendetta against him and tried to frame him by forcing him into a box where he would have to commit perjury. I think he pulled a slick willie and threw it back in their faces. Am I in the majority? No. Am I alone? No.

      However, all of this is secondary to the question of whether he should be prosecuted for an alleged perjury that was arguably immaterial to the case at hand. How does consensual conduct with a person that admits she tried actively to seduce him have any bearing on whether he sexually harrassed Paula Jones several years ago? The Paula Jones case was dismissed for lack of merit, by a republican appointed judge. Would Clinton's allegedly perjurous statements have changed the outcome of the case? No. If you think that has nothing to do with perjury prosecution, well, you're just wrong. This attitude of, "He lied, it's perjury, it's a felony, period", is really quite out of line with the way this sort of situation would be handled if it were a private citizen involved.

      But, most people are content to throw out media soundbytes without any careful consideration of the facts, so what can I do about it?

  195. The next step: by Kwil · · Score: 1

    Volunteer to work for somebody who runs against Orrin in the next election.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  196. Boycott LOTR III by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here is your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

    Instead of steadily consuming their slop why don't you make them feel your dissatsifaction.

    But what I am thinking, this is Slashdot. Spineless.

  197. *sigh*-I proclaim!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Record distributers do not have a "right" to make money by distributing music, though they have a right to try. Musicians do not have a "right" to make money recording and performing music, though they have a right to try."

    Copyright does grant them the *right* to tell you not to distribute their music, irrespective of "making money".

    "I'll be perfectly honest that I support "pirating" music (though I've never done it) because *anything* that makes big record studios lose money is GOOD. They have been nothing but a negative force in music since the 1930's."

    Social anarchy. I support the bombing of US government buildings since obviously anything that destroys the government is "GOOD" "They have been nothing but a negative force in [the world] since the [founding of the union]"

    "We no longer need centralized A&R, production, or distribution. EVERY SINGLE THING a record studio does can be done more efficiently with commodity hardware, software, and communications. Anything that moves us closer to cutting out unneccessary middlemen, even if it tramples on the imagined "rights" of music rentiers, is good."

    Something tells me the only music you've ever made consisted of dropping the contents of the kitchen down the basement stairs.

    It's easy to sit here on Slashdot and make uninformed opinions about the way the world should be. However most are simply a lot of talk, and little (Time to hit the computer), or no action, and even lesser pain (been to jail recently? How's that protest march coming along?).

    If the RIAA/MPAA comes down it's because they drove their customers away, and did their part in destroying our way of life. NOT because some loudmouths on Slashdot waved their dicks in the air, and beat their chest, and yelled "I got a new CD Burner for Christmas!".

  198. So last week.. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    ..try joining us in the Diebold Election Era.

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

  199. Bullshit.-Schismatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The RIAA has no right to act as enforcers of laws. That's what the police and the courts are for. Unlike the RIAA, these bodies are subject to checks and balances, not only from other branches of government, but from the citizens of the United States."

    So tell me again Mr "Checks and Balance" citizen. Were were you when all this was happening (The only legitimate excuses are; I wasn't born, or I'm dead, you insensitive clod!)?

    "The RIAA has no right to be exempt from antitrust laws. They have no right to be exempt from any law, for that matter."

    And yet there's a couple "exempt citizen's" posts sitting around on Slashdot, advocating the downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?

    "The RIAA has no right to expect twenty dollars from me every time they release a new album. I don't want it; I won't buy it, I won't steal it. They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them."

    Your still a citizen. Use that "vote" you got when you turned 18. 2004 is your year.

    "I don't advocate music piracy. What I advocate is my government protecting *my* rights, not the rights of corporations. Look at that Constitution. It says "We the People", not "We the Shareholders". As long as we keep on saying "STFU pirate" and ignoring the real issues, they'll keep on taking our country from us, one purchased bill at a time."

    Good for you. Now go have a conversation with the previous generation. Say thanks for sticking up for their principles.

    "I am a citizen, not a consumer.

    I am a human being, not a revenue source.

    I, for one, reject our new overlords."

    And yet we go to work every day for these "overlords". Everytime we have a "were's the jobs?" story. People want these "overlords" to stop exporting jobs, and start hiring them.

