Slashdot Mirror
eDonkey Tells Congress It's Throwing in the Towel
An anonymous reader writes "Sam Yagen, President of eDonkey, testified at the Judiciary committee's hearing 'Protecting Copyright and Innovation in a Post-Grokster World'. It was there he told the committee that he is throwing in the towel. 'The Grokster standard requires divining a company's intent, the decision was essentially a call to litigate. This is critical because most startup companies just don't have very much money. Whereas I could have managed to pay for a summary judgment hearing under Betamax, I simply couldn't afford the protracted litigation needed to prove my case in court under Grokster. Without that financial ability, exiting the business was our only option despite my confidence that we never induced infringement and that we would have prevailed under the Grokster standard.'"
If you can shut it down its not true P2P, this is why Gnutella and Gnutella2 are superior.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I thought the open source and decentralized eMule was the tool of choice for the eDonkey network, with Shareaza and other tools following closely behind.
. . .that the U.S. government will bend over for the highest bidder.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
eDonkey wasn't very good anyway. sorry to say. eMule rocks!
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Finally eDonkey will be freed from leechers and kilometric queues! :D
Or to rephrase: I couldn't ever download anything from eDonkey so, who cares? I'm glad we got rid of such an awful "service".
Welcome to the capitalist world, where justice is something that you purchase by the hour, not something that you have an inalienable right to.
It's what everyone else is doing to get away from the expense and inconvenience of doing business in the US.
Deleted
It's rather strange to load up an article which is talking about shutting down p2p with iPod nano ads all over the place. Now I don't know how to feel.
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Feh. We don't really care if we put you out of business. You don't pay us!
Do you feel owned yet? You will.
now that's news!
i'm shocked!
(yes, this is sarcasm)
Why shouldn't he be sued? You've got to admit that he's doing something fairly shady. No reasonable person can claim anything except that his plan to achieve popularity with eDonkey was through facilitating illegal file-sharing.
Given some of the Australian-US FTA requirements, I'd be surprised if they weren't trying to make it apply elsewhere. iTunes certainly isn't going anywhere here. WTF does the music industry think it's winning?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I'm terrified of the thought that GNUtella might be the next one. Because gnutella absolutely ROCKS.
While many people don't use eDonkey (and the like) to pirate, the simple fact of the matter is that most do. Everyone suffers.
It would take a company with an enormous amount of funding, and legal stamina to keep up with all of the litigation involved with something that can be abused so easily. The RIAA and MPAA (the most litigious groups) do have that stamina, funding, and will to carry out all of their pursuits.
Hopefully artists will continue to open their music up to the masses. I think they stand to make more money (you know, they clearly do not make enough already) by publishing directly to these online music libraries (ala Yahoo, Rhapsody, iTunes, etc.).
There are still the issues with software "sharing." There is blatant piracy there. I've seen my neighbors kids come over with CD's of burned software that they got "for free" from Kazaa. They put me at risk that way. I don't want that crap installed on my computer so I can be their next target and example.
Will anyone miss P2P if it goes away? I won't even notice.
My ZooLoo
That's funny, the spyware biz must be getting less profitable than Sam led us to believe.
I suppose companies are no longer willing to pay to be the 500th popup ad server on a spyjacked box.
They just need to move to Canada, where the Supreme Court decided that file sharing is legal. Voilà! Problem solved!
While the Bittorrent protocol is clearly more modern, more fair (more upload usually does equal more download, unlike eMule), eDonkey and eMule clearly have their uses; whenever I was searching for Really Old Stuff like "classic" movies (>20 years), music, or games (both >5 years), OR something off-mainstream which might not be easily available otherwise, eMule has almost never disappointed me. It's like a huge P2P culture archive. I have not yet found a better source for satisfying such desires than eMule, but maybe I didn't look hard enough and someone might point me towards another P2P service that satisfies these needs?
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
The way to make money off P2P is not to offer P2P services (a direct invitation for lawyers and other scum to line their pockets), but to *use* P2P to distribute your own data for next to nothing.
It's a terrific delivery mechanism with an enormous benefit/cost ratio, so why not make that the basis of your business by delivering your own material over it, or delivering content belonging to other less technical providers under contract? You would be legally in the clear, while benefitting from absolutely minimal networking costs.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
By your example, Xerox would have never made it out of the garage.
A pen can be used for copyright vioations, as can a camera. How much ink is invested in illegal copying every year is anyone's guess. Cameras, the same thing.
Yes, I know that those are ridiculous examples. However, under the Grokster standard, either of the latter could be considered instruments for wanton copyright violation (despite the ridiculousness of it) and be banned...if they were new technologies.
