Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA

boarder8925 writes "In a move sure to surprise no one, Obama has come out on the side of the MPAA/RIAA and has backed the ACTA: 'We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,' Obama said in his speech, 'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.'"

Comments

Nigger.

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:Nigger.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dropped an Obama in my pants.

Re:Nigger.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Nigger.

[PopeRatzo]

Senator McCain, there's no reason to start name-calling.

First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,' Obama said in his speech, 'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century.

Which is true. I've been saying over and over again that as our ecomomy's manufacturing sector withers and more and more corporations offshore their labor, our creative content will be the only thing that's left of our economy besides flipping burgers. America will become nothing but vacation property for rich Arabs and Chinamen. Our leaders are selling us out one-by-one. No jobs for engineers? Work for Best Buy or move to China and be paid 3 cents a day.

It's time for armed rebellion. We must storm the capital, while the military is stretched thin, and execute the majority of our legislators.

Re:First rebellion

[mellon]

The fact that this got rated "Insightful" is a woeful commentary on the state of rational debate and analysis in the geek world. I thought we were supposed, as a group, to be smart. Apparently not.

In fact, manufacturing in the U.S. is doing very well. Productivity is at an all-time high, and the amount we are producing has not been in decline, as is commonly believed. Of course production is down right now because we're in a recession, but as a percentage of our economy, manufacturing production is pretty stable. What's down is manufacturing jobs, and that's because productivity is up. The better you are at doing something, the less work you have to do to do it.

In a perfect world, more production per unit of labor would mean that we would all have to work less to achieve the same level of prosperity. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the U.S. because our current intellectual property laws allow a relatively few people to take the lion's share of the benefit from the production being done. Rather than this new-found prosperity being spread across the whole population, it reaches only a relatively few peoples' pockets, and of course those people get quite rich.

So in fact draconian intellectual property laws are antithetical to prosperity. Obama's thesis here isn't just irrelevant to the average worker's prosperity. It's antithetical to the average worker's prosperity.

Re:First rebellion

[JockTroll]

Start by executing the corporate overlords who have bought your legislators. They can't buy their way out of the grave.

Re:First rebellion

[binarylarry]

See this is were bloody revolutions fail.

Because either A) you're going to elect another batch of morons whom to execute at a later date or B) you're going to have a dictator (military general, etc) show up to fill the void or worse (a foreign entity).

Fail in either case.

Re:First rebellion

[maxwell demon]

It's time for armed rebellion.

You mean, we should start to stock ARM netbooks?

Re:First rebellion

[sonicmerlin]

Well said. It's a shame that the majority of critics on this board won't even bother to read your post before vomiting up their point of views.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and then let's build an army of Androids to bring the current leaders to the RIM of despair. iPad myself on the shoulder for that one.

Re:First rebellion

[ffreeloader]

Ummm.... I see you ignore the fact that major portions of our manufacturing capability have been moved offshore. When was the last time you bought a TV made in the US? When was the last time you bought a major household appliance that was manufactured entirely in the US? How about a car? How long has it been since the majority of steel used in the US was made here?

Re:First rebellion

[dgatwood]

You might get lucky and end up with a benevolent dictator. It has happened at least a couple of times in the history of humanity....

Re:First rebellion

[Aladrin]

That's true as far as it goes, but take it another step. If those fat cats can't make their money in America any more, they move to other countries where they can. That means our best and brightest (and often luckiest) will not BE in America any more. Now their success doesn't help America -at all-.

Those laws, as much as we hate them, keep those fat cats from taking their fat loot elsewhere.

Are they too much right now? Absolutely. Should they be abolished? Hell no.

Re:First rebellion

[c6gunner]

One thing to keep in mind when gambling: in the long run, the house always wins.

Re:First rebellion

[Third Position]

True dat. The free market is the most efficient generator of wealth, for sure. The problem is that there's no assurance about where that wealth is going to end up. China getting rich isn't doing us a whole lot of good. As much as it may pain the libertarians, I think there are times you have make a trade-off between national interest and economic efficiency.

Re:First rebellion

[CharlyFoxtrot]

In fact, manufacturing in the U.S. is doing very well. Productivity is at an all-time high, and the amount we are producing has not been in decline, as is commonly believed.

To quote Peter Schiff : 'If we're becoming so much more productive where are the goods we're producing and why can't I see it in the balance of trade ? If we're so productive where are the exports ?"

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this got rated "Insightful" is a woeful commentary on the state of rational debate and analysis in the geek world. I thought we were supposed, as a group, to be smart. Apparently not.