    1. Re:Bullshit.-Schismatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't stop exporting and they won't stop taking, and after all the bleeding hearts are dead they're gonna point the gun at YOU Mr. Cheerleader.
      I always find cheerleaders for corporate America amusing. Its like you truly believe that you have immunity to this kind of stuff because you're sucking the VP's Dick rather than some schmo Middle manager. When are you idiots going to learn that unless you have what qualifies as 'FUCK you' money, you don't matter one bit in this world..
      And that's coming from someone who has it. ;) So sit tight sport, I'll get around to eating your children by about 2007-8. I'll make sure to send you the memo at least 12 hours in advance.

    2. Re:Bullshit.-Schismatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sit tight sport, I'll get around to eating your children by about 2007-8. I'll make sure to send you the memo at least 12 hours in advance.

      Hell, at least you're *honest* about it. If I ever have kids, you can eat 'em. I think I could deal with all this *AA crap a lot better if they just came out and said, "Hey, we're greedy, that's all. Now hand over your fucking money."

      I always find cheerleaders for corporate America amusing.

      Me too:

      "Rock and roll, one-two, one-two!
      Now get out there and SUE SUE SUE!"

    3. Re:Bullshit.-Schismatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They can't get people to hand over their money voluntarily anymore, so now they want to legislate it out of them."

      Your still a citizen. Use that "vote" you got when you turned 18. 2004 is your year.

      This is such a crock of shit. Don't like the way the corporations are buying up your politicians, enabling laws that trample your rights? Well quit groaning, and wait a year, then vote for some other group of greedy deceitful bastards, who won't remove the existing laws and will sell themselves out, along with more of your rights. Still don't like it? Wait another four fucking years, and vote them out, until you finally vote in the guys that figure out a way to take away your right to vote.

  200. Equal Protection by FreakinHippie · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this proposed law (an many others like it) violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution?

  201. OH! I like this game... by MrPerfekt · · Score: 1

    You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

    I didn't realize reading was a prerequisite for sex. I must have missed that article in Playboy.

    You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

    I like guns actually, but there's a whole lot less thought that goes into picking up a gun than a nation setting off a nuclear weapon.

    You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

    No, don't you remember what the RIAA/MPAA told you?? There was no art before copyrights!

    You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

    I never thought I'd hear somebody defend yuppies driving SUVs. Please drive through.

    You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

    Homosexuality isn't natural? Oh, you're one of those people. Being a bigot is fun isn't it.

    You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

    Abortion is quite possibly the most hotly debated subject ever and it's unfair to sum it up in a quick one-liner but.. a conservative would say "Kill that abortion doctor instead!" which makes even less sense than the aforementioned capital punishment/abortion issues.

    I'm running out of time so I won't go through all of them but many of these quips are silly and the parent post was ultimately more insightful and I'm not saying that just because I believe in different things than you do.

    But my personal favorite..
    You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.

    I would love to know what the fuck you are talking about.. I didn't know we were putting Michael Jackson in the White House.

    --
    I just wasted your mod points! HA!
    1. Re:OH! I like this game... by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      The list that I posted is in the same spirit as its parent: satire. At leastI hope that its parent is meant to be satire.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:OH! I like this game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll disguised as political commentary.

      "Kill that abortion doctor instead!" is obviously a troll as no sane, mainstream conservative would take that stance.

      Since when does Michael Jackson == William Jefferson Clinton? And since when does funding for the arts, go toward corporations? What? It never has? Ohmigosh!

  202. I no longer feel so guilty. by md65536 · · Score: 1

    While the anti-piracy commercials they now play in theaters always bring a tear to my eye for the poor movie makers, I think the RIAA's and MPAA's actions just make it easier for people to feel good about sharing movies and music. I no longer feel like I shouldn't share music because it's hurting artists, I feel like it's nothing compared to what the RIAA is doing.

    To really be able to sleep at night, I'd like to bribe congressmen to make everything I want to do legal. That way I could always stay on the side of moral and legal right!

  203. To be more specific in my rebuttal by Theatetus · · Score: 1

    Try US Code title 17 chapter 1 section 109 which covers the transfer of copies of phonorecords (and distinguishes phonorecords from computer programs).

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
    1. Re:To be more specific in my rebuttal by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything in section 109 that says you get to keep any back-up copies you made after you sell the origional. Perhaps you could quote that section for me?