Most any tool, be it software or hardware, is capable of being used illegally. That people do so is not so much a reflection of most tools but instead a reflection on those people.
Rich people win again!!! I like rich people because they're better than the rest of us. I think they should always get their way, because rich people are just better genetic material, it's true, ask them. The government knows it, it's just a matter of time before the rest of us catch on.
There only needs to be one corporation: MicroHaliRIMPAADellAppleMartopoly. And it will pay regular people the same wages, but rich people will get more. And it will know what we're doing at all times (to thwart terrorists) and have total control of all media. Like real communism (not ideal communism). Kind of like what's happening now, but without hiding the fact that regular people are getting shit on.
When I see how eagerly RIAA tries to prevent unpreventable evolution (i.e. P2P networks) I wander, if RIAA was so active couple of decades ago, they would probably try to ban digital coding of information, since it is now their main source of problems. I could bet that they cry for those old times when vinil was one and only. There was no sub-50$ vinil-burner then.
No sig today.
I'm sure our Republican Congressmen are thinking how great the Grokster legislation is working, then, and will use it as a model for many other situations where they want to make it impossible for new businesses to compete with old ones. I think at this rate, in 20 years or so the US economy will be on par with places like Serbia or Mongolia.
We may very well be on the brink of returning to the earlier days. Fewer companies and/or individuals will be willing to put their name on a P2P product thus opening themselves up to this type of expensive litigation.
"The days are growing darker." "The board is set, and the pieces are moving."
All things considered, and adding in that some Senators are talking about eventually outlawing file sharing at all, ITs no wonder that the US is not the innovative/technologial leader it once was, and things are now looking even worse.
:(
Why sholud I try to come up with something when I know it will wind up bringing me to court from some other company? US Capitalism is slowly turning into communism.
Just realise the reality of the situation..... There is no reality.
He who has the bigger pocket book gets justice. He that doesn't, gets the shaft. its got nothing to do with justice, right or wrong, or even the law anymore.
Dear citizens, we have lost.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is the sort of thing a 12 year old kid says, when he doesn't get picked for the football team. Cries of "no fair" and "we know we're right but The Man is out to get us" won't stir any sympathy, since Congress is either 1)technologically clueless (since only terrorists do P2P) or 2)in the ??AA's pocket (since P2P = theft). Nobody is going to lose sleep over this.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Suppose a for-profit hospital sets up a clinic in a high-crime area, despite the difficulty of operating a business there. Their business plan calls for them to make money from the crimes of their customer base. They report the evidence of crimes they find, but they can't police the neighborhood.
A pawn shop in that same neighborhood sells guns and ammo, despite the difficulty of operating a business there. Their business plan calls for them to make money from the crimes of their customer base. They report the evidence of crimes they find, but they can't police the neighborhood.
What do both of those businesses have in common? They both make crime more convenient. One sells the supplies, the other wipes up the mess (so you are less likely to die if your victim fights back). Both businesses serve the perps and the victims, and both discriminate as best they can between them.
What do they have in common with EDonkey? Either they all need to be shut down for capitalizing on human frailty, or none of them do.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
this is just a case of proving that the *AA really are bullying? If you can't afford to fight them (or just claim it) isn't that bad press for the *AA? Isn't this proof that they are attempting to rule what innovations should be allowed and which shouldn't? Doesn't this demonstrate that you can have a business or technology as long as it doesn't harm anyone else? at least not those with 150 year copyrights (even if your business isnt't designed to ruin them). Wow, those poor folk that owned train businesses! And those bad people that built horse drawn wagons. They got put out of business... shouldn't we pay their families restitution? .... Seems to me that this is the pinnacle of why software patents, DRMing, and such are stiffling innovation, and using monopolistic business practices.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
As others have already posted, the p2p scene is only going to be pushed further underground now. Laws and lawsuits are not going to stop the swapping of copyright protected materials and of course the commercial pirates won't be stopped either. That being said, I think that p2p will disappear from the political landscape because anyone with a high profile service is going to be sued out of existence right away, leaving only the largely invisible underground.
Out of sight is out of mind! *AA will declare victory since there's no point in chasing ghosts (as long as they keep quiet). And the politicians will also declare victory since there is no political hay to be made railing against something that's largely invisible and too technical for ordinary folks to care about. So if everyone is patient, the game will soon be over and those in the know can return to their regularly scheduled filesharing, legal and otherwise.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Small companies are bullied out of business because they can't afford to prove your point, although they haven't done anything wrong.
Sad.