Psst. The dirty little secret is that nerds are as dumb as stumps. They only tell themselves that they are 'the smart ones' because it keeps them from killing themselves in high school.

Re:First rebellion

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Not entirely true. The revolution that produced the USA produced a stable, democratic system of government. Washington, Jefferson, and the rest designed the government to be as stable as possible. The problem is that a government is like a Windows install. The more virus scanners, firewalls, and the like that add to it, the longer before it falls apart. In the USA, it took about 175-200 years for this to happen. In other democracies, we have had times less than 20 years. We can debate about what "security vulnerability" allowed the collapse. The issue here that allowed the collapse appears to be the issue of campaign finance (lobbying) and biased media coverage.

Re:First rebellion

[isomer1]

In fact, manufacturing in the U.S. is doing very well. Productivity is at an all-time high, and the amount we are producing has not been in decline, as is commonly believed.

I'd have guessed that greater than 95% of the products I purchase and use on a regular basis are manufactured outside of the U.S. Would you mind providing more information as to what sectors are producing 'at an all-time high'? I'm not trolling or even necessarily disagreeing with you, but there appears to be a distinct disconnect here.

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

Yes, but more likely than not many of the key parts (with the most valuable IP) - the processor/SoC, digital tuners, etc, are made by a US company. The "interesting" software in new Internet-connected TVs (Netflix, VUDU, Cinemanow, Pandora, Youtube) is all made by US companies. And not coincidentally, all of those companies focus on distribution of the higher-margin content that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to protect.

The economic (and military) successes of the United States have almost always been based on technological innovation and entrepreneurship - and those innovations DO need to be protected.

The MPAA/RIAA's methods of "enforcing" their IP are despicable. But without any protection, one of the current major assets of the US - media and entertainment - will be in serious jeopardy. Let's put it this way - if Chinese citizens actually paid for even a small fraction more of the American software, movies, and music they consume, the trade deficit picture would be significantly different. That is what Obama is talking about, not picking on homemakers who shared a few mp3s online. Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.

Re:First rebellion

[Hurricane78]

Nah. Time for BEAR ARMS!

Surgeons and genetics scientist of the USA rejoice!

Re:First rebellion

[MaskedSlacker]

He didn't ignore anything, you just either fail at reading comprehension, or have rejected his factually true statements because you prefer the fantasy you already subscribe to. For every dollar value of manufacturing capacity that moved off shore, it was replaced by some other manufacturing capacity. We still manufacture more than we did fifty years ago. We still manufacture more than virtually anyone else (by dollar value). We just manufacture different things.

Re:First rebellion

[MaskedSlacker]

Consumption has risen faster than our production. That doesn't mean production hasn't been rising.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

The economic (and military) successes of the United States have almost always been based on technological innovation and entrepreneurship - and those innovations DO need to be protected.

Yeah, because our "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan is good for our economy. See? American unemployment is at an all-time low!

Re:First rebellion

[MaskedSlacker]

For every Vespasian, there's a Nero AND a Caligula.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers . . .

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there was a reclassification of food assembly as manufacturing. The 14 year old behind the counter at Mcdonalds is now a manufacturing power house.

Re:First rebellion

[Fluffeh]

The MPAA/RIAA's methods of "enforcing" their IP are despicable. But without any protection, one of the current major assets of the US - media and entertainment - will be in serious jeopardy. Let's put it this way - if Chinese citizens actually paid for even a small fraction more of the American software, movies, and music they consume, the trade deficit picture would be significantly different. That is what Obama is talking about, not picking on homemakers who shared a few mp3s online. Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.

The problem here is that for all his apparent "good will" he either doesn't get it, or he is banking on the voters not to get it and push something through.

It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.

You can't put a copyright on an idea that someone else in a third world country won't just copy WITH CHEAPER INPUTS AND LABOR. You can copyright a song, a movie that sort of thing yes - but unless he wants the US to simply be the entertainment supplier of the world, he is chasing the wrong fish here.

If you come up with an idea to say, make cheap energy through some form of funky technology (insert some form of wind, wave, whatever) and think that the chaps down the road in China, India and a bunch of other countries won't make knock off versions of it WITH FULL SUPPORT OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS then you are totally kidding yourself.

Just the same as if one of those countries jumped in with the exact same technology, I can assure you that the US government would be totally backing US to manufacture the same idea but in their own backyard rather than just buying tons and tons of the stuff from overseas.

