Slashdot Mirror
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Obama Administration's Department of Justice, with former RIAA lawyers occupying the 2nd and 3rd highest positions in the department, has shown its colors, intervening on behalf of the RIAA in the case against a Boston University graduate student, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, accused of file sharing when he was 17 years old. Its oversized, 39-page brief (PDF) relies upon a United States Supreme Court decision from 1919 which upheld a statutory damages award, in a case involving overpriced railway tickets, equal to 116 times the actual damages sustained, and a 2007 Circuit Court decision which held that the 1919 decision — rather than the Supreme Court's more recent decisions involving punitive damages — was applicable to an award against a Karaoke CD distributor for 44 times the actual damages. Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file. Interestingly, the Government brief asked the Judge not to rule on the issue at this time, but to wait until after a trial. Also interestingly, although the brief sought to rebut, one by one, each argument that had been made by the defendant in his brief, it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief. Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
Yup.
It has been well known the republicrats and democans are the tools of the MAFIAA(Music And Film Industry Association of America) and Omaba is no different. The libertarians have long known Obama is for as much change as Bush and Clinton, none. Both major parties are for corporate wealth and will use legislation to back said corporate wealth.
-bob
Perhaps this might be the thing to spark a true third-party movement in the USA? Have we not seen time and time again how neither Republicans nor Democrats are any different in the grand scheme of things? I can't remember how often I had been told that Obama was going to change things for the better, how somehow Obama was going to not be in the corporation's or the party's pocketbook because he got most of his campaign funds from independent donates... and what does he do when he gets elected? He carries on policies that have always failed, meanwhile undermining capitalism and sending our country deeper into recession by both his words and by the laws he wants to pass. A third party could change this, if our congress could include more than Republicans, Democrats and the odd Independent, our country would be a much, much, much, better place.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
In a word, yes. As does the bail-out shenanigans, etc.
.nosig
A change for the worse? I mean, when the government tries to 'help' a judge to make a fair decision...
The RIAA can't win in the courts, with advertising, or education of the young. Lobbyists haven't been able to get new laws passed. So the CEOs get their guys into the DOJ.
What did we expect?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
As a registered republican, I knew that the republicans would do everything in their power to secure the oil interests.
Now that the dems are in power, you're surprised that they are doing everything to secure the media's interests? Really?
Raise your hand if you were surprised by this posting.
How do you know a third party would be any different? The powers that be will smack down anybody who isn't indoctrinated into the way things are done.
The solution lies in those overseeing the public good being beyond the influence of big business. Get rid of the revolving door.
Sadly, it's exactly this type of behaviour that Obama said he was going to stop.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I was listening to an interview with Peter Gabriel on 5live http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/ Simon Mayo (worth the fee on his own - grab the podcast) was doing the interview.
Peter said, essentially, that the music companies had lost the plot.
Nuff said
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
False dichotomies are lies.
Who here ignores torture? Who said this was the biggest issue?
This is not an insightful comment at all. It's a complete strawman argument. You can make Slashdot's comments look bad if you don't actually pay attention to what they say.
Things will not change as long as the people with the gold are able to make the rules by buying lawmakers.
The fix is that candidates should only be permitted to accept campaign funds from people who are allowed to vote for them.
Change you can believe in...
Actually, the first draft of this slogan was "Change you will believe in, sucker".
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Straw man arguments are lies.
The "Entertainment" industry has "contributed" massive sums to the Democrat party for many years. Did anyone think that there would be no reciprocity? Corporations and wealthy individuals do not make political contributions because they are ideologically motivated. They do it because there will be a return on the investment. Well, here it is.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
There is a implication there that the alternative McCain/Palin administration wouldn't have been tools of the RIAA. Whoever is in government is a tool of big industry. Its the fundamental natural of capitalist democracy.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Anonymous Bob - if you did vote libertarian all you did was help elect Obama. As long as we practice one-man-one-vote the system will swing to a two-party system. You only get to choose from a menu of two - and while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.
I agree with you there. As was noted the last time this was brought up, their brief really isn't about the RIAA or file-sharing so much as the constitutionality of the statutory damages part of the Copyright Act.