      What I DO see is support for "First Sale", but that just means you have the right to sell a copy which you have legally obtained, NOT that you get to also keep a copy for yourself.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  204. Wow, not bad by thedbp · · Score: 1

    That's like if Bugsy Malone was lobbying for exemption from racketerring and murder laws. Those were necessary parts of his business.

    Cool. Maybe I can get an exemption for getting my car inspected, because due to market realities, I don't have the $ to do so, but still need to get to work.

    Perhaps slashdot as a whole could lobby for an exemption from grammar and spelling infringments ... nah, they don't care about that stuff anyway ...

  205. Re:Orrin bought with money, let's buy coleman w/vo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, you mean the guy who has the seat previously vacated by Paul Wellstone?

    The NY-born career politician who, when running for St. Paul mayor, promised that he wouldn't abandon that post for the governorship and went on to run and lose to Jesse Ventura?

    Coleman makes me sick.

  206. Divine right? by phorm · · Score: 1

    But in light of actions, it is becoming apparent that the man truly believes he has a divine mandate to rule...

    And terrorists believe that the divine wants them to blow up the infidels. That's why they both scare me... any man who adjures his own accountability to a higher power is frightening.

  207. the alteration of copyright law... by rbird76 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...occurs whether or not I buy the music defended by the RIAA. Even if we manage to drag the music companies into their well-deserved graves, the restrictions that the legislators they bought and paid for will still be there. The material they copyrighted will never become public domain as the law intended because the copy protection they intend to force can't be broken legally - when they die it dies. The laws that altered copyright to make this possible will still exist, ready to be used by another generation of (soon-to-be) failed businesses.

    The widespread disregard for property rights you attribute to infringers is not limited to them. The music industry has "copy protected" CDs, making them harder or impossible for their legal purchasers to use while not impeding the ability of commercial infringers to copy. The DMCA manages not only to withdraw a host of Bill of Rights protections, but also effectively negates a large portion of copyright law - rights explicitly given or requiring explicit denial in law. The RIAA and its component labels have not shown respect for these rights - considering their actions (raising CD prices while denigrating content and making it harder to use) they haven't shown much respect for their customers either. It's hard to expect respect from your customers (or potential customers) for your rights when your business has shown either utter disregard or contempt for the similar rights of others.

    The laws that the RIAA has bought or paid for will last long after they are dead, and we will pay for them, regardless of whether we cease buying their products. Complaining to and through the government to prevent these laws is necessary so that we can get back to the main entertainment of watch the music industry rot.

  208. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

    Come on guys, lets keep the standards high, and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.

    Hear, hear. I'm with you all the way.

    Of course, there is one problem. You see, I was a philosophy major in college, and it imbued me with a strong distaste for sophistry. So I attempted to stop using sophist arguments, such as the "for the children."

    Only problem was that after I stopped, I noticed that people stopped listening to my arguments. Completely.

    Mind you, I wasn't using arguments along the lines of "you're using extrinsic nature to infer and intrinsic property in pro-forma action." It was normal stuff.

    The problem is that people are so used to sophistry that they expect --- nay demand --- it.

    If you use a normal argument, they'll play softball for the opposed group ("well, they're trying their best"), and then get offended as if you were personally attacking them when you refute their defenses.

    Of course, I'm willing to admit that I could be the problem, but I am pretty gentle when it comes to debate and discussion.

    So, if I'm talking to Commoners, these days I'll throw in a little hyperbole, sophistry, and indecency at the beginning to as to get their attention, and then present the good arguments.

    Damned shame, really.

    (Though I do try to use less and less of the trash the more often I talk to people).

  209. Hey, I have an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy the record companies. If you don't like the situation, stop buying the product, stop supporting the business model of the record companies and create something new. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy CD's from the record companies, right? If the record companies won't adapt to the technical realities of today's digital world, screw them. Form a new record company that does it better. It is like what I tell the striking supermarket workers as I pass them heading into the store...If you don't like your job or the benefits or the pay or whatever, quit! Seek out a better situation for yourself. Band together and create a new supermarket chain that pays their workers $100 an hour. See how long you last. Ultimately, capitalism is in the hands of those who use it. Vote with your pocketbooks people.

  210. Re:Orrin bought with money, let's buy coleman w/vo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I suggest you contact Norm Coleman. He's been more than willing to go after these assholes before...

    Norm Coleman is nothing but a political weasel. He is more interested in his office than this constituents, always has been. Switches parties not out of changing belief but out of demographic shifts.

