Slashdot Mirror
Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade
peipas writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). In it he defends his stance in support of fair use and against the DMCA and other measures sought by the entertainment industry. The interview also touches on universal broadband and the recent overturning of the broadcast flag."
Bainwol to Valenti: I told you to up your allowance on him. We can't afford this.
There's a little saying I like to pull out in times like this:
"You gotta do what you can with what you got."
It is as true as it is ungrammatical.
I read the internet for the articles.
Does anyone know of any figures on how much the entertainment industry has lossed due to piracy versus how much they have spent trying to stop it? My guess is that they have spent way more on trying to stop it. What a great business model.
Universal healthcare is nonsense - most of the people NOT covered by healthcare in the US are not covered by choice: nearly all people not covered make enough money and CHOOSE not to pay for it.
You must be new here. Don't you know that the way we solve problems here in the US of A is to divert attention. What, social security is gone? Hey, look over there, illegal immigrants are comming over from mexico, we need a few million dollars to stop them. Politicians keep a number of issues which will never be resolved for the purpose of calling attention to them when other things start going badly. It's the American way, when things stop working, blame something else and never try to fix the problem.
Heck, why waste time with Universal Healthcare? They should be focused on World Peace and the elimiation of all diesease first. All of this other stuff is just a waste of time.
I read the internet for the articles.
yes, because we want the gov't taking over healthcare. lets list all the successful programs the gov't governs:
now, after reviewing that list, lets throw our health into their "care"
maybe we can even ban private health care too, since canandan officals think it is unfair richer people can afford better health care
So let media companies continue to abuse the American people and act as a de facto police force in order to expand the role of government in our lives? Funny - I want the government to protect me when large organizations are overstepping their authority. You respond by claiming the government shouldn't waste their time protecting the people but should instead expand their authority?
I just got a little sick in my mouth :)
that isn't a puppet with the industry lobbyists hands jammed up his ass. Imagine what a world we'd be in if politicians used common sense and did what's right?
Viva la corrupcion!
This isn't an issue of the resources not really being there. It's more an issue of the free market having gone awry, and needing a correction which our country is apparently unable to accomplish.
My little site.
This is the guy that wants to trade the broadcast flag for our fair use rights. Our representatives shouldn't be trading one set of our rights in order to keep a right we already have. Fair use means nothing if everything is controlled with a broadcast flag and there is nothing for us to share.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Cause Universal Health care sucks rocks?
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Cash has no predevined purpose, you can do anything with it, laws of physics/thermodynamics/etc. not with standing. Hell for a government it's just a number on paper, not even restrained by a physical representation. So "You gotta do what you can with what you got." becomes anything you want. If you choose to waste it then it's wasted but there was no predetermined path of that dollar into a sink-hole.
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
What fucking amends? You sound like we have got something to apologize. For what? Liberating not one but two oppressed peoples?
Consumer Rights are an important thing for legistlators to be protecting. If you paid any attention to the process, you'd know that this is just one of many issues being worked on. In fact, the whole thing only works if they've got multiple issues, so they can work effective compromises accross them.
No, I said if the government is going to expand it's authority, Universal Broadband, why not do something useful instead. How is Universal Broadband protection, or for that matter the DMCA? Strawman.
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Uhh...where have you been? That's why we're in Iraq now. By draining the swamp there and building a free, democratic nation in the Middle East, it will promote stability in the region.
That's one more step to World Peace, IMO.
And to think, all the slashbots were opposed to the liberation of Iraq.
"...education, healthcare, and scientific reasearch could all better use that money."
Everybody knows that. It is this way, because certain companies, professionals can profit the most the way how things are now.
It's not the matter of how the money could be used better for the public. "The public" does not lobby to change favourable legislation.
Corporation, industries, group of professionals do.
Besides this guy and the EFF who is really fighting for fair use rights these days? The MPAA and RIAA and billions of dollars and high paid lobbyists. What do we have on our side? We can complain all we want but until we have some cold hard cash and some good organization our rights will continue to go down the toilet.
This was only modded troll because it got first post. How is asking how spending on Universal Broadband better than other spending a troll? Damn do people not even read the summary at the top of the story anymore.
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
While what you describe as the American way is certainly correct (and it's actually the, uhm, World way), I think you're a bit too quick in determining what matters and what doesn't. Certainly social security is an issue, but the fact that illegal immigration is probably used as an excuse to extort some more money or distract the populace does not make said immigration-related problems any less real or worrying.
Global warming is a cube.
I gotta agree with a few of the chaps furthur up. Healthcare isn't really all that wanted by a lot of people. I can assure you that my grandparents that grew up without healthcare ended up far healthier than my grandparents with it. Now, I would agree with you that better education is needed, and certainly more important than getting everyone good internet. If the money is that tight, you can always leave the science to foreigners.
No bastard ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
Glickman to Rosen: You seemed to have better luck with this. Should be just keep pouring in money or appeal to the children?
Might this mean that the DVD X Copy people can go back into business again? Say what you will about the quality of the software and all (it sucks, "#####" is better anyway, etc) they represent a legitimate software product that did a good job for consumers who wanted to protect their media purchase. It was simple and effective and definitely provided the tools necessary for people to exercise their fair use rights.... rights that still exist even while the tools to make use of them are illegal.
Skype is a file-sharing application and that's used by millions of people. (Universities) are using file sharing as a way to disseminate research papers and other legitimate items. Getting away from centralized servers and going to peer-to-peer communications all across the map means the communications are faster and much more user-friendly. I will predict that within a number of years, most of the uses of file sharing are going to be legitimate.
I think you mean Peer to Peer, not "File Sharing", which is one kind of P2P. Using Skype for internet telephony and downloading legit files from bittorrent are completely different things. The first is at risk from phone companies, the second is at risk from **AA organizations.
How is this a troll?
Universal Healthcare does suck.
If people are to stupid too buy medical insurance but buy spinners for their car then I shouldn't be force to pay for insurance for them.
So then spend on Universal Broadband of course??