On the other hand, that way of looking at the Eight Amendment is so sketch. It basically amounts to saying, "We (the Government) can't exact ridiculously high fines from you, but we can write a law that allows other to do so, with our consent and enforcement."
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
The thing about libertarians is that they are VERY PRO IP, and very pro ownership. In fact, considering that I am libertarian and a card carrying member of the Swiss Libertarian party many would not like what libertarians represent...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Compared to everything else....take this lovely mafia family over here...or this fair and justly operated drug ring in south america....
All far less corrupt than the fairest of governments.
"The GPL is viral by design, like any good religion."
We need to decentralize the government. That way large corporations cant DoS our congress.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
and other recent laws could be viewed as "corporate protectionism", which is classically a right-wing action, the Democrats have historically been particular friends of the entertainment industry. Which leaves the American people without a Government protector in this area.
The only recourse we have is the courts. Let's hope that is sufficient.
The statement "There will never be a point in voting Libertarian." Is false and most likely flamebait.
I vote for the person that closest represents my value system and promises to do the things I would like to see done while they are in the White House. REGARDLESS of the fact that they may lose. Voting for either Republican or Democrat because "no one else will win" is not only morally bankrupt it is foolish.
There is no point voting the two major parties, they're owned by interests, not by the people.
BTW, Jesse Ventura won the governor's race as an independent so not only is your logic false, it only serves the status quo.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
Does it matter? Is it OK to be corrupt if some other government is more corrupt?
You won't get an expanded menu until you tell the restaurant owner you aren't buying either the chicken and rice or rice and chicken and stick to it. If you just keep buying one of the two exactly the same selections on the menu, he isn't going to change, no matter how much you ask or beg for a third or fourth or fifth choice.
With voting, you can do this. You have to crack 1% to get to 2%, then crack 2 to get to 3 and so on. We've had examples in the past where third party candidates hit close to 10%, and when that level hit and the high level corrupt goons in the R and D parties got scared, and with the help of the compliant media demonizing or outright ignoring those alternatives and hijacked congress keeping the voting regs tilted in favor of the same two parties, it dropped back down. And the media IS complicit, they only "allow" the two major parties in the so called national debates. The league of women voters dropped sponsorship of the debates over that stance and being forced to acquiesce to some other shenanigans like scripting in advance, they refused to participate any longer and called it a "fraud on the american people". The big corporate media should have had the integrity and balls to do exactly the same at the exact same time, but being mostly controlled tools and way more a propaganda arm of the establishment than being independent journalists, they didn't.
In other words, I categorically reject the notion that casting the ONE vote you have for who you really want is a waste. Maintaining that criminal gang duopoly by spending your one vote-and that is all you have realistically- on it is the only true waste (that or not voting at all) if you really don't want that criminal duopoly to remain in power. I know I have a clear conscious, been voting third or alternate party for decades now, and I can say I don't vote for the status quo of corruption and malfeasance in government as "business as usual".
If you vote for one of those back room and media picked for you political sock puppets. no matter what your reason if it is anything except really wanting that particular doofus...that's it, that is who you voted for and you are affirming their continuance of corruption and malfeasance. It doesn't matter what you think in the back of your mind, what matters is that you personally gave them a signal that what they are doing is perfectly fine. If you don't want to do that, then don't, and it is that simple.
The more people who are not made artificially afraid of that the better. I refuse to be intimidated by this threat of "wasting your vote", because I've been around long enough to clearly see the only major difference with those two criminal gangs is which of your pockets they want to pick first, and which of our born with rights they put at the head of the list to infringe on. I just slap refuse to vote in the affirmative for either of those bogus alleged choices.
The MAFIA stands for artificial value. Exactly what got us all in this financial crisis...
What, you think Libertarians are all about liberty?
Next, you'll be telling me you think Scientologists are all about science!
while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
What can someone do to expand this menu other than vote third party and volunteer for a third party campaign?
Revolution.
False - though you may not gain executive power, you still can win voices that can be heard and votes in the house and the senate.
--
How can you get rid of corruption if people rather vote for who they think will win rather than what they believe in?
They only won't win if no-one votes for them. That's sort of how elections work.
Western democracies do not compare well to the high standards of Western democracies.
