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.
The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.
There was no reason for the administration to intervene at all in this case. There was no legal requirement for them to take a position in the case. This may not reflect favoring the RIAA so much as a general trend by the Obama adminstration to favor a very strong federal government going so far as to endorse many of Bush's worst positions (see for example http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/15/obama/). Restrictions on statutory damages would thus be something the administration would not favor. 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.
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
No millions of young people are starting to get that feeling that their vote to "stick it to the man" resulted in getting stuck by the man.
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.
But, this type of ruling/defense by the administration, along with other things are really starting to bother me.
There are several that are bothersome. The moving of the census to be controlled by the executive branch. This is scary enough, in that it should be more independent....and above political needs. I see on the news that possibly ACORN is being tapped to 'help' with the census. I'd think the controversy over the potential voting fraud they were associated with, would sideline them on this effort. Slanting the census will have FAR reaching influence over many, many issues and money for years to come.
Obama was promising that he'd try to cut down earmarks..."line by line" I think was his quote. Yet, that Omnibus bill was loaded with what, like 8K of them?
The move to help people in housing problems....where they are allowing judges to overturn, revamp the condition of valid contractual agreements, that is dangerous, with far reaching implications for valid contract law in the US.
While it is understandable that people are pissed over the AIG bonuses...the acts passed by the house which try to retroactively and specically target these, again, is scary and I'd think unconstitutional. If these payouts were from valid contracts signed in the past, I don't see any clear way they could be overturned...and going after them retroactively by taxes...wow. I'm hoping the senate and especially Obama himself votes this down. It sets a bad precedent, and could really start to hurt US businesses. If valid contracts can be messed with like this....who wants to do business when you can't count on the terms being enforced?
The latest proposals...to not only mandate what execs of bailout companies can make..but also implications coming out that they want to actually set limits on what healthy, non=bailout companies can pay....that acares me. Sounds very much the opposite of capitalism. It may be a populist view in terms of the current economy, but, wow....THAT would be a change.
I want him to succeed in getting the country back in step....so we can all go back to trying to make a living without the interference of the government. That is the US way....at least ideally. Some of these policies coming out, seem to be a change to something the US is not....and never has been.
I ask honestly...for not just those that voted for O, but, those that were adamant supporters...are these things truly what you were expecting for 'change'? Do you support all of this which seems to change what the basics of the US business is all about? I don't mean the corruption and waste...but, the basic principals that seem to be in jeopardy?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
I'm certainly not surprised to see a Democratic administration support the entertainment industry, but in this case they probably have other motivation as well. An unfavorable ruling here could be generalized to the awarding of amounts unrelated to actual damages for any reason. Since it is often the government that collects such awards...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
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.
In Obama America, hopes changes You!
Do you guys realise from reading the comments how Slashdot has become to libertarians as Digg is for liberals?
You just got troll'd!
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"
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...
This was already predicted when Biden wrote the following. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:78178.pdf And it is only going to get worse... I really don't understand why the American pirate party supported Obama while i got this link from the international pirate party's mailinglist ages ago. Maybe some /. people can educate them ?
votes were supplied by people. the VERY people this shitfaces are suing.
democrat party still depends on those people's donations for upcoming congress elections. he was just sending a call to volunteers. if an online campaign is launched to raise awareness about this stunt, theyll get served.
and they deserve it.
Read radical news here
I don't want to be racist or anything, but I think that he'll be America's first and last black president. Do I think that because he's black? No. I think that because I think he sucks.
This one even got modded up. Think about that. Obama's DoJ claiming that copyright statues are constitutional means no black man should ever be elected again.
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.
This intervening is just part of a laundry list of documents regarding the case. If someone finds something specific about this phase of the trial, please chime in. Below is a copy and paste job of the original complaints. The guy is apparently up against fines up to $1 million dollars, so wouldn't it make sense to just settle and get back to school? That is what my parents would of said, and they would have paid (begrudgingly) up to $10k if there was anything near a 5% probability of me having to pay $1,000,000, the downtime from school, legal expenses, social problems, etc.
Unless this guy, a Professor of law at Harvard Law School, and his family are all actually delusional enough to believe he is not expected to have to pay such a $1,000,000 fine to share music with his teenage friends. You know, the same stuff that you and I did as kids because we had more time than money and we really liked the latest music or even some of that older music that we heard on the radio.