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Ok, great. Just just ignore important issues like digital rights until everyone has healthcare, poverty has been eliminated and Bush and friends have been kicked out of Washington. Yeah...that's the ticket.
'Universal' healthcare will cost trillions over the next few decades...I'm not saying we shouldn't do it...but it's a huge undertaking for sure. Telling the record companies where they can stick it costs virtually nothing to the American taxpayer...it only takes a politician with the cojones to do it.
A representative supporting fair use or a Democrat from VA?
I couldn't aggree more with you on that. It will never be fixed though and has never been fixed because it's an easy scapegoat. I wish they would fix it.
No, you didn't. Your original post says absolutely nothing about universal broadband. Making shit up just isn't very smart when everyone can read the truth with a single click.
...and he's still pissed at me. I don't see what the problem is. I only used her for one night while he was at a family dinner, I did not intend to permanently deprive him of use of her, and she still loves him and everything.
But he's still all hung up about the whole issue. Jeez, some people are so narrow-minded. Guy's as bad as the RIAA. I guess I should be glad he isn't litigating.
I'd bet on this incumbent.
I think we have seen a reversal in the roles of the Democratic and Republican parties within the United States. Traditionally this sort of thing would have been done by a true (ie. not neoconservative) conservative Republican, fighting for the individual rights of the American citizenry. Indeed, I find it odd that a Democrat is now the one leading the charge for individual rights.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Ok, obviously if I posit UNIVERSAL healthcare, and the summary AND makes reference to UNIVERSAL broadbad, what might I be tring to say.
Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
Healthcare isn't really all that wanted by a lot of people. I can assure you that my grandparents that grew up without healthcare ended up far healthier than my grandparents with it.
What has it got to do with healthcare? Your grandparents probably did not eat as much fast food, processed food, they probably lived in a less polluted environment... Beside that, many serious health-related issues can be inherited, back to 7 generations.
Americans tend to stick the cowboy mentality, that it's only up to the invidual whether they can take care of themselves or not. While individual responsibility has a huge role in staying healthy, it's not always guaranteed.
Ironically, the profit driven health care industry has itself become contributor for spreading deseases. Not only obvious cases, of drugs that cause more damage than good, even "good drugs", like antibiotics when oversubscribed or fed to animals without control can cripple the state of health of large segments of population.
Statistics shows, that public health care still has great positive impact on a society.
In the states about 20% of the population is covered, by the largest overhead among any other countries (although we have been told that private companies are the most efficient) and 80% of personal bankruptcies in the US happen after receiving a large medical bill.
I think elliminating debt to poor countries (AND helping them develop an industry) would be more than adequate. It's not fair to buy raw material from them and then sell them the processed goods for several times more. How are they gonna pay the debt if the US takes from them the very resources they need?
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act for the Broadcast Flag?
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
I will assert that, without Boucher's efforts as a legislator, the Internet that we know, love, hate and use it would not exist. I will also assert that because of his current and future efforts as a legislator the Internet will be a more useable, free and valuable Internet than it would otherwise be. Everyone who wants to understand how the Internet became a part of our lives should go do their homework. Start with a search for "Boucher Virginia Representative"
No bastard ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb, bastard die for his.
The US does not "take" any resources, the US buys them. If they do not wish to sell raw materials to the US, any third world country, no matter how poor, has the choice not to sell. Conversely, if these countries do not want to buy processed goods from the US, they are free not to.
Just like your original post, your latest reply is ungrammatical, difficult to parse, and antagonistic. Perhaps you should notice that you are the ONLY person in the thread who thinks that your original post refers to universal broadband. You were simultaneously unclear and obnoxious; you deserved the troll mod.
FWIW, what does "and the summary AND makes reference" mean?
No No No, we've ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia!
See even the newspaper says that much!
And asked him to supprt this guy. My letter was slightly off topic - copyright terms rather than fair use so much, but the main point being copyright reform with the original intent of a copyright system(which was NOT abject greed) in mind. Those of you in the US that vote and care abou this, I suggest doing the same. Your tax dollars paid for http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and I highly suggest using it. Your email probably be ignored and responded to by some intern political science flunkie, but they do make a difference, especially in volume. Here's my letter - feel free to copy it, use it, abuse it, or even claim authorship: To the Honorable Jay Inslee: Please support Rep. Rick Boucher in his fight for consumer rights in digital media. I would even be willing to actively campaign for anyone who defends the public domain and fair use. As my representative, I would ask that you remember that the founders of this great nation intended any copyright system you the congress may choose to enact to ultimately *enhance* the public domain. Our current system only serves to decimate it. A copyright term of 20 years past the creator's death should be MORE than sufficient, but now we're up to what.....95 years?!?!? This is insane. Nobody should have a monopoly on our culture, but that's exactly what we have with massive media consolidation and what effectively amounts to perpetual copyrights. This is wrong and you know it. Repeal the Sonny Bono copyright extension act. Thank you and good day.
Individual assistance to those who otherwise may fall through the cracks.
Plus, both parties at this point seem to bow to their corporate masters rather than champion anything based on their ethical/moral considerations.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Sharing your captured broadcast material over the internet, whether with friends or not, cannot be considered 'criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research' without drastic modification from the current method of how that material is shared.
Actually, it could be considered as any of these: if you rebroadcast it as a parody; if you repackaged a series of news items into a digest - which may or may not include editing for content or length; if you rebroadcast it as criticism, as some friends of mine do a Public Access TV show that criticizes the media spew from national news and uses the items as lead-in; if you did it thru UWTV to show people the use of the broadcast flag; if you did a study to find out the use of the broadcast flag; or any other number of things.
And that's just the START of possible uses.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Traditionally this sort of thing would have been done by a true (ie. not neoconservative) conservative Republican, fighting for the individual rights of the American citizenry.
I call BS.
Not since the 19th century has the republican party given hardly any thought to the individual rights or welfare of citizens.
I sure as hell dont remember hearing about the republican party being particularly active protecting civil rights of disenfranchised minorities during the sixties.