Perhaps this might be the thing to spark a true third-party movement in the USA?
Yes, the immense dissatisfaction that the american public has with the Obama presidency will spark off a independent party revolution, and both major parties will be shut out in the next round of elections. Either that, or a bunch of nerds on the Internet will just get pissed off over a relatively minor ruling on IP law.
Even if the voting laws magically changed overnight, Obama is going to have to screw up pretty badly to not be in Washington for the next eight years. The GOP is behaving like a pack of drooling idiots, and it doesn't look like they are going to shape up and get back in the game anytime soon.
If a third party is going to be created in the next few years, it isn't going to be dissatisfied Democrats, its going to be conservatives that are pissed off at the neocon fuckups that are alienating the voters. This will splinter the conservative base, and help keep Obama in office until 2016.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It's really depressing that so many people are this stupid. Every argument against voting third party eventually boils down to "third parties can't win" which completely misses the point.
If you're voting against what you really want just so you can brag that you voted for the winner, then you're doing it wrong. Do us all a favor and stay home next election day.
Maybe not
Corruption is not an on/off bit. It is a matter of degree.
So a public official who requires a $50 bribe is corrupt but one taking $25 is not?
They won't win the presidential election- not now.
But they might if we can put a few in the state legislatures, then the house, and then the senate.
There's no point voting for the major parties. They're going to win anyway.
Property is theft.
it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief
Now, I'm not a lawyer, and I confess I haven't dug through the briefs. Leaving aside the question of why the White House is involved in this at all, this line confuses me.
First, if the WH's brief concedes that statutory damages are subject to excessive damage review, I don't know why they would address the FSF's argument further in that regard.
Secondly, if the administration cited SCOTUS and Circuit Court rulings, why would they need to address law review articles and District Court rulings? I'm under the impression that the higher courts trump the lower ones. I'd suggest, again with little knowledge of the matter, that the FSF failed by using weak citations. In an argument on Constitutional grounds, I have trouble seeing where the lower court rulings and journal articles should have more weight than a higher court ruling on a general case, even if the subject matter is more directly related.
Any insight into this from someone who's read the briefs and, ideally, studied some law would be appreciated.
Returning to the matter of the White House's involvement at all... guk. This seems to me to be, simply, beneath the White House. There's no reason I can see why they should feel they have an official interest in the matter. This should frankly be true when it comes to any Constitutional law decision of the courts; their job is to obey the big C as the courts interpret it, not to attempt to influence this. I've long held that the executive branch should show no interest in legal - especially Constitutional - interpretation beyond enforcing, obeying, and occasionally clarifying it.
How can you get rid of corruption if people rather vote for who they think will win rather than what they believe in?
By voting for the liberty-seeking candidate of the likely to win choices.
Corruption is not an on/off bit. It is a matter of degree.
So a public official who requires a $50 bribe is corrupt but one taking $25 is not?
I think you've got it backwards, there. A public official that accepts a $25 bribe is probably more corrupt than one that capitulates for $50 - "every man has his price", as they say. If your price is high enough, maybe no one can afford to buy you off.
Unfortunately, our politicians in Washington are relatively cheap. AIG got, what, $170 Billion dollars? Or there about? That's quite a return on a measly $208,000 (although that only includes Obama and Chris Dodd).
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That's a problem... at the national level. What needs to happen is people need to stop focusing on Washington and focus on their own back yard. Vote out local/state Reps/Dems; Weaken their community from the ground up.
You can't stop this in one fell swoop come an election year.
No sig for you!!
3 months ago, those 2 and 3 DOJ lackeys worked for the very organization on which behalf they're intervening.
If the administration were serious about that whole lobbying conflict of interest line they touted in the beginning, the DOJ would quietly side-step this one.
They're not, showing that the whole entertainment lobby is untrustworthy.
I've said it before, but this proves it, those appointments were just plain stupid. Whomever Obama chose to vett those picks was not aware of the truth, damn truth, or actual truth in that matter.