Why don't they just legalize music? Or at least decriminalize it.
-hackstraw
This case, like many others now before the Court, is one for
copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. Â 106. The Plaintiffs are
some of the nation's largest record companies. The Defendants in
these consolidated cases are individual computer users -- mainly
college students -- who, the Plaintiffs claim, used "peer-to-
peer" file-sharing software to download and disseminate music
without paying for it, infringing the Plaintiffs' copyrights.
Many of the Defendants have defaulted or settled, largely without
the benefit of counsel, subject to damages awards between $3,000
and $10,000.
Joel Tenenbaum ("Tenenbaum") is one of the few defendants
represented by counsel, Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law
School and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. He has
chosen to challenge the action through a Motion to Amend
Counterclaims (document # 686), his Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (document # 676), and a Motion to
Join the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA")
(document # 693), all of which will be heard on January 22, 2009.
Whether those counterclaims survive or not, he will proceed to a
jury trial in this Court currently scheduled for March 30, 2009.
While Tenenbaumâ(TM)s Motion to Permit Audio-Visual Coverage by CVN
(document # 718) is directed to all proceedings going forward,
this Order addresses only the proceeding on January 22, 2009,
where legal arguments on the motions above will be heard.
In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet
Generation -- the generation that has grown up with computer
technology in general, and the internet in particular, as
commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read
newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information
largely, if not almost exclusively, over the internet. See
generally Martha Irvine, Generation Raised Internet Comes of Age,
MSNBC.com, Dec. 13, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6645963/.
Consistent with the nature of these file-sharing cases, and the
identity of so many of the Defendants, this case is one that has
already garnered substantial attention on the internet.
As a businessman I believe Open Source Software reduces cost so an individual with a new idea can Quickly and for Under 2K get his message out.
That is, if new ideas even exist. Say someone named George writes a song, records it, and sells copies. If George's song is a hit, some big-name songwriter named Ron sues George, alleging that George's song was a copy of Ron's song and asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars. George says he didn't mean to copy anything, but the judge says it doesn't matter because George had heard Ron's song years ago. This actually happened, and Ron won. It turns out that there are only a limited number of possible melodies of any given length in a given musical scale, and judges compare only a few notes and contours of any two melodies to determine if they are "substantially similar". Under these conditions, how can anybody be sure that he actually has a new idea?
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.
Support instant runoff voting, or at least first-round/runoff voting for federal offices. Proportional representation to determine House delegations wouldn't hurt either, IMHO.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
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.
While Libertarians are pro-ownership, in theory they should not be PRO-IP. For example, instead of Patent laws, Libertarians should support the inventors having trade secrets. This would be in keeping with the Libertarian focus on the free-market.
Patents are certainly a government imposed restraint on the free market, which goes against the rest of the beliefs.
That said, copyright would be more complicated, especially since individuals can hold copyright as well as corporations. Almost all Libertainans would agree that copyright law could stand to be reformed, but what the end result would be like is definitely subject to debate.
Libertarians should probably be PRO-Trademark. The restraints trademarks place on trade are pretty trivial, but they allow the free market to work well, in allowing companies to differentiate their products, without having to worry about a competitor passing off inferior versions of the same product using the same name. Trademarks by design have basically no impact on personal freedom, so everything seems good there.
But unfortunately all of that is what libertarians in theory should believe and stand for, which may differ from what they really do stand for.
The MAFIA stands for artificial value. Exactly what got us all in this financial crisis...
The RIAA intervention by the DOJ would not usually get my panties in a twist, but I think it is taking us in the wrong direction. It was the greed, arrogance, and unreasonable actions by wall street executives that got us into the current financial mess. The RIAA is no different and in my humble opinion, Obama's support for their arrogance and bullying is sending a clear message that he is duplicitous. Either you are against this of behaviour or you are for it. You can't be both.
I agree that the position taken by the brief is inconsistent with the thrust of Mr. Obama's campaign promises.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If I ever met Ron Paul in person, this is something I would like to ask him about. Even though Libertarians are pro-property (copyrights and patents are in the Constitution iirc), he at the same time is very much against corporate welfare (voted against bailouts) and corporate fascism. So this new fangled IP (intellectual property) may not be so cut and dried.