More accurately, Bouchers actions represent the type of actions that gave the Democratic party a reputation of being the champion of the 'little guy' in the first place.
Its too sad he is the exception rather than the rule, IMHO both the Republican and Democratice parties are essentially corporate whores these days.
World peace will never happen so long as humans exist.
Nor can you eliminate all diseases. The best you can do is produce vaccines to innoculate people from the current incarnation of said afflictions. However, thanks to evolution, the bugs will develop an immunity to our vaccines and become even stronger. This is already happening as witnessed by a few bugs which are resistant to all but the most toxic new antibiotics.
Diseases are actually a good thing. They help cull the herd by removing the weak and sick. This allows for the stronger to survive.
Imagine how many people would be on this planet if diseases were kept in check. We are already seeing the effects of an ever-increasing population on our water, food and resources supplies.
Regardless of whether you think I'm being a troll what I have said is truthful
P.S. To see some of the stories you've been missing, check out my journal.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Hey, you might want to read a bit about the politics of central and south america as well as the carribean from around 1870 to about 1960. It could be enlightening. Granted that a lot of the tactics and methodologies used then are not employed now, but...
A case in point is Wikipedia. Although there are images on Wikipedia that are there under fair use, it's highly discouraged. A big problem is that Wikipedia wants to be truly free-as-in-speech, and that means it has to be legal to distribute it commercially. For instance, if you look in this article on South Africa, a lot of the photos from the apartheid era are used under a license that doesn't permit commercial use, and that's a big problem; Wikipedia has recently announced a policy of eventually getting rid of all such images. Fair use presents a similar problem: since commercial versus noncommercial use is one of the criteria for fair use, taking advantage of fair use may cause your project to be impossible to use commercially.
If I was dictator of the U.S., I'd shorten the copyright term to what it used to be for a long time: 28 years, renewable for another 28. That would be a much better balance between public and private interests. (Something like 95% of the stuff that was copyrighted in that era was not renewed.)
Find free books.
Conversely, if these countries do not want to buy processed goods from the US, they are free not to.
Note: Those "processed goods" include gasoline.
Besides they don't by American made goods, they buy Chinese made goods.
I'm fully aware of all of the shit involving united fruit, overthrows of democratic countries, and so on. That is serious, despicable shit, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That is, unless you think that purchasing cocoa from a third world country while maintaining a tariff on processed cocoa is equivalent to overthrowing a government.
I have been card-carrying Democrat since I turned 18, but sometimes I really hate Democrats. If the US is behind in broadband usage, well maybe that's because there are a lot of people in the US who do not need it. When people need it, then they will demand it enough to pay for it. If their dial-up connection is good enough for them, why do we need the government telling them that they are wrong? If somebody wants to move to somewhere very rural, well they are probably getting a lot financial benefits by doing this. No broadband is a potential part of this trade-off. Why is it the gov's job to provide them broadband? Is it also the gov's job to put a Cheesecake Factory or an Apple Store down the street from them too? Should that be a universal right as well?
This would not be the first time this has happened, nor I doubt the last. It's a continual cycle throughout U.S. History.
Rev
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to
I suppose you propose letting them lie bleeding in the street and then send them a bill to clean up the mess? People get (emergency) healthcare, whether they can pay for it or not. The question then is, how do we determine who carries the costs? The hospital? The church? Government? An HMO? The insurance companies?
Very true... your point being? Besides, it isn't like the US is the only country in the world with oil refineries. Saudi Arabia has a shitload of them for example; actually I've heard somewhere that they have more than the US does, but I'm not sure.
Given that the Clinton administration brought deficits under control, oversaw a huge increase in GDP, etc. and the current Republican administration has introduced some of the largest military spending increases in US history (new levels are higher than at ANY point during the Cold War),
"Conservative" as a political label used to mean (among other things), that "the way things are" is good. That meant that conservatives tended to reject radical changes in policy, spending habits, etc. Combined with some of the only tax cuts EVER put forth during a "time of war" (during previous wars, like WWII, the upper tax bracket was increased to 90%, not dropped), the current set of conservatives in power are hard to describe as traditionally conservative. I've even heard some of these conservatives complain that people who are concerned about the current war aren't making the sacrifices needed during a time of war. Maybe if they hadn't exempted the wealthy from sacrifice, those folks would be complaining too.
Over time, the meaning of conservative has morphed into "morally uptight" and has more to do with a politician's stance on 2-3 social issues than on any sort of fiscal conservation.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Mark Cuban just commented on Macrovision, and wondered what its purpose was. Obviously the answer is: copy protection, however bad, exists so you can sue people who make things that allow consumers to circumvent it and exercise their fair use rights.
he started with the incorrect premise that fair use exists for items you already hold the copyright to and his argument went downhill from there...
sum.zero
while its true that immigration is used as a scape goat (ex. bush's 'controversial' immigration plan came out in the middle of his problems), it is also not resolved because of another thing; cheap labor, through out the south west the illegal immigrants from mexico provide cheap labor for many companys (some of the big companys even ex. walmart) and IMHO this is another reason why illegal immigrant laws/enforcement problems are not fixed.
Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
This should not be modded troll this should be modded insightful..We have mor epressing issues in this country besides fighting over this. One of the reasons the television agencies want fair use pulled is so instead of you taping the seasons of your favorite shows, they can sell it to you and make a hefty profit. How about these officials argue over something really necessary and stop skirting the real issues facing the welfare of this society
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Boucher is the free-speech side's token politician. He never actually manages to get anything through committee, and certainly never gets it passed, and he never actually intends to.
Rather, he's there to maintain the fiction of balance, and the hope of possibility of change for the better through the established political process. By doing so, he siphons off efforts which would be better put towards forcing change through other means, AND provides an excuse for fans of the system to tell those who are violating the laws to just simmer down and work through the political process.
Remember, he voted for the DMCA.
Even if she liked it, they should make it a crime.
That way if his possession should wander off and have some rough fair use with another guy without his explicit written permission he can have their house raided and get a few hundred thousand in compensation.
That would teach you thats she is his exclusive property to license however he likes! What were you thinking stealing his property like that, even if it was only for a night.