    That's not to say we couldn't buy his vote, like you suggest! What else is a weasel good for?

  211. Argument for by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

    This is just something to consider.

    The RIAA and the MPAA are groups that do not sell anything or own any media. An antitrust exemption is not for the members of the **AA, but for the organization itself.

    What an anti-trust exemption would mean is that all producers could be members without setting off alarm bells at the DOJ.

    That's what "market realities" refers to.

    Mind you, this entire argument neglects "reality realities" such as "when the group is exempt, wouldn't the RIAA/MPAA members channel any anti-competitive behavior through their perspective groups?" Amongst others.

    I imagine this is the argument you're going to hear from your senators in that letter you get back from them telling you they think they did the right thing. Because protecting artists is important.

  212. no gov = no laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "By God or by Natural Right, you have no power to control me on my property."

    Property only exists as a result of government. Without government, everything (your body included), belongs to whoever has the most power at any given place and time.

    1. Re:no gov = no laws by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Right. Which is why the poster is advocating less government, not no government. Remember the difference.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  213. Do all ACs work for the RIAA? by seraph93 · · Score: 1

    So tell me again Mr "Checks and Balance" citizen. Were were you when all this was happening (The only legitimate excuses are; I wasn't born, or I'm dead, you insensitive clod!)?

    I was speaking my mind. I was pointing out the bullshit. I was boycotting the companies whose business practices piss me off. I was doing my part to stop all this from happening. Where were you? Off trolling?

    And yet there's a couple "exempt citizen's" posts sitting around on Slashdot, advocating the downloading of copyrighted material. Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning?

    Exempting citizens from certain aspects of copyright law benefits everyone at the expense of a few. Exempting the *AAs from antitrust law benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. Do you see the difference there?

    Your still a citizen. Use that "vote" you got when you turned 18. 2004 is your year.

    I plan to. What makes you think that I wouldn't? It's a shame that I can't attach a check to the ballot, though, as that seems to be the only way to get a politician's attention anymore. 1776 might be a better year than 2004 to look to for inspiration.

    Now go have a conversation with the previous generation. Say thanks for sticking up for their principles.

    I have. It's too bad that the current generation values their egos and their conveniences over their principles.

    And yet we go to work every day for these "overlords". Everytime we have a "were's the jobs?" story. People want these "overlords" to stop exporting jobs, and start hiring them.

    The company I work for every day makes its money the old-fashioned way: by earning it. We don't own one legislator, and we haven't purchased one law. When our profits aren't what we'd like them to be, we work harder, instead of bribing Congress. There *are* companies left that aren't abusive monopolies. And when the "where are the jobs?" stories come up, I don't see too many Slashdotters crying for jobs with the RIAA.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  214. Our Fault. by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

    The only way we, the people have to grab the power is via government. The power is there for us to grab if we choose to. I'm not really anxious to throw that power away and let corporations come in and take over.

    And there's the real problem. You want power.

    The constitution worked because people were willing to give up power. To the states. To the people. To anyone except the people in charge, who need lots of checks and balances to keep them in line.

    It took over 200 years to get from there to here. That is not a power grab. That is a slow power consolidation, because people don't give up power to a grab very easily.

    We have to stop trying to grab power, and start giving it away. Instead of a giant social security system that answers to no one, let's give control of retirement benefits back to competing corporations or to individuals own retirement accounts. Let's trust people to take care of themselves instead of proposing a new goverment agency to administer every social problem. Let's allow people to take care of each other instead of using taxes for welfare.

    This thread is about coporations controlling government. Making the government bigger and more centralized will only make it easier for the corporations harder for the people to control it. Right now the corporations can concentrate their money on a few people in Washington DC. What if they had to try to control people in every state legislature to get their way? Does your vote have more influence in local, state, or national elections?

    1. Re:Our Fault. by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Lori Anderson would not be happy with what you're doing under the name of her song.
      "Sun's comming up, like a big bald head."

      And there's the real problem. You want power.

      You Libertarians always fall back on that crap. As if someone who wants power to be in the hands of the people is somehow advocating that they be installed as dictator. That's just straight-up hyperbole and you know it. Get serious if you want people to take you seriously.