I have a feeling he would have voted against all the copyright extensions and patents back in the day were not so bad when they protected implementations vs. now which is "intellectual property" vs. methods, thoughts, whatever, etc.
While I have sympathies to the pirate bay, a lot of it is just people demanding free shit which is a form of welfare if instituted on a public level. I enjoy using google books to find books and think fair use should extend to that although I don't demand the entire book for free.
One should remember while libertarians uphold private property rights, there is a real and distinct difference between private property vs intellectual property.
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.
Usually in politics, the words "in theory" mean "in my delusional world".
Despite what you think the libertarians ought to be, a majority of them are on record as pro-patent and this is the mainline stance of the party. Of course they throw in a line about how they are "concerned" about abuse of the system but never a concrete suggestion for reform (just like every other politician). For some reason, slashdotters believe the libertarians but not the others. Must be an underdog effect.
I've never gotten a good answer from an L to this question: if the government is too incompetent to tax us, why are they competent enough to grant 17+-year monopolies on ideas?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
What? In politics maybe, but not the libertarians I know.
Private property is the solution to limited resources, and modern intellectual property is not limited in any sense.
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
I also voted for a candidate who understands that the Government's role isn't to diminish itself small enough for Grover Norquist to drown it in a bathtub and that regulation of markets is a good thing. Sure, legal pot, no Taxes/IRS and "liberty" as it's defined by libertarian wackos, sound great, but let's work in the real world. We had that. And it went all wrong. Booms and busts. Bank failures, market failures, depressions, recessions, all happen independent of regulation but the effects are made much *much* worse when there is nothing there to keep the market from deciding to shit it's collective pants.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
From reading Slashdot, I have deduced that Libertarians are like Republicans, only without the empathy and concern for their fellow man.
Well shoot from reading Slashdot, one could deduce that women are like cars but without mufflers.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
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.
It is interesting that the Administration is described as being a "tool", and not only that, but of being tool of an institution.
This twisted rhetoric not only ignores the the essential fact that institutions are tools of people, but also denies the possibility, even probability, that the RIAA effectively represents at least some of the opinions of the President.
To put it another way: the RIAA is a tool of people like myself who want to see aggressive promotion of intellectual property rights, and with only minor regret, accept the minuscule number of strong-handed actions being used to oppose the masses who have been pretty much thoughtless about the merits (or even demerits) of intellectual property theories/practices.
Slashdot is an endless forum for knocking RIAA practices, declaring them as being ineffectual at best and evil at worst. But by my own observations, I see the typical person of 2009 actually considering the legality of their media consumption, and even having a preference for legal practices (even though they still commonly engage in violation of intellectual property rights). As I recall, these legal considerations were typically non-existent in Joe Q. Public 8 years ago. The shift in attitude is not a result of increased virtue, schooling, nor for sure because of the advice of Slashdot pundits. It is, quite simply, some semi-intelligent byproducts of awareness that comes from the buzz surrounding the irrational fear of being prosecuted, even though the likelihood of that happening is so small as to be safely ignored.
Music distribution is flourishing. Artistic variety is flourishing. Consumer cost is dropping. Consumer access is rising. And intellectual property awareness is on the rise too. Those are all good things.
Enjoy flogging your bogeyman (read: the RIAA). He is my tool.
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.
...the campaign and the actual end direction of the Obama admin, they will find another word to use meaning bait and switch.
Obama, really should be careful to be genuinely fair, otherwise he only puts more weight on the public camels back.
Otherwise its gonna break and the civil out break against the government that has been analyzed by economists and reported as a real possibility, will happen. Its predicted to happen next year.
The current laughability level is that of what it was before the Soviet Union collapsed, bu the laughability of this at one time, did not stop it from happening.
Even I find the map laughable but tax payers are getting very tired of footing the bill for billionaire bull shit.
Read the Declaration of Independance for an example or awareness of the public.
People thought if they could distract him with politics he might stop acting.
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 you think that IP theft is the reason people are reading less, then you just don't get it. People are reading more. They are just reading more electronic content on the Internet, and that is supplanting their book reading. They aren't getting electronic copies of books, though. They're reading CNN. They're reading Slashdot. They're reading Digg. They're reading xkcd.