Dude about the population increase, once a country becomes developed and reaches a certain population, the population increase becomes near zero, (ex. germany, US etc.) for example in the US the ratio of birth to deaths leveled off and only fluctuates around by +-2% around 0. So all I am saying is given enough time the diseases will (future) not have much effects on the death rate.
Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
The war of intellectual property versus fair use seems to be fairly non-partisan. Of the current federal legislators endorsed by IPac, two are Democrats and three are Republicans. The chief enemies of fair use (Ernest Hollings {retired}, Howard Berman, Orrin Hatch) also come from both sides of the aisle.
actually it costs the taxpayers a great deal if you really look at it. We pay for not only the politicians salry, but the judges who make the decisions, the appeals judges who overlook thier decisions, and all the way up the line. What i am saying is that we have other major problems to deal with besides fair use. Look at California with its record deficit. Look at social security, look at welfare, look at illegal aliens. Not saying this isnt a good fight and won that shouldnt be battled, but there is a time and a place for everything...Personally IMHO there are too many bought out politicians for this to ever get solved.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
HA healthcare in many developed countries has been an immense success, when compared to the rest of the developed countries we are the only people who dont provide free healthcare for the poor. P.S an immense success meaning it was able to do what it set out to do without spending as much as the U.S does on healthcare.
Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
Any hope he'll also campaign more against TCPA & other DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)[1]?
[1] Maybe the industry sees those as "rights" but all I get on my end are restrictions. I suggest that others use that expansion of the acronym, too. I mean, no one can agree on what URL means any more after this (Universal? Uniform? Doesn't matter which one was right; the fact that too few know which is which is enough...)
You'd have to cut a whole lot for the courts to accept that, almost any mention of fair use in law mentions that it applies to partial reproductions. They're not very likely to accept your claim of fair use if you broadcast the entire work with some commentary added to call it "criticism".
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"I sure as hell dont remember hearing about the republican party being particularly active protecting civil rights of disenfranchised minorities during the sixties"
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House Republicans 138-34
House Democrats 152-96
Senate Republicans: 6 against
Senate Democrats: 21 against
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Democrats: 47-17
Senate Republicans: 30-2
Civil rights Act of 1968
Senate Democrats: 42-17
Senate Republicans: 29-3
you my friend please see this post
Calm down people, its a religion not an operating system.
...why people get so high strung when people they "love" have sex with someone else. It makes one question what they really *ahem*love about their partner.
I'd establish a religion* that sets up an "Open Marriage" code or something. It would allow the partners to make "love" to others, provided the act does not deprive the other of life, limb, or liberty; and provided that condoms and the like be used during acts with others.
*I say religion because I believe states should already allow any pair of legal-age people to join. (I'm not gay or married.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
http://www.heraldextra.com/modules.php?op=modload& name=News&file=article&sid=57205
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Please tell my this guy is not related to Bobby Boucher
Find coupons in Greeley
"Healthcare isn't really all that wanted by a lot of people."
except, you know, parents.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually poor people in the US do receive healthcare, after a bit of a wait of course. This is one reason everyone else pays a lot for their healthcare. In other words, healthcare for the poor in the US is about like the government health systems in many countries. Contrary to rumors, people in the US don't just have to die in the street if they don't have insurance. That being said, the US healthcare system is far from perfect and needs a lot of changes, but the link in the post you replied to speaks volumes about what we should NOT do.
If you're too stupid to fail to see the advantage of helping the poor not get sick (and not spread disease) then I hope you get sick and die (and not spread disease) the next time the flu roles around.
Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues until the very end, when he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
It makes no sense to spend money "kick Bush and friends" out of Washington. That's what elections are for.
Universal healthcare is one of the most demonstrably ridiculous ideas ever dreamed up by the left. The only reason people have to argue for it is that it is a position contrary to the conservative position. This is a stupid reason to argue for something. Either show us where socialized medicine has been shown to work--there are many examples of failure, and none of success--or admit that it does not work and that we are better off keeping the government out of it.
Telling the record companies where they can stick it costs virtually nothing to the American taxpayer...it only takes a politician with the cojones to do it.
On this we agree.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Throwing your own cup of water into the passing flood hardly counts as "being particularly active". Neither does jumping on a bandwagon whose time has come.
.......Ya doesn't has to call me Johnson!
Or 4) he's right.
Go look it up. The average American who is uninsured makes more than $50,000/year. That is enough to buy perfectly adequate health insurance.
It is not enough income to drive a 7 series BMW, live in a large house overlooking the ocean, eat out at gourmet restaurants twice a week, send the kids to private school *and* buy health insurance, however.
You've just got to decide what's important.
Certainly you don't think I should be paying for the health insurance of those who'd rather drive a more expensive car?
... and yet as far as I know it is the UNITED STATES that seriously ill people are flown to receive superior life-saving care that is not available elsewhere at any price...
Let's *not* change that' mmmkay?
Very true. I would say two of the biggest problems we have in this country is the exportation of jobs coupled with illegal immagrants here who do cheep labor. Our business should be severly punished for doing so as it's in the nation's best intrest to employ people here even if it costs more and the companies profit a little less. We say we're serrious about keep terrorists out of this country when we can't even keep people from hopping a fence into here, it's insane.
And what's this about:
The other thing that makes sense is for the industry actually to consider some kind of compulsory license.... If I were the recording industry I'd think seriously about doing that. People are going to be engaged in file sharing anyway: They may as well get some compensation for it. It's not a perfect solution to their problem, but then there isn't one at this point.
What's he getting at here?
no health care or health care that is so expensive as not to be an option...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Then they should, you know, buy insurance. Like I do.
It's not *that* expensive. It costs quite a bit, but not so much that most people can't afford it. Just that its easier to skip the insurance than to put off that new car every 36000 miles.
It is relevant. The U.S. has "purchased" goods from other nations in the past by use of force and other coercive measures. They do it today, just not at the end of a gun. Usually.
p.s. Bit touchy about that whole Panama thing it seems from your reaction.