While I agree with protecting your own IP, this whole process is dominated by protecting one small part of the overall industry and not the industry as a whole. That's why I think Obama in this is either being kidded or is hoping that his speech will float above the bullshit filters of most voters.

Re:First rebellion

[smpoole7]

Yes, but more likely than not many of the key parts (with the most valuable IP) - the processor/SoC, digital tuners, etc, are made by a US company.

...

I wish that was the case, but unfortunately, it's not. With a few discrete exceptions (Motorola and TI still provide a lot of the digital processing chips, for example), most of it is made overseas as well. This certainly includes the user interface processors, memory, A/D conversion, and most of the "glue" chips, which are made by NEC, Hitachi, Samsung, et. al.

Don't take my word for it, open up that box and look at the chips for yourself.

Not that I agree with draconian IP laws, and I'm no fan of the RIAA/MPAA, either. And I certainly believe that software patents go beyond dumb and descend into insanity.

There's a world of difference between protecting genuine innovation, and just granting "unlimited gouge rights" to the first guy who races to the Patent Office with something obvious (think: One Click Shopping, "Look And Feel" with a "Help" button to the right, etc., etc.).

Re:First rebellion

[smpoole7]

Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.

...

Pardon the 2nd post, but I had to add that I agree with this 1,000 %. Well said.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that's not the case in the U.S. because our current property laws allow a relatively few people to take the lion's share of the benefit from the production being done.

Fixed that for you!

In addition... you are aware that you are critisizing capitalism aren't you. Be less afraid of communism (not the state type) it's what you are really talking about.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So in fact draconian intellectual property laws are antithetical to prosperity.

Isn't any draconian law antithetical to prosperity?

I think the interesting question in this case is where the line is between "draconian" and "impotent". You'd think there would be a huge area in between, but we don't seem to be able to find it: a few people are getting penalised absurdly for relatively minor infractions, while millions of people continue to break the law at the expense of legal rightsholders and get away with it.

Re:First rebellion

[eclectro]

There you go. You have successfully brought the old slashdot by argue ip laws but ignoring the executing congressmen bit. Maybe because everyone wants to do that now?

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just rating it "Interesting" because I think an armed rebellion in the US would be interesting to watch from the other side of the pond.

Re:First rebellion

[Igasagu]

I have been calling for armed rebellion for years now. I somehow doubt it will ever happen, even though the United States Constitution gives us the LEGAL RIGHT to overthrow the US Government at any time the people deem necessary.

Re:First rebellion

[FriendlyPrimate]

I have to agree with this. Living in Raleigh, NC, a fairly large but new city, I simply don't see hardly ANY factories ANYWHERE. As far as the eye can see, everything is suburbs and retail (grocery stores and Home Depots on every block). We seem to be a completely consumption-based economy. There some high-tech (i.e. IBM, who's quickly offshoring jobs to China) and some bio-pharmaceutical. But I don't see much work for the 'average joe' that you used to have in this country when industry was king.

It's downright scary thinking what might happen if World War 3 were to ever break out. The only reason we won WWII was because our factories produced weapons faster than the Axis countries (who's factories were being bombed). Virtually ALL of our industry was used for the war effort in order to accomplish this. But we'd never be able to win a conventional drawn-out war anymore. We simply don't have the industry anymore. And who does? China. And who's side are they likely to be on in WW3? Not ours. So it's virtually guaranteed that WW3 is going to be nuclear, since that's the only way we'd 'win' the war.

Re:First rebellion

[Miseph]

"Isn't any draconian law antithetical to prosperity?"

No, not really. You could pretty easily make a draconian law to that effect, but you can't possibly say that a law which (for example) allows suspected drunk drivers to be executed on the side of the road (extremely draconian) would realistically prevent everyone from being prosperous.

"I think the interesting question in this case is where the line is between "draconian" and "impotent". You'd think there would be a huge area in between, but we don't seem to be able to find it: a few people are getting penalised absurdly for relatively minor infractions, while millions of people continue to break the law at the expense of legal rightsholders and get away with it."

There is, and we used to have it, but people complained about the costs (which is ironic, because the solution is so very much more expensive in the long run) and "unfairness" (to be fair, there was a lot of it, but since there still is, so perhaps the flaw lies elsewhere...): we actually used to empower fairly low-level government officials and bureaucrats to use their god-given brains and make decisions. The upside was that rather than having one official with the ability to half-make decisions and 200 lackeys who serve to shuffle around paperwork in triplicate, we could have 3 or 4 officials with 1 or 2 secretaries each and spend a fraction as much (though far more per person... decision makers are expensive) to get far more done. The downside was that these people had huge amounts of discretionary power to abuse, and did so, blatantly. So now we pay a whole bunch more, have a lot more people involved, are less able to actually get anything done, and still have massive iniquities and waste. Go us.

