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?"
I wonder whether Mr. Hatch ever paused to consider that porn is a market reality as well...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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"
the mob is exempt from murder charges due to 'market realities'.
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.
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...
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 ]
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
If I were in congress, I think I would just start voting down anything with a clever acronym for a name....
====
Crudely Drawn Games
My god, you're ignorant. The Democrats are just as firmly in the MPAA/RIAA's pockets.
More bribe money, down the Hatch.
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.
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.
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.
Are politicians so dependent on positive media spin that they dare not refuse such laws? So many questions.
it's time to bring it into the 21st century: the right to compile & run your own code on your own h/w;-)
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.
Orrin Hatch, he went to congress, DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM
</singing>
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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....
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
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?"
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.
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?
The ______ Agenda
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.
No need. They'll buy a small record label, and claim the exemption.
.. 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!
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...
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)
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.
Ianal, but I believe this would violate the 14th amendment. This would give unequal protection under the law.
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 cleverI 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
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!
... 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
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.
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.
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!
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.
I am ashamed to have Orrin Hatch as my congressional representative.
... 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.
... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).
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
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
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
For selling the rights of the American Public to the RIAA and MPAA for the little sum of 18.000 dollars...
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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) 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Since Republican supporters of Orrin Hatch have modded my other reply to your question down, I'll repeat my answer here.
... they are the only ones in the industry who would support this atrocity).
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
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
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
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
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.
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
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 ~
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The mob recently announced that it is seeking permanent anti-RICO exemption. More at 10...
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..
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
I am getting tired of ppl on /. writig abt doing something.
,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.
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
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.
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 ----
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?"
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.
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.
No matter how you look at it, theft is still theft, no matter what the justification is.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Yes! It's a movement now! TFACA (The Fight Against Clever Acronyms) is born! Someone make a web site!
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
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!
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
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...
If I put you in water, would you get wet? Or would the water get you instead?
Yes. The only question is what exactly are the behaving like?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
I'm sure they did.
... well, Dean's the horse I'm putting my money on.
... 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.
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
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
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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.
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
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.
" 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....
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!
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.
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.
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.
Support freedom of money people. Only support banks that allow the free copying, distribution, and listening of their money in any format you choose.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
"File-sharing" should be legal, because of "market realities".
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?
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?
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
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Steve: um... developers, devel...
Billy: Shut it you fool! Blast. It's impossible to get some good help around here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
You enforce the law.
You can't be sued.
How is this different from being a three-letter agency?
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
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
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
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.
The ______ Agenda
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
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?
fill out senator hatch's web form. use mild language that expresses disapproval.
/iaw
http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/
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?
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
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
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.
read the bunni comic
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.
"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"
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that the ultimate admission that you need to be kept on a TIGHT leash? The irony....
'nuff said
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
" 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
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:
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!
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]
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.
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!
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.
"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!
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>--
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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.
You want just one? How about 106 people who have raised more than $200,000 for Bush in the 2004 campaign.
Cable TV a "requirement?" If you think TV is a requirement, please do us all a favor and do not breed.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.
"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?
and people accuse me of being paranoid...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
" 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...)
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.
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.
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.
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.
" "Liberalism is a Mental Illness"
..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...
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
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!!
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
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)
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?
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
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.
..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
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.
Doesn't this proposed law (an many others like it) violate the equal protection clause in the Constitution?
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!
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!
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
That's like if Bugsy Malone was lobbying for exemption from racketerring and murder laws. Those were necessary parts of his business.
... nah, they don't care about that stuff anyway ...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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).
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
The total amount of intelligence in the universe is constant, I thought you knew that...
-H
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.
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]
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!
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.
The 'Market Reality' is that the RIAA has the money, and the will to bribe er contribute to Hatch's re-election.
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.
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?
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.
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]
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
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
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?")
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.