That they were qualified to work those posts may be true, but the appointments having the integrity and loyalty to serve is just truthy.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Unfortunately, that ends up being pretty close, though not on purpose. The problem is that there are fundamental inequalities in the world. A Libertarian position would be ideal if that were not the case, but as soon as you have one subset of the people (or corporations or unions or...) that have greater power and control due to their financial position, any legal system that does not protect those who are less fortunate/powerful from abuse by those people who are more fortunate/powerful is a system doomed to increasing that inequality until the two ends have nothing in common with each other, which almost inevitably leads to a revolutionary war, historically speaking.
That's why laws that attempt to create a fully free market economy end up wrecking the economy. The individual consumer is relatively powerless compared with a corporation, and without protection against monopolization, collusion, and other anticompetitive actions by those corporations, the consumer gets screwed, but is essentially powerless to create new competitors because of the inherent inequality in the money supply and the huge capital needed to create a competing business in all but the narrowest, most naturally local industries.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The way some of you are discussing this leads me to believe you have very rigid beliefs about what makes one libertarian; rigidity that I don't see associated with other parties/political theories.
Do all democrats believe one thing? Do all democrats truly represent democracy well?
Do all republicans truly believe in a true republic? Shit, Lincoln was a republican, compare his politics to that of the GOP of today...
And the guy that brings up Ron Paul makes my point, because Ron Paul wasn't a libertarian candidate; he's a republican (even though he holds a lot of core libertarian values).
Basically, in this day and age in America the party a candidate associates his/herself with doesn't mean that much, in that it certainly doesn't mean that that person holds to an encyclopedic manifesto of party beliefs and positions - it's not like it used to be....people seem to have this idea of libertarianism that is rigid and sounds like an encyclopedic definition, (EG a definition of theory, but not of practice) - that any candidate who is a libertarian either wants to put everything up for sale or is crazy and can't win - I think that many people hold libertarian values, and from the years I have spent on Slashdot I would say that a large number of the people who comment here have a strong libertarian bent (not necessarily the libertarian party, but libertarian as in beleiving strongly in personal freedom).
My feeling (especially in these times) is that with any school of thought, you should take what you want, what you believe - and leave the rest...Of course, the media and the government don't seem to like this, because they want people to be easily pigeonholed and thus easily manipulated....
About right now I find it hard to believe that the US would not be better off had someone other than Obama or McCain been elected - I'm not saying any candidate is perfect, but certainly had Ron Paul won we would have someone who isn't in the pocket of big business and big money/industry and someone who does more than provide lip service to respecting the constitution.
As has been said many times before, until we get away from these two big money political parties there isn't going to be any real change; and not only that, things seem to progressively be getting worse for just about everyone.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams I think many so-called Libertarians these days would feel more closely allied with the Constitution Party, which supports enforcing the borders and is pro-life. The Libertarian stance is for open borders and no restrictions on abortion.
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
I damned well am not part of your revolution. I've sold words for money before, and I'll do so again. I'd happily sue the pants offa someone for redistributing my work for free, if I can catch 'em.
I object to the criminalization of a civil offense, the RIAA's invasions of privacy, extortion, barratry, and general thuggish behavior, the current and past administrations' acceptance of soft money bribery in exchange for political support to the industry, and jerks like you who think free downloads are jam today and jam tomorrow. I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright.
Technology has the potential to put a stop to much of the leeching practiced by publication and distribution houses and middlemen, which is a good thing. But if it's done at the expense of those who create - writers, painters, musicians, game designers, and even editors - as you advocate, then you become the leech.
Actually, I would expect most libertarians to be in favor of only limited intellectual property protections. Copyright, patent, and trademark laws are the very essence of government manipulation of the free market. When the government arbitrarily sanctions monopoly power through intellectual property laws, it creates artificial scarcity where there should be none. This raises the prices of goods and services for all Americans, and limits true innovation. It also puts Americans at a competitive disadvantage, because our competitors don't share our draconian intellectual property laws and therefore can operate at lower cost.
If said official can't be bribed for less than a million dollars, then that greatly reduces the mischief that can be done.
So wealthy corporations and private interests would be the only ones with enough money to to bribe. Exactly the way it is now. All you have done is raise the price.
There is a difference between being pro IP and being pro RIAA. A true pro IP stance would ibvolve the DOJ getting involved when independent artists with no money get their crap stolen by a big magazine or the like. The current setup of IP law favors only those with big money, and the DOJ is helping those who can already help themselves, instead of small fish.