"I've seen my neighbors kids come over with CD's of burned software that they got "for free" from Kazaa. They put me at risk that way. I don't want that crap installed on my computer so I can be their next target and example."
You know what? Maybe you should snitch on those kids, and turn them over to the *IAA and police as the 'little criminals' they are! If you are sycophant enough, maybe you'll even get payed by the *IAA for snitching on your neighbours (and their kids). People in facist states have done that before, sometimes with considerable succes!
Surely you will put your conscience at ease, knowing it's for the brats' own good; thanks to you, they will know that they are stealing the bread between the artists' teeth every time they download a song!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Going offshore isn't much protection if the US gets their way:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651, 39220179,00.htm
Microsoft, *IAA, etc. know they can't win against offshore firms and open source under the current global legal system. They're pushing hard to have US laws (and presumably the US patent/copyright databases) applied globally.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's what the US Congress, the Chinese Central Committee and the Russian Mafia have as their common link. Fortunately they currently see each other as rivals.
Just wait until they form a cartel and start working more closely together.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Exporting US culture is a pretty important part of the US economy and, less- tangibley, our politics. It is actually really important for the future of our country that Chinese and Indian people want to listen to Snoop-Dogg on their iPod and drink a Pepsi or a Coke and wear Levi's or Wrangler's or FUBU and Nike or Sketcher and watch Baywatch or The Dukes of Hazzard. And the Movies and Music are a really important part of that. It influences what the world thinks of the US.
If the RIAA and/or MPAA are allowed to kill their competition in the US, they will drive the innovation off-shore, and possibly make themselves obsolete.
We don't want the Chinese and Indians watching each other's movies and listening to each other's music. We want them craving all things American.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I for one say goodbye to our E-Donkey overlords...and welcome our new congressional overlords into our bedrooms. *sigh* Can't I trade porn in peace?
The only way to combat the frivilous lawsuit is to be anonymous. Never let them find out who you are. Frivilous lawsuits can't really punish the person whose identity isn't known.
a member of congress is overheard asking another congresswoman, "Who is this guy and how much did he contribute to my campaign?"
I think most every poster has missed the point here. The eDonkey people are making this claim in front of Congress to show them how the new court ruling/laws stifle the free market* in a certain area sector. If you are unable to start a business because you can't afford the legal costs to prove that what your business does is not illegal, then something is seriously broken. eDonkey is using this opportunity to say exactly that.
Innocent until proven what?
*Tangent: Does it not seem obvious that the RIAA is trying to pass blanket laws to kill "unauthorised" content providers, even if they are legit, in order to continue their monopoly? Aside from iTunes, they are the only ones who can afford to prove that yet-nonexistant music service is legit.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
No, my friend. That would be workers.
Capitalism's Big Lie is that it is responsible for production. Once upon a time, this was true: capitalism freed productive forces from the grave inefficiencies and baseless impediments of the feudal system. But now it merely does a better and better job of siphoning profits to those who own, and contributes no productivity. It serves the interests of the parasites.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Oceania, East Asia, Eurasia anyone?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is garbage.
.) If Capitalism is it's own goal, then it can't be self defeating without tying it to a regulatory structure. The fact that markets form in a vacuum should be evidence enough of its self sustaining nature. Assuming Capitalisms goal is to maximize utility, then you could say that it may never realize that, but "self defeating"? It doesn't make sense.
.) Capitalism leads to Monopoly, ceterus paribus? Only with strong externalities. Most monopolies are artifacts of constraints on trade (one way or another). Certainly some industries have strong externalities, but not all do. A thin thread to hang the system upon.
.) There are no pure economic systems except perhaps in microcosms. Its not like there are any command economies that you can point to that don't have markets somewhere.
None of this is really to your point, which is that American Capitalism is a far cry from real Capitalism, and unjust at that. But for some reason, your initial claims really rub me the wrong way... I would prefer that the caveats on the benefits of capitalism be spelled out clearly, because they are real and they should be considered by people weighing the merits of economic systems.
Pax -- Ob
"You don't mod someone down just because you dislike their opinion..."
No, you mod them down because they're jumping around like a stung cat... er... nevermind.
If the market moves to using Bittorrent anyway, there is no "center" to sue. Sure, they can attack the current "developer". Then, a new (set of) developer(s)will take over and keep pushing the FOSS code base forward.
Against such overt aggression by the RIAA, I think the only model is strategic passivity combined with highly tactical aggression spread out over many people and countries.
Then the RIAA will have to play a very large and distributed version of "whack-a-mole" which they can never win.
THE Private Pilot Adventure Guide
Justice for sale...sweet, yummy justice for sale
Now w/o all that illegal music NOT sucking BW they'll give me ginormous rebates RIGHT?????? RIGHT???????