      If decentralized government is so good for the power of people then why are corporations some of its biggest advocates? By turning power over to the states, we make the corporations located in those states into huge fish in a small pond. State government is much cheaper to buy than the federal government and most corporations are located in only one or a few states. Take West Virginia, for example. It's a modern-day colony of coal mining corporations. They completely own the state government. We need to erect a wall between corporation and state similar to the wall between church and state. Corporations should be free to pursue their profits, but they should be strictly barred from participating in government. We should end this charade that considers corporations as "persons." If we do that, then we can talk about decentralizing, but I'm pretty sure the Civil War already settled that question. That's really what's going on here. We de-Nazified Germany. We're de-Baathifying Iraq. But we never de-Dixified the US. We still have subversive forces in this country who don't accept it's authority. If you want to fight the Civil War again then lets get it started so we can kick your butts again. Where are Grant and Sherman when you need them?

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
    2. Re:Our Fault. by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

      Lori Anderson would not be happy with what you're doing under the name of her song.

      At least I know how to spell her name. :)

      As if someone who wants power to be in the hands of the people is somehow advocating that they be installed as dictator.

      Here you are practically quoting Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, and not even realizing it. Oh well...

      Sorry to pick on you so much today. Good luck saving WV.

    3. Re:Our Fault. by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      Here you are practically quoting Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, and not even realizing it. Oh well...

      You know you're bat-shit insane, don't you? Are you trying to tell me that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini were in favor of putting power in the hands of the citizens? To quote Ren Hoek, "You've really lost it this time, Stimpy."

      Sorry to pick on you so much today.

      Oh, you were picking on me? I wish I would have noticed so I could have responded more appropriately. Your arguments were so weak (especially this last one -- man, that's a hoot) that it seemed more like you were flailing in the dark recesses of an already discredited ideology -- kind of like a bearded patient, shouting from the dripping, dark basement of the Old Robber Barron's Convalescent Home. Maybe someone will get you a train set for Christmas and you can pretend you're a tycoon.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  215. Death throws, Enron by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    Enron had about as many politicians and their pocket as anyone ever has. They also dealt in ficticious product. In the end it didn't help. Sure, a whole state got screwed over so bad it now has an ficticious person running it, but these houses of cards do eventually come falling down. Meanwhile, a monopoly on music is not going to plunge my house into darkness.

    1. Re:Death throws, Enron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's death throes, idiot. Clip the coupon, go down to Walmart, and buy a fucking dictionary.

  216. RIAA/MPAA puppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Undoubtedly Orrin is aware of MPAA/RIAA investment in his campaign: $1000 from the RIAA, $2000 from the MPAA, not to mention the money from Disney, Time Warner, universal, Sony Music Group...

    It disgusts me when I see the unconstitutional subpoena powers that the RIAA already exercises, the restrictions on personal liberties provided by the DMCA, and then I wish that our senators weren't so easily bought or sold by the large corporations. It's becoming (or already is) a government by, for, and of the large corporations.

  217. Re:SOLD! by hemanman · · Score: 1

    The total amount of intelligence in the universe is constant, I thought you knew that...

    -H

  218. soft money consequences by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    yup....this is what we get for the lack of laws forbidding soft money.

    Now back to engraving names on the business end of the stick I'm gonna use to poke dog doo....they don't deserve my pitchfork.

  219. This is disgusting... by Sargerion · · Score: 1

    This is terrible. I would hope such a thing never happened, but it probably will [starts an online fund to hire a hitman for RIAA execs] [jk legal people]

  220. Huh? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Its possible I've missed something (and i did read this thread), but what does this have anything to do with anti-trust laws? Anyone?

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  221. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by Zoop · · Score: 1

    Come on guys, lets keep the standards high, and use solid arguments in place of trying to sling mud at the RIAA.

    Yeah, except those didn't work. So I'm voting for old grannies and pre-teens.

  222. Market Reality by Just+Jim · · Score: 1

    The 'Market Reality' is that the RIAA has the money, and the will to bribe er contribute to Hatch's re-election.

  223. Anarchocapitalists are idiots, try the real thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anarchy -- it's what's for dinner.

  224. Do all ACs work for the RIAA?-Scared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do all ACs work for the RIAA?"

    Sounds like you're a little afraid to have your "opinions" questioned.

    "I was speaking my mind. I was pointing out the bullshit. I was boycotting the companies whose business practices piss me off. I was doing my part to stop all this from happening. Where were you? Off trolling?"