Yes, being able to put that $200+ billion in annual administrative costs back into the economy for equivalent levels of care made universally available to the entire country certainly would suck.
Oh wait, it would actually rock.
Yea, and the Democrats that voted against said bills switched parties. Remember the Dixiecrats?
It's not fair to buy raw material from them and then sell them the processed goods for several times more.
How is this not fair? This is the way the world has worked forever. Do you think GM or Ford or Toyota should sell you a car for the price of the raw materials? Do you think Dell should sell you a computer for the price of the plastic and the solder? Craftsmen and later manufacturers have ALWAYS been compensated for changing raw materials into something usable.
Find coupons in Greeley
So basically, unless its incidental or judicial in some fashion, Fair Use has generally been found to be not applicable to the entire item, only excerpts or quotations, and rarely the whole content. Again, this does not fit sharing your captured material over the Internet.
If that is correct then loaning a taped show to a friend is alo illegal. Where are the educational campains about this issue?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why don't you put your entire inventory up on the web and make it available in a user-friendly format for a reasonable price per track and get away from clinging to this old, outdated business model of selling the whole CD?"
Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.
Allowing people to pay only for the content that they really wanted would only be possible, from a corporate point of view, if the content industry could be sure that a few legitimately purchased copies would not be given away to the masses thus reducing their profit. This might be possible with the use of DRM. However DRM, if unchecked, could completely destroy fair use. If a corporation can eek out even a little profit by denying consumers their fair use rights they will. It's in the corporate nature to do whatever increases their profit margins.
"Do I have sympathy for them? Not when they're clinging to a relic and when that's getting in the way of making good current business decisions.... They can make a fortune if they do that."
I'm not sure which "good current business decisions" Rep. Boucher is talking about. I would like to think that making their content available at a reasonable price would be wildly profitable for the music industry while giving consumer's value for their dollars. The model is, however, largely untested and counter intuitive. Remember that corporations want profit. The more the better. If they can sell their product while grossly over pricing that product all the better. In a normal market supply, demand and competition keeps prices bearable for the consumers. It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.
The business model that I think Rep. Boucher is talking about would threaten the monopoly that the recording industry has on distribution and is therefore a very scary model for them, I'm sure.
At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
"The circuit court for D.C. has invalidated broadcast flag rulemaking, saying that the FCC lacked statutory authority (to create the broadcast flag). Not surprisingly, the MPAA has now come to us and said, "We want you to legislate."
I don't think we are going to do that. I have been waiting for a long time for Hollywood to come to us and say, "Here's something we want" because there is something I want. And it's called the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act."
I haven't read the Digital Media Consumers' Act but I'm smart enough to know that many times the name can be deceiving. For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it. I also know that legislation that start out good can be perverted at the last minute by congressmen who are not acting in the public best interest.
Call me a radical but I think we should legalize the killing of lawmakers who act against the public interest. Not random killing, of course. What we should do is have a vote every five years or so for the politician that has done the public the most harm and then take that person out into a public square and hang him/her by the neck until dead. Just a thought.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
P.S. It's possible to have UHC systems in which individuals may purchase additional care for themselves - i.e. UHC as a baseline for health care, and those who want more can get more.
Sure, there are UHC systems that prohibit that sort of thing, but there are also systems where it's allowed, so no pretending that's not an option.
To defend the concept of the Public Domain, you have to be against insane copyright extensions.
To be against insane copyright extensions you have to not take money and favors from those seeking to kill the Public Domain through insane copyright extensions.
What did you say your job was again, Sir?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
the only one who makes sense admid the partisan bickering. The desire to take away rights from the populace knows no political party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
55 good men signed
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
He cited the phone system, but the government severly messed that one up in the past, I doubt they could do a good job now. That and, I'm sorry to say, if you live in the middle of nowhere, you will have to deal with wanting to live by yourself without certain comforts us people who don't support urban sprawl get, like broadband. The last thing I want is to have to pay for a wire to run to the top of a mountain so Joe Redneck gets his porn faster. And think of this, if the government forced cable companies to wire everyone everywhere, satelite TV would not be around today. That entire technology tree would not have even been researched.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
I like to use this simple formula when moderating:
Offtopic + Flamebait = Troll
Universal Healthcare has nothing to do with the story, and to boot is a contensious topic. So your "think of the children!" post did nothing to add insight to the actual topic under discussion, and as you can see ignited a firestorm of disgruntlement. Thus your modding is well-deserved.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's called "Good Money After Bad"
You cannot draw a moral equivalence between overthrowing a dictatorship, supplying various groups with arms, with tariff games, debts and foreign aid withholdings. People attempt to cloud the issue, by invoking the real atrocities of the past and using them to imply that if you deprive a country of financial aid and/or debt relief, that is equivalent to the US overthrowing Guatemala in 1951. To go and try to argue that these are equivalent is to minimize the real atrocities.
i only have one thing to say..Canada..socialized medicine there for how long and 9 out of my 10 canuck friends agree its great. Hell even people from the us are going to doctors there rather then here
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
The broadcast flag - that has something to do with television programs, yes? Am I supposed to give a rats ass about television programs? Anyway, as someone else pointed out, the broadcast flag would only be effective with the backing of the DMCA. Otherwise, it's as stupid and useless as the rot13 "encryption" used by Adobe e-books. (Whoops, I think I just broke the DMCA with that last sentence.)
They'd have to pay too.
It is a bit unfair in that idiots who do extreme "sports" or are smack addicts tend to cost the taxpayers a little more per person*. But I'm comfortable trading that for the freedom to do idiotic things and still get healthcare, a freedom is a freedom even if you don't exercise it.
*Actually, it might be less since caring for old people is pretty expensive and idiots often die young. Don't have the figures...
I don't think that's a fair statement to make, though I sorta wish it were true. It implies that "traditional" Democrats don't/didn't fight for individual's rights. I think that most political parties have had their shining moments and great leaders. They also have their turkeys, who think that protecting rights involves things like PATRIOT act and arresting people for taking pictures of bridges. I'm just glad that *any* politician has the guts to stand up for what he believes is right. I wish there were more of them.