Well, a quote (don't know who said this) comes to mind:
Capitalism is where man exploits man.
Communism is exactly the opposite.
It's interesting that so many folks would bring up the issue of accountability, really. As with any crime committed with the aid of an instrument or piece of technology of some kind, the instrument itself can not be held accountable for the act it was used to perpetrate. Common sense tells us this. If only common sense were applicable to the Judicial Branch of the United States government, perhaps we would see a sharp decline in incidents such as this.
If I remember correctly, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a gun manufacturer - Smith & Wesson, to be exact - can not be held accountable if their products are used to injure or kill innocent people. When I read of this, I thought to myself, "Finally, common sense prevails!" Did I think that because I want to defend gun manufacturers? No; I've never liked guns, and I've never liked the people who make them, either. I became fond of that ruling because it embodies an important underlying concept: A device, even if it is designed for the sole purpose of causing serious and immediate bodily harm, can not be inherently evil. Therefore, the person producing these devices can't be made to answer for someone else's crimes.
Sure, if a company was producing a dangerous product that didn't have any real legitimate applications whatsoever, they could - and probably should - be dealt with. However, the point remains: Here we have a gun manufacturer, whose products may well kill hundreds every year here in the United States alone, but it's not their fault that people are using their guns to commit serious crimes. It is the motive of the buyer and how the product is actually used that truly matters, not the product itself and the person who made it available. (After all, firearms have other places in our lives. Home defense, hunting, sport, or simply collecting guns, for example.)
You can probably see why I almost shit myself when I first heard about the Grokster ruling. The Grokster ruling is, in itself, a shining example of the ass-backwards logic that exists in the courts these days. A gun manufacturer can't be held accountable if their guns kill someone, but it's Grokster's fault if I pirate a poorly compressed copy of The Boondock Saints using their product. Excuse me? Of course, it also goes to show where the government's priorities really are: satisfying campaign contributors and special interest groups. I know I'm really going off on a tangent here, but if you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. The NRA doesn't think gun manufacturers should be held accountable if their guns kill people, but the RIAA and MPAA think it's Grokster's fault if someone uses their products to pirate music and movies. Let's play a nice, fun game of 'Follow the Money', shall we? Wait. We don't have to. It's blatantly obvious.
It's extremely unfortunate that any company can be made to buckle under this kind of pressure. Many new technologies are now endangered by the Grokster ruling, not because they can be eliminated outright, but because it takes so much time, money, and patience to deal with the courts that nobody in their right mind without a few million dollars and an army of lawyers would even try to defend their products.
I just find it very strange that the Smith & Wesson ruling's logic doesn't apply elsewhere. Sure, if a product is defective, and that defect results in bodily harm or the destruction of property, that's the manufacturer's fault. However, if a product does not cause bodily harm or the destruction of property by its own volition, and must first be activated or otherwise utilized by a human being to present any kind of danger, it's the user's fault.
Therefore, the proprietors of a filesharing network and the programmers who created the client software used to access said network can not be held accountable if other people utilize their network to engage in illegal activity. While I do believe that the network's owners should do what th
The whole brouhaha is about a state sanctioned monopoly called ``copyright.'' Hence, capitalism is being entirely bypassed as the very precondition for the dispute.
Capitalism, when unregulated, leads to consolidation of money into fewer and fewer hands.
How do you figure? The nature of money is to be used; Let us take your theory to the logical conclusion and say that one person finally gets all the money there is. What then, will he/she make a nest from it?
No, instead money will be used to do a variety of things. A company that gets more money (generally) hires more workers. A person that gets more money usually spends it; In fact a real problem in the US is that people are generally outspending income as they make more (relying on future increases in income our house price).
There are no good examples for you claim. History has prooven time and again that money is rather like water - if you try and dam it up it will eventually flow elsewhere or be unleashed in a torrent.
I didn't read the rest of your comment but I can't imagine it went well with the base you were standing on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It wants it's rocks back.
:-P
And left a bill for trash disposal:
* Flag $3
* Rover $100
* 6 descent stages $10,000
* HAZMAT Fee $50,000
* MaidsOnCall to clean up all those dirty footprints, $1000
TERMS: 30 or we're turning off the tides.
If Napster had quit hosting its service on its own servers and opened up instead, like OpenNap, and let other people host the files, it could have sold downloads of its top-notch client for 5.00 a pop and made how many millions of dollars? Yeah, it is obvious they thought they would make billions when they controlled it all...but we all know how that turned out.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Generational weath does accumulate over time - thus explaining as you noted that in the top 1% of people with money they all had parents in at least the top 5%.