Re:First rebellion

[aurispector]

Yup. How's that whole "hope and change" think working out?

Re:First rebellion

[mellon]

It's already been modded "Flamebait" twice. :')

Re:First rebellion

[mellon]

Anybody who expects the democrats to be on the right side of the issue on patent and copyright issues is fooling themselves. I wish it weren't so, but progressives haven't yet figured out that maximal patent and copyright is a really bad thing. OTOH, the Republicans aren't any better. So at least until one or the other party gets a clue, this isn't an issue upon which we can really base our voting choices. If you care, the place to work this out is in the primary races--run against the incumbent yourself, and make copyright/patent balance your issue. You won't win, but you might raise some consciousnesses.

Re:First rebellion

[Foobar of Borg]

Living in Raleigh, NC, a fairly large but new city, I simply don't see hardly ANY factories ANYWHERE.

Um, Raleigh and the whole RTP area is about research and education, not manufacturing. Hell, there are three major universities and a bunch of smaller universities in the area. It's not set up for manufacturing. That's just how the US. Manufacturing is done is some places, and research in others. The two usually don't overlap. Or perhaps you would expect a smelting plant next to Princeton University? Or a car manufacturing plant on 5th Avenue in NYC?

Re:First rebellion

[mellon]

Most cars sold in the U.S. are made in the U.S. Granted, they're made in foreign-owned plants, but they're made in the U.S. With globalization, there are really very few products you can point at where every assembly is made in a single country, but nevertheless the U.S. still makes stuff--the claim that all our jobs have moved offshore simply isn't true.

Re:First rebellion

[phantomfive]

I don't know what specifically the GP was referring to, but if you check out this graph, you will see that US exports aren't really as bad as you would think listening to some of the scaremongers. Most of the exports are industrial items, not cheap consumer goods that you purchase and use on a regular basis, which is why you feel a disconnect. But as you can see, anyone who says, "America doesn't manufacture anything" is making it up and hasn't actually looked at the numbers.

Re:First rebellion

[ffreeloader]

Really, I ignored his "facts"? Manufacturing, as a percentage of the US economy, has decreased for 50 years. In 2006 manufacturing accounted for only 12% of the economy. In 1993 it was 15.9% of the economy. In 1953 it was 28% of the economy.

That's more than a 50% decline in percentage of the economy. So, tell me again just how healthy the manufacturing sector of the economy is....

 

Re:First rebellion

[Ihmhi]

When was the last time you bought a car that wasn't manufactured in the U.S.?

I seem to recall companies like Honda - companies that are not U.S. based, mind you - building factories in America because, well, cars are friggin' huge. It's expensive as hell to ship them across an entire fucking Ocean and then drive them cross-country. It's cheaper to pay good wages in America than to pay lesser wages in other countries and ship it out.

Yeah, yeah, there's still plenty of companies that import, but as stuff like Chrysler and whatnot collapse I'm sure that there will be foreign companies looking to snap up fully-functional plants so they can save on shipping. Remember, having a plant in the states gives you access to most of North America by land.

Re:First rebellion

[shutdown -p now]

you're going to elect another batch of morons whom to execute at a later date

So long as we have a definite date set in advance to make sure this happens before the morons do any damage, this sounds like a win-win to me! ~

Re:First rebellion

[ffreeloader]

Nobody said "all" our manufacturing jobs have moved offshore. However, a large number of them have. In 1953 manufacturing was 28% of our economy. In 2005 it was 12% of our economy.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

> I somehow doubt it will ever happen, even though the United States Constitution gives us the LEGAL RIGHT to overthrow the US Government at any time the people deem necessary.

That seems rather silly. When one overthrows ones government, one is hardly going to throw oneself and others who were involved in jail afterwards because it was illegal, is one? Usually the following two rules apply:

1) If your revolution succeeds, it was legal.
2) If your revolution fails, it was illegal.

When it comes to revolutions the law is fairly irrelevant.

Re:First rebellion

[pete6677]

Good cars can be built in the U.S. so long as the UAW isn't involved.

Re:First rebellion

[rhakka]

is that an important metric?