Nice to see he thinks the right way, but Mr. Boucher should check his facts. Steamboat Willie was created by Disney. The character was later renamed Mickey Mouse, but it is certainly their original creation.
For a far better example, compare Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island and Disney's Treasure Planet.
For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic
Actually "PAT RIOT ACT" is an acronym, the real meaning of which escapes me.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
That is the most flawed reasoning. Individual rights (i.e. civil rights, personal liberty, etc) is so very different from handouts, social programs, and inclusive "otherwise fall through cracks" crap.
Most libertarians associate with the republican party as the lesser of the two evils of the major parties. One notable exception is in the abortion scene. IMHO, the dems jump on this issue mostly b/c they consider it an achilles heel of the religious right in terms of popular support.
And fair use generally falls more in the civil rights camp than in the handout camp, or as the previous poster put, in the robin hood camp.
But, as you say, the corporate and PAC dollar is far more interesting to the politician than is the average citizen, so by any measure, a politician who cares about fair use is a rarity.
You'd have to cut a whole lot for the courts to accept that, almost any mention of fair use in law mentions that it applies to partial reproductions. They're not very likely to accept your claim of fair use if you broadcast the entire work with some commentary added to call it "criticism".
Well, if the whole thing is deeply flawed, it's a lot like Mystery Science Theater 3000, in that you're criticizing the whole thing.
Kind of like a director's cut where he whines about having to cut the shoot by two days because there was too much rain.
But I could see doing that, even if you might not want to do it. As I said, I have friends who make entire TV shows mocking what passes for news nowadays, with fake "broadcasters" announcing each segment and laughable commentary that is thinly vieled sarcasm.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I think at this point it is way too late for such token consessions that will only serve to distract us while our freedoms are taken away. At this point the copyright/DMCA/DRM issue is nothing other than an all or nothing battle. Renember those fools at the birth of the industrial revolution that thought that the free states could peacfully get along with the slave states? Well that's what the people who want to cling to copyrights are like today. They just don't get it. Copyrights are going to die, there supposed to die, and there is no place for them in the information age or the people who wish to impose them.
Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.
Your argument might have been relevant, say, 3 years ago when iTunes et al didn't exist, but it's a moot point now. The Congressman was describing what happened in the past, when the RIAA was trying to preserve their outdated business model. Since then they've started selling online, and now it's the MPAA who's going nuts.
It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.
Valid point. It would be interesting to come up with a way to separate the production companies from the distribution companies (which already happens to some small extent). Production companies could then sell license their work for distribution through companies for whatever cost, and Internet Distribution Company A could license and distribute it, and Brick & Mortar Distribution Company B could do the same thing. This would promote real competition. The problems I see are:
a) Sometimes it's hard for production companies to convince anyone to distribute their work, no matter how good it is (Firefly springs to mind)
b) Some distributors would try to force exclusive deals (although that still might not be a bad thing.. think XM vs. Sirius). Perhaps exclusivity could be legally limited to a particular format though, so company A can have exclusive theater rights, company B can have exclusive DVD rights, but couldn't exclude company C from distributing it on PPV or company D from making it available via download. Although that might result in DVDs becoming unprofitable altogether, but I doubt it. Many people don't have the capability or inclination to download all of their media.
c) It could limit the ability of small startups to distribute their own works... but not necessarily. I'd be surprised if sites didn't pop up to distribute independent works with royalty-based compensation. It could actually increase ease of distribution, since people would have a single point to find a wide variety of independent works. A built-in popularity and rating system ala download.com would be pretty easy to implement.
At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
Yeah, that bothered me too.. But I think what he's trying to imply, without saying it straight out, is that yes, the download flag would be in place, but the tradeoff it wouldn't be illegal to manufacture devices which were capable of defeating it, effectively nullifying it. Even if he didn't think of it, his bill would seem to support that idea.
For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it.
Careful.. It's a violation of the Patriot Act to call it unpatriotic. Or was it a violation of the DMCA to tell how to violate the DMCA? Either way, you sound like a commie to me. I mean terrorist. Whatever the thing is we're all supposed to be afraid of these days; I can't keep track.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Remember them...yes. I remember how they disbanded after 1948 thus were not relevant to the 1960s civil rights actions.
I have a perspective most Slashdotters will never have, as I grew up in the county where Mr. Boucher's office is located. While he talks a great talk in favor of fair use rights, and thus makes all of us feel warm and fuzzy, you don't know the rest of the story. You don't know that the man with the silver tongue is only effective when it comes to doing just what it takes to get himself re-elected.
Virginia's "Fighting Ninth" district is composed of mainly tobacco farmers, coal miners, and blue collar workers. The public school systems there are for the most part, woefully inadequate. Every two years he strings along his constituants with ads of elderly people who endorse him because "When my Social Security claim was denied, I turned to Rick Boucher. He fought for my rights and got me my Social Security. He truly cares about all of us." Tobacco farmers proclaim what a great guy he is because he "fights" for them too.
Oddly enough, the local economy keeps getting worse and worse. People are losing their jobs, and there's nothing to keep the area's best and brightest students around when they get back from college. He votes the way he needs to to make his less-perceiving constituants think he cares about them by trying to preserve an economic base that is doomed to ultimately collapse, while doing nothing to move the region into the 21st century. I mean, heck, the area is at least 10 years behind the rest of the country in so many areas it's not funny. While trying to preserve tobacco farming and coal mining as the region's major economic base is unsustainable, it gets votes.