However that is a meaningless figure. First of all, the population base is growing so there are many more people adding in at the low end. Secondly the amount of money is increasing over time so even if a small number of people may cotrol a large percentage of wealth it does not mean much without saying how much ecenomic freedom the people in the middle have. That has increased quite a lot as the middle class has a lot of financial power they did not have before.
Lastly, please read the section on the "Disadvantages of the Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality". There are a number of reasons why pointing to that number and saying "see!!!" make little sense. Here's a good one:
Too often only the Gini coefficient is quoted without describing the proportions of the quantiles used for measurement. As with other inequality coefficients, the Gini coefficient is influenced by the granularity of the measurements. Example: Five 20% quantiles (low granularity) will yield a lower Gini coefficient than twenty 5% quantiles (high granularity).
There are no details in the article on how this number was really calculated. Proof my Wiki is not enough to convince me I'm afraid.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"And downloading songs isn't even a criminal offense unless you do a lot of it. No more than shoplifting a candy bar is."
...and shoplifting a candy bar is most definitely a criminal offense. Do you really think it is not? Shoplifting (stealing) is shoplifting. And it IS illegal. Criminal, in fact.
If you'd like to prove me wrong, just go down to your local convenience store and try it. I assure you, you will end up in the CRIMINAL justice system. You may only get a ticket (misdemeanor) but on the other hand, you may receive the harshest penalty allowed (jail). And yes, it can happen, although I admit the probability of you doing time for a candy bar is very very small. But to say it's not a criminal offense is just flat wrong.
Welcome back, realplayer! woohoo!
By "Capitalism" the poster means "Free Market Capitalism." The two terms are often used interchangably. A free market does not exist in the presence of trusts or monopolies, therefore the existence of cartels is said to be the antithesis of Free Market Capitalism, here shortened to just Capitalism.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
hey! the guy invented the WWW. Which is obviously used to not only share files,
download illegal movies and files - but is also used to spread illegal information!
hang him! hang him!
- THIS is the sort of thinking the RIAA and MPAA are going for. isnt it scary?(!)
The numbers don't matter. The point is that the RIAA has managed to shut down their competitors, regardless of actual copyright violations or intent. If you want to start a music distribution company and use the internet for user feedback, you are shit out of luck.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Stop stealing copyrighted stuff. If enough people do that, the RIAA goes away.
If we actually want a Congress that's pro-technology, we are simply as a group going to have to raise enough money ourselves to become the highest bidder, nobody's going to do this for us.
Tech Public Policy stuff
There is a glaring difference between guns and P2P.
In the case of guns, there is no existing (or even plausible) technology that would significantly reduce gun abuse without significantly increasing costs and decreasing their legal utility.
This is not the case in P2P. Grokster, EDonkey and the gang could easily and for almost no cost implement basic copyright-protection algorithms. Nothing is foolproof, of course, but such algorithms could put a huge bit in the illegal swapping on their networks while barely affecting legal sharing. Yet these organizations choose not to do this. In fact, they do just the opposite - they deliberately design their networks in such a way as to make copyright protection difficult for them to implement, so they can whine that they can't do it.
Imagine there were two types of guns. One is the regular type, that could be used for both legitimate purposes and crime. The second had some new-fangled technology that quite securely limited the guns use to legitimate activity only. You can be darned sure that the government would ban old-style guns in this case. The same logic should apply to P2P.
Also, as a secondary argument, only a very small fraction of guns (less than 1%) are ever used to commit a crime. As for copies of EDonkey, it is probably closer to 90%.
Where do you people learn this crap and why can't you see through it?
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
but you can make it a real pain in the butt for the common college kid, who are the bulk of the problem.
Imagine a world with Grokster Offical Version and Grokster Hacked Version, the former with some DRM and latter without. The former is widely available and safe. The latter has to be pulled from spurious difficult-to-find websites and can get you into trouble. Worse yet, the RIAA and MPAA lay a pile of lawsuits on anyone distributing or creating the hacked version.
Yes, the warez community will still bother with hacking, but far fewer of the average Joes will.
I dont use an "official" client. I dont use an "official" server. Does this even affect me, besides the user-count? What do they do inbetween that severs/maintains this connection?
Um. Yeah.
I think it's pretty clear that in my and Eisenhower's opinion that a desire for the unification of state and enterprise is the precondition for tyranny. You can call it fascism, like Mussolini did when he unified the right-wing state and enterprise; you can call it Marxism like when Lenin unified the left-wing state and enterprise; you can call it whatever you want.