    Well apparently minority status isn't working. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    "Exempting citizens from certain aspects of copyright law benefits everyone at the expense of a few. Exempting the *AAs from antitrust law benefits a few at the expense of everyone else. Do you see the difference there?"

    And if you can ever see through the red in your eyes? The point is that the law should be equal for all. The RIAA doesn't get to break the law, and the citizen doesn't get to break the law. Simple as that.

    "I plan to. What makes you think that I wouldn't? It's a shame that I can't attach a check to the ballot, though, as that seems to be the only way to get a politician's attention anymore. 1776 might be a better year than 2004 to look to for inspiration."

    Hold onto that cynicism. Your going to be needing it for the next decade.

    "I have. It's too bad that the current generation values their egos and their conveniences over their principles."

    WHOOSH! Missed it again. Big clue for you. This mess didn't start with this generation. Not even close to it. Try going back to around the 30's.

    "The company I work for every day makes its money the old-fashioned way: by earning it. We don't own one legislator, and we haven't purchased one law. When our profits aren't what we'd like them to be, we work harder, instead of bribing Congress. There *are* companies left that aren't abusive monopolies. And when the "where are the jobs?" stories come up, I don't see too many Slashdotters crying for jobs with the RIAA."

    Huh? Are you really that naive? I know we all suffer from a severe case of myopia around here. The problem's that's happening isn't just "one" company. or even a handful. It's pervasive throughout a large part of the business community.

    And "abusive monopoly" is only a symptom. NOT the illness. Throwing "righteous anger pills" isn't going to cure a damn thing, and there will be more "outbreaks" in the future, and not all of them will be so conviently labeled "RIAA".

  225. Not really. by seraph93 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you're a little afraid to have your "opinions" questioned.

    Nope, not at all. Go ahead and question them. I don't even have to post anonymously. Constructive criticism is always good to have.

    The point is that the law should be equal for all.

    That's my point, too, but in a different way:

    The RIAA doesn't get to break the law, and the citizen doesn't get to break the law. Simple as that.

    The citizen doesn't get to buy the laws, and the RIAA doesn't get to buy the laws. Simple.

    Hold onto that cynicism. Your going to be needing it for the next decade.

    Aaah, good. At last it will be useful.

    Big clue for you. This mess didn't start with this generation. Not even close to it. Try going back to around the 30's.

    Okay. So tell me about the 30s, then. How did this mess begin, exactly?

    The problem's that's happening isn't just "one" company. or even a handful. It's pervasive throughout a large part of the business community.

    Yes. I know this. My point was that it's not pervasive throughout the *entire* business community.

    Throwing "righteous anger pills" isn't going to cure a damn thing.

    Then quit pelting me with them. If you've got something constructive to say, say it! You're hogging the whole bottle of "informed clue pills", apparently. Throw some of them around instead. Maybe they'll cure something.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  226. And this is coming from a Republican sympathizer.. by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- a Republican -- is endorsing such a communist plan that would essentially create a government-sanctioned control of two significant chunks of the entertainment industry?

  227. Zero marginal cost is the thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that scares these dinosaurs. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=%22marginal+cost%22+glossary+%22one+*+unit%22 &btnG=Google+Search
    With VHS, BetaMax, and DVDs this wasn't an issue--the media still had a cost.
    At least with Windoze vs. Linux (pay vs. free), you can argue there are ease-of-use/installation issues.
    With p2p audio/video it's impossible to compete with the very same item for free.
    Having waited too long to get in the game, what these chumps need is a new business model
    (the Grateful Dead had the right idea decades ago--give away the recording rights, do performances for a living)
    --or they need to find a new business.

  228. Re:Please keep children and grandmother's out of i by Devistater · · Score: 1

    Remember Granny had a Mac, she couldn't have been running kazaa (she was sued for sharing mp3s on kazaa). If an anti trust exemption was passed, they would be able to sue people who coudln't possibly have done what they claim with impunity since you never could sue them to get them to stop.