Oddly enough, most of the people in southwest VA are very religious, ultra-conservative Christians, who would be shocked at the way Mr. Boucher votes on the so-called "moral issues". But it's amazing what a person desperate not to lose his/her job in an area where finding another one is nearly impossible without any kind of skills or education will overlook if he/she foolishly thinks that voting for Mr. Boucher will mean 2 more years of employment. And when you can't read, or else don't read very well, it's far too easy to fall for the crafty lies of such a gifted speaker. Trust me, this man is the epitome of a slick politician. When you consider that (assuming others are correct) he voted for the DMCA, and given that he indicated that he has something the RIAA/MPAA want and they have something he wants, I'm willing to bet that all this talk is just a bargaining chip to get what he really wants--broadband for southwest VA. Most of his constituants probably don't even have computers, much less even $20/month to spend on broadband, but if he can get that for the voters, it will assure yet another term. Did anyone notice how he indicated that broadband is as essential to survival as electricity? (It's not) No, mark my words, this is all about deceiving the less-educated voter base into thinking he really cares about making their lives better, while ignoring the underlying causes of the region's economic woes. I am positive that his position will change as soon as it gets him what he really wants--2 more years in Washington. Just wait and see.
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
If your point is that $50k /yr is enough, YOU make want to 'go look it up'. I live in California. I can think of no major city here in which $50k/yr is enough to live, much less cover health insurance for a family.
It IS a matter of priorities, but I know of no individual who has made the choice to drive a fancy car in lieu of health care insurance.
You experience may be different.
What we need is some sort of "Fair Use" or "User Friendly" certification that can be applied to any piece of consumer electronics, when can then be posted on product review websites. Only products which are DRM free could carry the certification label and/or sticker. This will both raise public awareness, and for those in the know, steer them towards products that work. It will also provide sales and grass roots marketing to companies that refuse to knuckle under to the content cartels.
My rights don't need management.
He has the same last name as a character in a shitty comedy!
You, sir, are the funniest person ever for pointing this out.
See, now that was an example of perfect moderation as I was indeed offtopic. I had self-modded myself down one already, but one more is no matter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i did misread that first line...
sum.zero
I used to be into the whole filesharing gig. Even managed to pick up a few movies before release, got most of my music collection from it, and had more than a few e-books. (I am in the process of replacing it all, btw. Slowly but surely, it's leaving.)
Why? I get guarenteed fair use, if they get their broadcast flag. In other words, we are giving them the ability to enact the DMCA on television signals, and open technology isn't prohibited from decrypting the signal. So, I can finally legally use an open-source mplayer/xine codec to watch my DVDs.
Same goes for the broadcast flag. I can still watch TV, and even record the show on my home-brew TiVo. The TiVo would be able to strip the signal, and I get my cool copy. What do I have to trade? Not much: I'm not distributing it on the internet anyway.
And, because I am on a roll: Practical reasons not to fileshare (illegally):
1) Most stuff on P2P networks is crap. Have you ever compared a DivX rip to DVD/vob? DivX gets it's ass kicked.
2) Most Mp3's available are crap. They are either incorrectly tagged, or have shitty bitrates. I am still tracking down faulty mp3s from the downloading I stopped 4 years ago.
3) Spyware. Hopefully you saw the earlier article about that.
4) If you get caught, you're fucked.
Now, you may use the excuse that you fileshare as a form of civil disobedience. The idea of you shafting them back is rather noble, in a twisted sense. Unfortunately, P2P networks are somewhat prohibited from performing civil disobedience, specifically because they anonymise their users (to an extent). In order for action to qualify as civil disobedience, not only does it need to occur, but the users need to do it in a completely open manner. (Then, watch as the RIAA tries to sue over a million Americans for $20,000+). Read up on your Thoreau -- you'll see.
Note: I do believe IP law is too powerful in this country. However, I'd rather attempt to abolish it from within the system, than ignore it from without. And, to those ends, any step towards users having more rights is well worth the cost--particualrly for something as trivial as the broadcast flag.
I've ranted long enough. Hope I have you peeps something to think about.
A group of us is trying to spread the word on fairuse rights and set up a day to celebrate these rights on July 11th. More info at http://www.fairuseday.com/ . We also maintain a chat on freenode at #fairuseday if you care to come and join us. The best way is just through word of mouth though. Contact local represenatives and such and celebrate in your own way.
Good point, but. . . How many of those (I betcha mostly Southern) Democrats (or the seats they occupied) have become Republican since then?
I haven't read the Digital Media Consumers' Act but I'm smart enough to know that many times the name can be deceiving.
In this case it isn't. I've read it. It says three things:
(1) You no longer go to prison for defeating DRM (unless you actually commit copyright infringement).
(2) You no longer go to prison for offering a product to defeat DRM that enables the above noninfringing uses.
(3) DRM crippled CDs must be labeled.
Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
I agree, I was not thrilled with that notion myself. However note that with the DMCRA it would be perfectly legal for people to sell products to strip the flag and it would be perfectly legal to use those products so long as you don't actually infringe.
So the MPAA would 'get' it's broadcast flag, but it would be pretty well worthless.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Methinks that $50k/yr is family income. Big difference between you living on 50k by yourself, and a family of 4 trying to live on 50k.
It is to the USofA that rich, seriously ill people are flown to, yes. It is Mexico and Canada that middleclass Americans drive to, because they can't afford their own country's healthcare.
I can assure you that my grandparents that grew up without healthcare ended up far healthier than my grandparents with it.
This seems contradicted by longevity studies that trace the increased longevity directly to increases advances in healthcare.
With our increasing infant mortality here in the USA, it raises the question of exactly what you mean by "that grew up". But that doesn't take into account cardiac care. Unless you mean that, in the end, your grandparents without healthcare who died at 68 where healthier the last couple years (before heart failure), than those who lived to 80 (and died of cancer).
I also have a perspective on the subject because I grew up here and I live and work here now. You are correct that tobacco and coal are primary industries here and are failing, that much is true. However, if you look closely at what he's doing, he is trying to help attract high tech industries to the area by showing that we have and are continuing to get better technology all the time. This has been something that he's been working on for quite some time. If you lived in the area, you might know that if you were paying attention. You would also know that many do return to the area after college seeking work here.
While not all localities in his district do have access to broadband, many do. What he wants is high speed connections in locations that do not have them so that there will be new industries already in place when the failing ones finally go. So you fault him for trying to help the region grow by attracting high technology to the area and "move the region into the 21st century"? He's already been successful in procuring money for high technology and attracting companies to Southwest Virginia.