It's not theft of IP that is causing the downfall of books, but rather the cumbersome nature of books themselves coupled with a rapidly dwindling attention span resulting from the proliferation of blogs, the proliferation of text messages full of short little bits of text that are barely long enough to convey a complete thought, the replacement of in-depth newspaper articles with short little sound bits on TV news shows, and the increasingly hectic pace of modern life.... People are gravitating towards content that is brief in nature because they've gotten used to that. It should be no surprise, then, that books don't sell as well as they used to in light of the changing entertainment style of the modern public.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yeah, it says that in the Declaration of Independence. However, the basis and underpinnings of all US law is the Constitution. Two different critters.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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)
---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.
Fair enough. Problem is, that copyright lays claim to peoples' physical objects because their information is on them. That's not cool.
I also pay taxes on media to sustain and forcefully support media companies. I have a right to pirate because Im taxed for it. Eliminate the tax and Ill stop.
And going back to you: Never has anybody sued for "Downloading". It's always been for uploading. Good luck suing somebody who linked to rapidshare or torrents on slashdot (like i do a lot).
---I have a problem with what's rapidly becoming perpetual copyright, as well, but I agree with the principle of copyright......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.
Absolutely. We need to encourage the direct creators, whether it be in terms of patents or copyrights. Unfortunately, the best encourager we have now is money.. But the argument is that we want those who create to make more, and i'm for that. I think for starters, we need to not allow persons called corporations allowed to own copyrights. Their lifespans are kind of... long.
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
To take a lesson from history, the American Progressive Party never won a presidential election, but took enough votes from the Rep/Dem parties that both parties began to adopt elements of the Progressive platform.
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.
Bank failures, market failures, depressions, recessions, all happen independent of regulation but the effects are made much *much* worse when there is nothing there to keep the market from deciding to shit it's collective pants.
I'd like to point out that the boom/bust cycles only really started after the Federal Reserve was created. Prior to that the only real influence on the economy was a major war, and I think we're done with those from a global perspective (just incessant minor conflicts, most of them started by us). It's a major Libertarian platform point for the abolition of the Fed.
Now, I'm not one to say that a completely free market is the way to go; I think it's a bit of twisted thinking that a society that runs on pure greed will function at all properly - but the Libs do have some good ideas, and giving them a run at the helm for a little while would definitely make for some changes for the better.
Also, trying to arrest an economic downturn just draws out the whole thing far longer than it needs to go. Better to let failing businesses fail: propping them up just allows them to continue failing for a longer period of time. It's very similar to the idea of pulling off a band-aid slowly as opposed to just ripping it off - it might hurt more, but it's over sooner. Also, it leaves a reminder for other companies not to screw up so badly, as opposed to leaving them thinking "Oh, it's OK if we completely and abjectly fail: the taxpayers will bail us out".
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
The US army could hardly handle Iraq, which is about the size of Texas, and didn't have an armed populace at the outset of the war. The US is much larger than Texas, and we have an armed populace. We also have the national guard, which answers to the state governors. Should revolution break out, all it would take would be a few governors siding with the revolution and you've got a full scale civil war on your hands. That doesn't take into account the fact that there are nuclear installations thoughout the nation. A civil war in a nuclear armed nation probably wouldn't last long, so long as both sides had nukes. The national guard could easily take control of at least a few ICBM installations within a few hours, and it would take weeks to recall foreign based troops to put down any rebellion.
So yeah, we would have a pretty good chance. Especially with widespread public support. If there was enough support, it might even be wholly bloodless.
Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard.
And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.
Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf.
Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf--that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination.
Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their
own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant.
Plato, The Republic
Full explanation: How we'll move into tyranny
Great empires like the USA are not conquered. They decay from within. We are corrupt because we have lost social consensus. To understand that, you will have to first realize that not all of the humanities are BS and that politics/philosophy is a discipline as structured as programming. Until you overcome that bias, it will all be Greek (heh heh) to you.
Futurist Traditionalism
It's not compared to who. It's compared to being honest and caring toward the citizens.
Sure, it is. Corruption, caring, honesty, are not binary on/off states. They are a matter of degree. When someone labels a country as having "EXTREME" corruption, that is by its nature a comparative statement. It means that that country is a remote outlier on the spectrum of corruption, notable for its high corruption. That implication simply isn't true for the US.