Our economy is actually 40x larger than it was in 1953. Does it follow that manufacturing should be 40x bigger as well?

Re:First rebellion

[dakameleon]

Given the US is the biggest consumer market in terms of spending in the world, it's little surprise that there's an imbalance of trade, even with a strong manufacturing sector. If you can find domestic customers for all that you can produce, why go to the additional expense of exporting to countries where they're likely to pay less than the domestic customer?

Re:First rebellion

[dakameleon]

citation/source?

Do note that the 14 year old does contribute to GDP, whatever the classification. Had McDonalds been reassigned from Food to Manufacturing, there would be a definite slide in the food figures. So if you can show either evidence of reclassification or the corresponding drop in the food sector, we'll believe.

Re:First rebellion

[Dexx]

Where's a Vetinari when you need one?

Re:First rebellion

[PaladinAlpha]

This is classic prevarication with statistics.

I would like to request you restate, including the ABSOLUTE SIZE of the economy, so that we may determine how many "manufacturing jobs" there were at any given time. The percentage of the total economy is only relevant taken with facts on the size of the economy (and it's foolish to have to state that explicitly).

Re:First rebellion

[Moryath]

So at least until one or the other party gets a clue, this isn't an issue upon which we can really base our voting choices.

Still, it's funny looking back on Slashdot comments from 2008 and realizing how Obama's supporters had bamboozled themselves into thinking he was going to be "different" about this issue...

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

I didn't say US economic successes were due to military successes, I said economic and military successes were due to innovation. I also didn't say all US military conflicts ended in success. Reading comprehension is hard, huh?

Re:First rebellion

[Trepidity]

It's downright scary thinking what might happen if World War 3 were to ever break out. The only reason we won WWII was because our factories produced weapons faster than the Axis countries (who's factories were being bombed).

We do still produce a lot of that kind of stuff domestically; manufacturing of consumer products has been offshored much faster than manufacturing of expensive industrial goods has. For example, the domestic car industry has declined, but the U.S. is still by a good margin the largest exporter of tractors. Manufacturing of military hardware has moved the least of all.

I'd probably be worried about commodities as a bigger issue. The most glaring one is that we used to produce a lot of oil, and now import most of it. Straddling the commodity/manufacturing line somewhat, the decline in U.S. steel production is probably a significant military issue, although our production actually is still reasonably high (steel-industry employment has been decimated, but number of tons of steel produced was roughly steady from 1980 through 2007 or so, dipping only in the recent recession).

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

I wish that was the case, but unfortunately, it's not. With a few discrete exceptions (Motorola and TI still provide a lot of the digital processing chips, for example), most of it is made overseas as well. ...
Don't take my word for it, open up that box and look at the chips for yourself.

Actually, I don't need to take your word for it *or* open up any boxes. Why? I have worked on integrating software into dozens of models of TVs, Blu-Ray players, and DVRs in the last few years, spanning almost every major CE company. I'd say over 2/3 of them use Broadcom chips. I have 2 BD players and 2 TVs from 4 different manufacturers on my desk right now, all with BRCM SoCs. Even the companies that fab their own chips in-house often use them as a second source. (As an interesting and mind-boggling aside, almost every major CE company is now using Linux in their TVs, and many of their BD players as well. I bet that's not something Linux expected when he first made it available back in 1991...)

BRCM's market share in the TV/STB business is enormous. Not that it's necessarily a good thing, BRCM can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.

And in general, who are the top 5 fabless semiconductor manufacturers? Qualcomm, Broadcom, STMicro, Marvell, and Conexant. All except STMicro are American companies (and ST is European). Being fabless, yes, most of the chips are made overseas - but that's my point! US innovation has become about IP, not manufacturing. These companies are making huge margins these days by using Taiwanese, Malaysian, Chinese, etc contractors (who are doing well, of course, but no 60% margins there!)

Re:First rebellion

[EastCoastSurfer]

US manufacturing is doing just fine. Here is a recent analysis. The problem is that productivity has risen through automation and manufacturing jobs have disappeared. This was bound to happen no matter what and these jobs are not coming back (I'm surprised that we still need people AT ALL during the manufacturing of a car for example). The conclusions from the well written article I linked to above:

1.) The US still manufactures goods. In fact, the US still manufactures plenty of goods. Take a look at the types of exports in the latest trade data from the Census. It includes exports of industrial supplies, capital goods, autos and consumer goods.

2.) While outsourcing does happen -- that is, companies do go overseas to open new factories at the expense of US employees -- it is not the primary cause of manufacturing job losses.