Most of his constituants probably don't even have computers, much less even $20/month to spend on broadband
I also live in the county in which his office is located and while not everyone does have a computer let alone broadband, many do. Yes, even grandmothers and not necessarily just in Washington County.
Oddly enough, most of the people in southwest VA are very religious, ultra-conservative Christians, who would be shocked at the way Mr. Boucher votes on the so-called "moral issues". But it's amazing what a person desperate not to lose his/her job in an area where finding another one is nearly impossible without any kind of skills or education will overlook if he/she foolishly thinks that voting for Mr. Boucher will mean 2 more years of employment. And when you can't read, or else don't read very well, it's far too easy to fall for the crafty lies of such a gifted speaker.
Sir, I think you will find natives from here and people moving to the area are not these uneducated people that you seem to think they are. I'll address your employment issues in a moment, but your argument is very weak as you present the majority of people in this region in a very bad light. One that I might add has been cast on it for a long time and quite frankly is time for it to go. As for the "moral issues" The mud slinging toward Mr. Boucher got quite heavy in the last election, but the people know that he does work hard for the region and gets results. Even the ultra conservative people of the area know a hard worker when they see one.
Now for your unemployment statements. Looking at the counties that are part of his district, very few of them have unemployment above the national average, with several below that. While this can definitely use improvement, in some cases over the last year in this district, the unemployment percentage went down -- way down from what they were. In some counties, it went up. While unemployment is a big issue, to say that the man does nothing to try and help the region grow is quite uncalled for, and it is the same tired argument. This argument typically comes from those that do not pay attention to what is going on around them. If you would like to understand what he's been doing for the region, why not take a look.
The fact is, all over the state, unemployment has risen in many counties over the last year. It is not related to just this district. You should take a look at state wide unemployment for the last 4 quarters, take a look here. You can see that it is not just in the 22 counties that he represents.
As for originally voting for the DMCA, you can see
If you can't afford a family, you shouldn't have children.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
I think we have seen a reversal in the roles of the Democratic and Republican parties within the United States.
What you have seen is the merger of the Democratic and Republican parties. It happened a loooong time ago. In fact they never were really seperate. And neither could give a damn about your rights!
--
Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
What?
Any idiot with two braincells to rub together can obviously see that broadcast is not where it is at, nor is cable. These two methods are simply the delivery mechanism.
In the future (and some would say, to a limited extent - TODAY), entertainment programming will be delivered primarily (likely entirely) via the internet. Look at how successful internet radio systems have been - can anyone truely say that internet video won't be as successful?
Now, true - mbone notwithstanding - you likely won't see a one to many streaming model like internet radio stations use. The bandwidth just isn't there to allow for that on a broad scale, with the exception, perhaps for the main players (ie, like ABC, NBC, CBS, etc). Actually - WTH am I saying...
The bandwidth is there - in a way: Do you have digital cable? That set top box is actually a computer that decodes MPEG streams. Yep, that same cable that gives you a paltry broadband upload and download is the same cable delivering untold amounts of bandwidth just for TV decoding. With a box on the backend to back it up for numerous customers, and all the frontends being the set top boxes.
The cable companies are hoarding this bandwidth - because they know that if it were allowed to be used for unfettered internet usage (like, if they were ever forced to open up the cable lines to other ISPs) - that internet TV would kill them.
It would be, could be - a P2P TV model, TIVO-like boxes everywhere, everyone a consumer, and everyone a potential broadcaster. Vlogs (what a crap word) are already becoming popular, and there are a few pieces of software which have recently come about that combine the power of bittorrent, RSS feeds, and to a lesser extent - TIVO-like functionality - to allow for a many-to-many P2P video sharing entertainment system.
It is crazy - cable companies could quite possibly continue making money (a ton of money) if they just wouldn't be so tight fisted about it. The writing is plainly on the wall - people don't want all these separate devices - they want devices that talk to each other, in a very easy to use manner - they want to keep the video, share it, some want to create it, others just want to view it. They want to time shift it, space shift it, and location shift it.
These companies, the MPAA, the RIAA, the cable companies, the broadcasters, and tons others - DO NOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. But it is happenning anyway. They kept talking about convergence, but really didn't want to see it happen, and played it off that consumers weren't wanting it. The fact is, that consumers don't want it in the form they are pushing - which is the bare minimum. Give it to the consumer, to the people - in an open and free form, that creative types and innovative types can really use - and WATCH OUT...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Southern Democrats were still referred to as "Dixiecrats" even though the party was not around anymore. The person who ran for president in 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket was Strom Thurmond. Perhaps you remember him and which party he joined later?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
"In the states about 20% of the population is covered, by the largest overhead among any other countries (although we have been told that private companies are the most efficient) and 80% of personal bankruptcies in the US happen after receiving a large medical bill."
And here is why:
Hospitals give some kind of crazy ass discount to HMO insurance plans, but a regular non insured person gets their life fucked over by the same supposed caring professionals.
Gall Bladder removal for one person comes in at about thirteen thousand dollars (if you don't have it done a gallstone will kill you EOL). If you have HMO coverage, you pay whatever it took to get in the door (copy for emergency room for instance) and the insurance pays about three grand over that for the procedure.
Now remember how I said it was a thirteen thousand dollar operation? Where did the nearly ten thousand dollars go that is still owed to them? A line item on the invoice reads: insurance company discount 10,000.00
This is unacceptably fucked up beyond all belief.
IF I didn't have insurance I would magically cost ten thousand dollars more to treat?
That s the screwing and injustice of our world. The poor cant afford health care because the people who can afford health care are the ones getting insane discounts.
How can these so called doctors and health care professionals do this with any soul? Is chaotic evil the new American way?
I can only guess the next step will be to stop servicing the uninsured at all because it costs too much, maybe make the bill for above operation 10000000 dollars with a 9999999 discount for having insurance coverage.
Sorry for the rant but this just pisses me off to no end, because if for some reason I end up not being able to continue affording health coverage, I don't want to choose between food and medical bills.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.