  229. Letter to my senators by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

    I Posted this to Sens. Feinstein and Boxer:

    I am writing to oppose the Anti-Trust exemption for the recording and movie industries proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch as part of the EnFORCE act, as well as to express my opinions about the continuing increase in legal protections and exemptions beign given to the recording and motion-picture industries. These industries have repeatedly and demonstrably engaged in illegal and unethical business practices from the days of payola, through the exploitative contracts with artists, to the current day; when they have used the draconian police-state powers granted them in the DMCA to do thingslike: sue 12 year old honor students (and take away money they sorely need for school); or erroneously sieze the property of 66 year old grandmothers. They have consistently shown themselves to be untrustworthy, and engaged in scummy business practices and fascist enforcement actions that would have any DA lose their next election. Granting them an anti-trust exemption will only give them further free reign to abuse their content producers, and browbeat their customers. We rightly reserve police powers for the government, where we have the checks and balances of a democracy. Granting the power of collusion on top of the existing ones is asking for wholesale abuse of individual rights.

    Congress has, over the past several years, engaged in a wholesale giveaway to a small, already wealthy, group by extending copyrights and treating ordinary consumers as criminals, all while providing the content providers with legal mechanisms to circumvent the well established rights of first sale and fair use. The result has been an escalating arms race between an industry that produces art as an industrial product, and consumers who want entertainment in a convenient, suited to their personal tastes, and reasonably priced manner.

    Despite the industry's assertions to the contrary, it is the fact that people see little value in their products, as well as the fact that they failed to take advantage of the new, lower cost, distribution models, leaving a void that has been filled by non-US companies, that are the causes of their decline. Producing an ever-more homogenous, focus-group derived, predictable, stream of lower average quality and little or no variety, which therefore only appeals to a clearly identified minority: Middle-Class Mall-Rats aged 15-24, is the problem, not music "theft". Nor, regardless of what they say, is the current decline in music sales unprecedented. It happened towards the end of the 1970's, before the arrival of Punk Rock. Then, as now, the products of the RIAA were insipid, predictable, and uncreative, and touched no chord among the populace.

    Last, but not least, each and every time that a new means of delivering entertainment in a more felxible way, usually with the ability for the consumer to copy it, has arrived; the content industries have screamed foul, and fought it tooth and nail, claiming that it would run them out of business. In all the cases where they were unsuccessful (Cassette Tapes, VCR, CD-R), the result was at worst non-existent, at best an increase in sales as users bought pre-recorded music in the new format rather than deal with the hassle of making it themselves. In the cases where the industry has succeeded in using the law to cripple a new format: DAT, Napster; the result has been negative for them.

    The problem is not one that will be solved by laws, any more than forcing someone to carry a Red flag in front of early automobiles saved the coach industry (but it did slow the growth of the auto industry, which was bad for consumers and the economy). The problem is a business one, and it needs to be solved as a business model. If the content industry make content available conveniently, and at a price that is less than the hassle factor of piracy, then the vast majority of their customers will buy it that way. Whether that will support the current profit margins they enjoy or not is really irrelevant, because the advent

  230. Hatch is a whore by pherris · · Score: 1
    Here's his take from his clients in TV/Movies/Music (from opensecrets.org):

    Campaign Finance Profiles

    2004: $152,360 ( 7th top industry contributor)

    2002: $175,322 ( 4th top industry contributor)

    2000: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

    1998: $ 89,072 ( 6th top industry contributor)

    1996: $ 68,500 (10th top industry contributor)

    1994: $ 68,000

    Race Profiles

    2000 Race: $180,432 ( 4th top industry contributor)

    Total contributions from TV/Movies/Music: $914,118

    Now ask yourself this: Do you think this industry would like something in return for giving Hatch almost a million dollars? Reminds me of the ADC's line "Jack and Jill went up the hill each with a buck and a quarter. Jill can down with two-fifty. That fucking whore."

    Hatch is a whore. Until the US limits campaign contributions to $100 per person, per election and bans all other contributions he'll keep plying his whorist ways until he's Strom Thurmond's age. To the good people of Utah: Just because he's a Mormon doesn't make him right. Pick another horse.

    --
    "And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
  231. Enough with the bitching, let's get mobilized ... by WCityMike · · Score: 1
    Note, Texan and Californian Slashdotters: your Senators are co-sponsoring the bill as well. Be sure to write to Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Feinstein.

    The bill is S. 1933. It doesn't appear that Congress' website has the text of the legislation up yet, but I believe this link will take you there when it's up. (Congress has a weird linking scheme, so I'm not quite sure if that's a temporary or permanent link.) Now, don't Slashdot Congress, kids ... Homeland Security's just looking for an excuse to visit Cmdr. Taco. ("Now, sir, why do they people who go to this website call you by a military title? What sort of militia are you building up?")