Where is the DOJ action over Ebaum's World stealing things from Newegg artists? This is pure industry subsidy, not any attempt to enforce copyright.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
There will never be a point in voting Libertarian.
1) The candidate won't win.
2) You'll only peel votes from a Republican.
3) Some of them are scarier than the devils we know.
There is always a point in voting for the person you would actually like to see in office.
1) I don't vote to be on the winning team. I vote for who i want to see in the position. Independents will never be able to win if you keep voting against people instead of for people.
2) This one is ridiculous. If you are voting for the Libertarian, you clearly dont want the republican in office, so how are you peeling a vote from the republican? If i dont want any of the people running in office, i dont vote for any of them. The lesser of two evils is still fucking evil.
3) I dont vote for scary libertarians.
i do not hold a political party affiliation. I'm not advocating voting libertarian. I'm advocating voting for anyone, regardless of party, that you think would be good in the position.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Hell...the founding fathers knew this. They had problems with corruption right at the start. That's why the constitution has so many limits on the power of government. Limits that are just blatantly ignored today. The constitution has been under non-stop assault for decades now as the jackals in DC chip away at the protections in it. I noticed the saying "that government governs best which governs least" was not in my childrens history books. I guess it's not PC nowadays.
I would rather help vote someone into office that I don't hate, than vote for my first choice and see the candidate whom I dislike the most receive the popular vote.
You can vote for the underdog if you want, but if you do, you might just get burned.
Yep. States first, then their federal reps. Congress has always had more power, anyway. That's where we want our alternate-party candidates. A federal legislature that consisted of more-or-less equal parts Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and Independent would do a lot better at representing the public interest.
The thing about libertarians is that Ron Paul sucks.
From reading Slashdot, I have deduced that Libertarians are like Republicans, only without the empathy and concern for their fellow man.
Really? I'm concerned with my fellow man's liberty and freedom. I think Democrats and Republicans are concerned about their fellow man's money and property.
As long as we practice one-man-one-vote the system will swing to a two-party system.
Somehow every other western democracy has a one-citizen-one-vote policy, and most of them did not swing to a two-party system.
Show me a libertarian who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and I'll vote for him.
Substitute any third party for 'libertarian' above and your statement makes just as little sense.
What's the point of voting for someone who is going to win anyway? Might as well just stay home. Of course, the two major parties would have you believe that if you don't vote for a major party candidate, you're just "wasting your vote" -- which is utter bullshit. You're only wasting your vote if you vote for someone who doesn't support the policies you believe in. Yeah, your guy may not get elected, but at least you did your bit -- and if enough other people feel the same way you do (including rejecting the nonense about "wasting votes"), then your guy might actually make it.
Or at least put a big enough dent in the major parties' vote numbers to make them reconsider their policies.
-- Alastair
EXTREMELY corrupt? Compared to who?
It's not compared to who. It's compared to being honest and caring toward the citizens.
Are you really thinking, "Oh other governments are corrupt too, so it's okay if the U.S. government is corrupt?"
Which was about the same as the Fossil's voting record - not good, biased across Party lines, business as usual. Limbaugh and Hannity forgot to tell us that their guy and girl were just as big a train wreck.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
FRAMING MAI OPPONENTZ ARGUMENT IN ALL-CAPZ AND LOLCATS GRAMMAR IS BESTEST WAY TO WON ARGUMENT!?
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Slashdot understands sarcasm!
Ad hominems are pretty cool too!
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not, you've just asserted that the original poster is rightfully your slave.
Typical American attitude at the moment. "Woe me, my country is going to implode and it's the most corrupt and worst place on the planet!" Fucking Americans, try living in some of these other places before whining about how bad your own place is.
democrats LOVE when libertarians get all up in arms over the presidency, because the facts are, they steal more republican votes than they do democrat votes.