How about we quit using the word fascism as name-calling against things we don't like and just agree that, no matter what they say on TV, politicians under ANY system of government in ANY nation of the world are intent on creating a pyramid scheme with which they can fleece the middle and lower classes for their own personal benefit. Once you accept the truth it becomes quite easy to demystify why Congress pulls the crap it does.
I did not insinuate a whiff of fascism merely for name-calling. I've hope I've explained it. It's pretty straight forward really. Authoritarian state-run business, right-wing politics: Fascism. Authoritarian state-run business, left-wing politics: Marxism. Our political climate is right-wing (especially when taken in the global context of these terms). In fact, I outlined this right before I quoted the Columbia. (Sorry Godwin) I didn't bring up Nazis, the Third-Reich, make comparisons of certain leaders to certain mustachioed zealots, I only mentioned that any trend toward state-run capitalism reeks of fascism, just like any trend toward state-run communism (the ubiquitous welfare state) reeks of Marxism. I further went on to say that authoritarian governments, left or right, socialist or capitalist, fascist or Marxist, are all on the bottom of my list because their ideologies are meaningless without freedom. If the casual reader is unable to detect my nuanced use of the word, that's really their problem. I know you are just looking out for them when you admonish me for its use.
(I've been getting a lot of flack lately for my deliberate, context and connotation considered word-choice. I haven't decided whether or not to tone it down. Cheers.)
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Okay. Most of us call that communism but I'm not arguing. I agree with this one.
You've really hit on the important point, though. Marxism/communism is about authoritarian states with respect to economies. Left wing politics are about using other people's money to help a (supposedly) subset of disadvantaged individuals. This is economic because it involves money. This is the sole defining characteristic of communism: economic redistribution. Most people never differentiate it from Socialism. Socialism can be differentiated from Communism through intent of the implementation. Communism intends to make everyone economically equal. Socialism intends to make everyone behave in a (supposedly) commonly acceptable manner. While socialism may use economic reinforcement (monetary penalties for misbehavior), socialism's intent is not to equalize everyone economically. Many communist governments will also employ socialist pursuits but communism doesn't necessarily mean that the government at all cares how the citizens behave, though, within acceptable limits (eg. murder).
Communism and socialism are two often-overlapping circles, but there are implementations of both which could exlude the other entirely.
So what of fascism? What _IS_ fascism? From what I've seen, every government labelled fascist has really been communist or socialist (or both). The only difference is that fascist governments tend to tell their people that the implementation is for the good of the people, whereas true socialist or communist states make no mistake that this is for the good of The State. In my opinion, fascist governments are any governments which lie to the people.
Funny. The US federal government exercises most of the powers and behaviors of communist, socialist, and fascist governments. I agree that there's a minimal level which is common to any organized authority but, JEEBUS, we've reached intolerable extremes here.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
You are asking the wrong question. It is not "Do file sharers buy more music than average?" but rather "Do file sharers buy more music than they otherwise would if they didn't file share?". The answer to the former is yes, but that shouldn't be a surprise. The conclusion that music fans buy more music than average should not be a surprise. The average college kid with 4000 illegal songs on his computer probably still owns a couple dozen honest CDS, which puts him ahead of the average soccer mom or grandma, who owns three. However, the comparison group should be college kids from a decade ago (myself included), when CDs were common and file sharing not. I knew lots of people with hundreds of CDS, not a few. I sure don't see that now.
The "sampling music" excuse is utterly lame. There are lots of ways to do it without filesharing and you know it. Honestly, it is easier than ever to find information about music before you buy than it ever has been.
As I know it, right wing means conservative, and a traditional conservative is in favor of smaller government at every turn. So how can we have authoritarian state-run business with minimalist government?
Ah! Well here's out misunderstanding. I didn't say conservative (as the word has a loaded meaning in the U.S. beyond economics). Conservatives like to believe they are classical liberals (they usually aren't these days, or they would all be big-L Libertarians). Saying "traditional conservative" is proof of its warped meaning. Anyway, the Wikipedia seems to have a good breakdown on right-wing as I use the term (it also discusses in the history section the muddying of the waters here in the U.S. as we have no true aristocracy, only lines of traditionally very-rich white people [the same families that end up in politics haha]). That is, right-wing is just a convenient term for anti-left. How did we get the word fascist, we got it from Italy (the only true fascist government... describing any communist/Marxist or socialist state as fascist is basically wrong) when Mussolini systematically oppressed the left-wingers. So anyway, there you have your contradiction, the right-wing Authoritarian state. If, to you, right-wing only means Republican or conservative then we really are not sharing the same conversation. Right-wing carries the baggage of Aristocracy/classism, statism/elitism, and socialist-antipathy besides just the liberal economics.