The reason this matters is that fighting corruption requires citizens who actually can see what's going on. People who delude themselves into an extreme viewpoint without considering the facts are near useless except in really egregious cases where the degree of corruption is clear to even them.
Are you really thinking, "Oh other governments are corrupt too, so it's okay if the U.S. government is corrupt?"
I attempted to explain myself so I hope you no longer have this misconception.
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.
Just ask yourself: "What would Jesus do?" If you're atheist then instead ask, "What would the voters think?" everytime you need to make a decision. That's how you avoid corruption as a politician or public servant.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
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!
Continued undermining of the social contract is a serious problem. Social collapse often happens when people no longer find the current regime in their interest, and simply stop supporting it. Every time the social contract is violated, as it is in the case of copyright, as it is with the bailouts of the financial sector, people turn away. I don't think the risk is that they will revolt, but that if there is a credible challenge to the existing system they will simply fail to act to preserve it. Most revolutions are the work not of the masses, but of a relatively small group. They are able to succeed when the population lacks the conviction to oppose them. Thus many Romans welcomed in the barbarians. Hitler was allowed to become chancellor even though most Germans did not support him. A minority in the American colonies was able to foment revolution. The Communists became a credible threat in China when the Nationalists failed to act effectively against the Japanese. And so on.
When the change happens, it is a phase change, not a gradual transformation. A dynamic system like a society follows a pattern. It never exactly repeats itself, it is in constant flux, yet it can be bounded. Most perturbations are not sufficient to break the pattern - but when they are, the system leaves the pattern, and stabilizes around a new pattern. Just as an economy can handle a lot of stress and maintain high employment, but with enough of a shock it can stabilize in a new depression pattern of low employment.
This is my relatively uniformed opinion - I haven't read enough in this area - so it may be tainted by superficial pop intellectualism. But it does worry me. Persisting with law that is neither supported not observed by the majority of the population serves to undermine the rule of law. Continued evidence of the deep corruption of the system wears away at support for it. The process may seem quiet, but it does have consequences.
Mind you, the Russian scholar you cite is operating in fantasy land. He thinks the American midwest will join Canada and Alaska will be annexed by Ruassia. I'm Canadian, and I can tell you that's just plain nuts.
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.
But most people don't know about this. Why? Because it's painful to learn, I guess.
Although you certainly have some good flamebait attempt at the beginning, you do make a point at the end.
The reason the majority of people outside the USA are not aware (or don't care) of the USA corruption is because they are very busy living their lives coping with their governments corruption.
Also, as you didn't say (but that is the point you made), the reason USA corruption is *very*important, is because it affects several countries OUTSIDE the USA.
However, GP has some wisdom in his comment. My wife parents live in the North of Mexico, where due to the fear state imposed by and other paramiliar groups, they can't live a normal life.
The issue is that they get 'used' to it, and now you hear them saying things like "as long as you obey the rules and do not go out after it is dark, and keep a lo profile, everything is OK".
Now, the sad thing with corruption is that people in the government is *well* aware of who are these people and mostly where do they live (for example, where my Wife's parents live, there is a guy who is a renown entrepreneur but is also known to have links with drug cartels. However, police (haha, police, they are deeper in the shit) do not get him for interrogation because they know if they push, someone higher in the government will punish them (at least) or they will get "levanton" (kidnapped in the middle of the day), "tabliza" (to be hit by wooden sticks) or just disappear.
black, white, yellow, red, purple
I vote purple, the only color that hasn't screwed something up yet, but I'm sure our first purple president will show us that they can do it too.
Libertarians believe in a free market w/o interference except to protect the rights of the individual (contract law). Since corporations don't exist naturally, but are instead a government-invented entity granted artificial personhood, most libertarians don't think corporations should exist. They think companies should be directly-owned by a person or partners.
In effect, they agree with Jefferson who felt corporate laws should be expunged and corporations killed off.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. In my blog post, I discuss the contents of the brief. This brief is a big step forward for the defendants.
The RIAA has been arguing that it is "futile" to raise a defense that the statutory damages are unconstitutionally excessive. The Government's brief directly contradicts that position, and concedes that the statutory damages are subjected to a due process test for excessiveness.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
Actually, as an athiest, I think that if more people considered "What would Jesus do?", the world would probably be a better place in general.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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.