That's because to a libertarian, Republicans are 90% evil and Democrats are 95% evil.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If you believe that music distribution, artistic variety, consumer cost and access is "flourishing" because of a handful of low level civil lawsuits brought about by a handful of 50 year old corporations, and not *in spite* of them, then you're so far off this planet that I doubt this post will reach you in my lifetime. I'll give you a bit of help on the recent goings on of this world, as you're obviously not part of it. About 8 years ago this thing called the "Internet" became pretty much ubiquitous in peoples homes. A delivery mechanism that allowed people, average everyday 'typical' people, access to a mass distribution network without going hat in hand to old, lumbering very controlling corporations. The same corporations that apparently you idolise and falsely attribute the recent 'flourishing' activities too (how far off this planet are you again?). The same corporate entities that controlled mass media distribution for 50+ years before the Internet was born. Oh where was this renaissance (for lack of a better word) of which you speak in *those* 50 years? Oh not enough "IP" laws...right...
Your post is so full of hubris and delusion that when I came to the piece about "the typical person" I nearly fell of this fine chair I'm sitting in. Where you - an obvious idealogical radical so full of himself that it oozes out onto the page, thinks you can describe anything of the "typical person". Here's a hint, radical 'intellectuals' such as yourself know nothing of the "typical person" by definition. I'll help you though, the average person knows *nothing* about these civil lawsuits and cares no more for copyright law now than they did 20 years ago when making mix tapes and copying tapes and LPs and CDs to tape and giving them to friends was thing to do. To the 'typical person' copyright law is a grey area that that they don't really care about, twenty years ago, thirty years ago AND NOW. Now you claim that people are more aware than ever, but file sharing is more open and more accessible and more popular than ever! So the average man on the street certainly doesn't give a damn about your pathetic radical "IP" ideology now does he? If he knowingly disregards it. Your own argument invalidates itself.
Finally, what a disgusting attempt to try and reposition the entities and corporations and ideology that's been *desperately* trying to stifle and control this new renaissance for the last 8 years as the entities that actually brought it about. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.
(Yes I know, 'psudeo-intellectual' radicals have no shame, nor a firm grasp on reality as is displayed in all its glory in your post).
The +3 moderation of the parent comment is one symptom of the fact that people in the U.S. are in severe denial about the corruption of their government. They put forward a lot of excuses and changes of subject.
"The government is killing people? The government is helping banks steal taxpayer money? Oh sure, that's okay, as long as they don't bother me."
Hardly. He's not demanding you do a thing. You, on the other hand, are demanding he be "as productive as possible". It's pretty clear who is the slave and who is the slavedriver there. BTW, WTF are you doing wasting time on Slashdot? Get back to being productive!
funny and true. In many other countries, you wouldn't even see this case go to trial - the head of the recording industry would have called the president, had the kid executed by the police, and the state-run media wouldn't be allowed to cover it.
There was a very interesting study I read comparing corruption in the US during its economic rise to the corruption in African governments during their current economic failures.
They found that the level of corruption (as measured by some international standard) was not significantly different between the two, but that the scope of what that corrupt government could do was significantly different.
The US government prior to World War I took up less than 9% of the country's GDP. In most African countries, that number is greater than 50%. The more government touches the more dangerous its corruption becomes.
Typical American attitude at the moment. "Woe me, my country is going to implode and it's the most corrupt and worst place on the planet!" Fucking Americans, try living in some of these other places before whining about how bad your own place is.
Leaders raise the bar. Followers run only fast enough to not be last. If that "fucking typical American attitude" is what it takes to demand better from the government that represents them, so be it. Should the only defence for corruption be that it's acceptable elsewhere?
More Twoson than Cupertino
And you just did essentially what steelcarress just did. Parent poster never said you didn't have a right to whine, he/she only expressed their opinion of said whining, and suggested that if you hate things here so much, why not leave for someplace else? Suggesting someone should leave is not the same as demanding they leave. Typical overreaction.
You responded in exact kind saying, if you don't like our "whining", why don't you leave; but, as you noted it is also his/her right to voice an opinion.
Regardless of who's right in the entire matter, (I'm no fan of the RIAA either) not only was this hypocritical, but you had to throw in several epithets as well (fascist,redneck, dipshit..). Angry much?
Or did you really expect "change", perhaps?
In matters of Intellectual Property, (as well as the idiotic "War on Drugs"), I'm afraid Democrats are no more progressive than Republicans.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.