I mean the short version is just as I put it, any anti-left (anti-socialist, thus right-wing) authoritarian government is fascist. I guess in that regard fascism doesn't imply conservatism or small government (small being almost meaningless here, but roughly "less-invasive" and "less-supportive" not necessarily smaller in apparatus). Anyhow, I shouldn't have said "State-run business" when referring to fascism, because the business isn't really run BY the state itself. When the citizen has committed himself to the state (willingly through nationalism, classism, elitism, or unwillingly by coercion or 'incentive'), he runs his business FOR the state at its discretion under its Law. There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism). The effect of the business is that it is state-run (through its coercive policies, nationalistic allegiance, etc) even though it's not really run by the state. There's plenty of books about the rise of fascism in Italy. I only ever had to read one while studying WWII in school, so I'm no expert.
Additionally, for all the crap Left and Right means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
They don't pay those taxes. At the end of the day, when I buy a bag of Tostitos, the price I pay covers their profit margin for those taxes so I'm the one paying it. Even if I remove that column, though, I'm still at 57%. Tax on wages, tax on every dollar I spend, tax on utility bills, tax on gas, tax on beer (that's really the last straw), tax on everything.
Yeah, I'm one of those nuts who thinks the Income Tax is a travesty. I don't mind consumption taxes, or property taxes, or even sales taxes, as for the most part they are voluntary. However, the "pay or get locked up" taxes, those are creepy. I mean Federal Income Tax wasn't even Constitutional until they screwed around with it ( I guess some argue it still isn't, but I'm not one of them).
Finally, if I'm going to get income taxed to hell (or at all), I surely want corporations to pay at equivalent rates. When I hear that some company can lease a subway system in another country to have the subway company lease it back from them just to lower their U.S. taxes or that reincorporating in the islands somewhere cuts your rates... I don't know I just go crazy.
Why can't I re-incorporate somewhere with lower income taxes? That's like saying immigrants only ever have to pay taxes to their country of birth. Wtf?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I've preferred to simplify things. I don't mind elitists. If they are elitist, but they're elitist without government help, they're still conservative and right wing. If, however, they have ever sought to use government authority to preserve their claim to elitism, then they are no longer conservative or right wing. If they only seek to use government authority when it suits them (most common), they are still using government authority, and therefore can no longer be conservative no matter what words come out of their mouths. In reality, though, is it any different? If the state owns your business directly, or you are beholden to them through taxes and regulations? At the end of the day there isn't any difference.
The US differs from the (former) USSR only in a few extra levels of investors and banks between the regulators and the owners. If you think about the money pools, though, it's all about the same.
Big L Libertarians are classical Conservatives, in that they believe to a minimalist government which does not exceed the powers as strictly outlined in the charter documents. We don't really have a truly conservative or right wing side in the US right now. Republicans are happy to use government when it suits them which makes them Liberal.
Democrats feel that they can use government authority to help everyone equally. That's "liberal" about the rights and powers of government. Republicans make no attempt (well, recently they have for PR purposes) to use government to help everyone but they are still happy to use government when it suits to protect their business investments. In this fashion, they are still "liberal" about the rights and powers of government. One could say that Democrats are Stupid and Republicans are Evil in the Stupid and Evil show. To be less abrasive I'd say that one is foolish and the other is greedy.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
As I know it, right wing means conservative, and a traditional conservative is in favor of smaller government at every turn. So how can we have authoritarian state-run business with minimalist government?
--------
There is no evidence that any conservative government has been smaller than the previous government.
Since many of the people reading this thread probably are p2p lusers of sorts, why don't we combine out forces and create a p2p network which distributes only legal material. I'm absolutely sure that kind of network would get many, many, fine and outstanding users (*spoken with the voice of captain Lassard from Police Academy*) that would rush in and put up streams of their cats, dogs and small children. Not to mention those Linux distributions, which by golly already make up for probably 30 percent of all p2p activity.
Big L Libertarians are classical Conservatives, in that they believe to a minimalist government which does not exceed the powers as strictly outlined in the charter documents.
But we're also classical Liberals -- you're blowing my mind!
me: There's no implication of state-ownership (like in communism)
In reality, though, is it any different? If the state owns your business directly, or you are beholden to them through taxes and regulations? At the end of the day there isn't any difference.
It may not be a difference, but it is still a relevant distinction. This is essentially what makes fascism different from communism. You are dangerously close to agreeing with me regarding the state of business in today's America -- a position you started this thread to discount: "The US differs from the (former) USSR only in a few extra levels of investors and banks between the regulators and the owners. If you think about the money pools, though, it's all about the same."
That about does it for me. It seems like we are about to repeat the spiral. Let me put it this way before I agree to disagree -- Authoritarian Right-wingers (Fascists) want to redistribute the wealth to themselves, Authoritarian Left-wingers (Marxists) want to redistribute the wealth to everyone. Either the majority are serfs of the power-elite or everyone but the corrupt are serfs of the state (witness China's continuing transition from one to the other, haha). I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could; but as liberty diminishes, authoritarianism grows. If you can agree with that statement, then that puts us dangerously near the bottom of the Nolan chart. Either way, both Fascism and Marxism suck.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I agree with your sentiment. However, I wasn't talking about the population that works in the TV/Movie/Music industry (if I were, I would have given the link that you did). I was talking about the big media companies themselves. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=C 2400&cycle=2006 That's why I chose the listing that I did. The company PACs are pretty evenly distributed, with an edge to Republican candidates.
As a point of contrast between "the industry" and the industry's corporate overlords consider G.E. (a weapons contractor, among others). Here's the same corporation that is both providing you with corporate-media while at the same time equipping the most advanced fighting force on Earth. We bring good things to life. They have a vested interest in both the copyright cartels and continued military expansion and affect politics accordingly.
I don't really want to get into a debate about G.E. or anything. I'm just saying that there's a difference between the people that work in the industry and voice of that industry in the halls of power (i.e., the corporate PACs and lobbyists). Regular Joes like me aren't writing legislation and getting it sponsored and passed by Congress -- but corporate lobbyists are.
Maybe my distinction wasn't made clear in my previous post. If, so: apologies.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Yes and that will happen in every implementation of organized authority. It's the fate of mankind to be susceptible to greed. So before we go pointing the finger and say "fascist", we need to think how that really is different from communists or socialists. There's no doubt that communism and socialism are grand ideas spawned by great benevolent men (well, maybe) but the reality is that, in implementation, those who are willing to sacrifice morals and values and benevolence to stab thier constituents in the back (for their own profit) will be the ones ruthless enough to rise to the top. That's the way life goes.
Yep. Marxist/communist.
Strip away the layers and layers of propaganda of what you think to be true about your rights and what really is true.
I see it less in terms of what governments were supposed to be doing (economic equivalence, social equivalence, whatever) because everyone has a good PR pitch. If they didn't then they wouldn't be in business. You can't get the support of the masses by pitching to them that you're going to turn them all into indentured servants and then hand pick the ones who make it to positions of wealth and authority. Most people don't like that pitch unless you've guaranteed their ascension. So the truth is that the very first assumption you make when dealing with government is that, at some point, someone's lying about something to cover up their own personal profit motive.
After that you start looking at governments not by definitions you read but by analyzing what they do and how they get it done.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Yes and that will happen in every implementation of organized authority. It's the fate of mankind to be susceptible to greed. So before we go pointing the finger and say "fascist", we need to think how that really is different from communists or socialists. There's no doubt that communism and socialism are grand ideas spawned by great benevolent men (well, maybe) but the reality is that, in implementation, those who are willing to sacrifice morals and values and benevolence to stab thier constituents in the back (for their own profit) will be the ones ruthless enough to rise to the top. That's the way life goes.
And that isn't Fascism? You are again making my case. Lumping in the corrupt socialists doesn't undermine my point.
me: I can't call the U.S. government Marxist with a straight face, no one could
Strip away the layers and layers of propaganda of what you think to be true about your rights and what really is true.
Are you, or are you not insinuating that the U.S. government is Marxist? I'll tell you what it isn't: conservative or libertarian.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I am not insinuating anything. I'm labelling the US Federal Government as communist/Marxist. They exhibit all the same behaviors (economic redistribution) for all the same reasons (the public good and the good of the Nation) and, to top it off, they're fascist in that it's a lie. They don't actually care about the public good or the good of the nation. They only care about lining their own pockets first and everyone else, well, it's nice to have some good PR so maybe once in a while they'll let a few people in on the gravy train.
Indeed. No matter what the talking heads say there isn't a single true conservative movement to be found. There are isolated conservatives in Congress and the Senate. They have no real power against the majority of politicians and lobbyists who are milking the system for every dollar that we taxpayers are worth.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Well it seems that afterall we do basically agree on everything except one point... until the U.S. government "owns the means of production" I can't call it Communist or Marxist. In the meantime, I can say that it smells of fascism and exhibits socialist tendancies. These are things we already knew -- and agree upon. :-)
Yay!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.