3.) Going back to the recent post on employment remember that in this recession the unemployment rate of specific groups was heavily influenced by education level. In fact, according to the BLS, higher education levels (college graduates and above) were remarkably untouched in the latest recession while lower education levels (high school graduates, high school with some secondary education) had higher rates of unemployment. Lower levels of education are typically associated with manufacturing and construction employment -- the two areas of jobs that account for the largest percentage of job losses in this recession.

Offshoring manufacturing is a boogeyman that isn't backed up by the facts.

Re:First rebellion

[EastCoastSurfer]

I'm not sure why you think that since you can't see factories from your area that they aren't any around. First, you live in the RTP. Research generally means white collar, learning type of work and not manufacturing. Second, drive about 4 hours to Greenville and visit the BMW plant sometime. Drive a couple more hours to the Honda plant that's also in SC. There is plenty of manufacturing around even if you can't see it from your porch.

Re:First rebellion

[Vaphell]

industry producing at an all time high? financial industry which is able to create money out of thin air and then charge real interest on it, industry which produces all kinds of fraudulently triple-A rated derivatives and sells them to the hardworking suckers abroad. Most of it doesn't produce anything of value, merely shuffles papers and numbers around.

That's one of the problems with the US economy. Honest work is passe, producing tangible items is passe, everyone wants to get rich by taking loans, blowing money on consumption and gambling on the stock market.

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-financial-sector-too-big.html

Financial institutions are responsible for 41% of all corporate profits now, while in 1985 it was 16%, their GDP share jumped from 4 to 8% in last 50 years. They simply grow like a cancer while other industries shrink.
GDP numbers are fluff anyway because they don't measure the health and sustainability of the economy. Peter Schiff (mentioned earlier) explains it well in his multiple appearances - many of them precede the meltdown of 2008 (youtube has it all).

Re:First rebellion

[EastCoastSurfer]

I would start by reading this article, then look at the trade data on your own here.

I don't know if any countries are exporting anything at all times highs right now because of the global recession, though the trade data does show some detail about the US import/export ratios for certain products. For example, in January '10 the US exported over 2x more airplane engine parts, plastics, coal, corn, cotton and metal ore than it imported. If you remove crude oil from the equation the trade imbalance shrinks dramatically.

Re:First rebellion

[Leebert]

It's time for armed rebellion. We must storm the capital, while the military is stretched thin, and execute the majority of our legislators.

You first.

No, seriously. Why would we do that, when our electoral system is functioning perfectly fine? Newsflash: The American people get the government they elect. Yes, the system is stacked, but all that really stands in the way of true change is the electorate.

I don't understand why you think a populace that is too dumb to vote for someone of quality is somehow not going to be too dumb to properly execute an armed rebellion.

Re:First rebellion

[GlassHeart]

Spotty, to be honest, but I wasn't actually expecting the Second Coming. The World is more willing to work with the US now. The war spendings are now in the budget, and I don't think we're torturing people anymore. We're not being scared like children every other day by orange alert levels. The health care reform - warts and all - seems to have a chance. The rich are no longer getting tax cuts that insult our intelligence. The economy is bad, but not as bad as it could easily have been. Compared to early 2009, it's certainly looking more like we can look up at the sky instead of down into the abyss.

Could he have done more? Sure, but I knew I was voting for a center-left pragmatist.

Re:First rebellion

[wonkavader]

It wouldn't be the first. It wouldn't even be the second.

Re:First rebellion

[hairyfeet]

Question: Now that all the manufacturing jobs are all but a memory, what exactly are you going to do with those millions of out of work Americans who don't have the creative ability to "make IP" huh? There are literally millions of them, can't speak for the rest of the country but the south is quickly becoming nothing but dead towns with boarded up homes.

You gonna pay them to sit at home and consume IP? No money for IP working at Mickey D, hell most places you'll be lucky to keep a roof over your head. So what are you gonna do with them? Kinda pointless to try educating them, as we have seen in the tech sector they'll ship the white collar jobs off shore just as quick. So what exactly do you do with these teaming masses in your magical IP economy, which stuff all the money in a few pockets at the top, while the rest can go get fucked?

Better think quick, as all these oath takers and other bunches gathering guns ain't doing it because they are happy little campers you know. All it is gonna take is another Stalin or Hitler, that is a good speaker and can rally the masses to say "see those rich bastards? Why the hell should we be living like dirt while those blood sucking leeches live like kings? let's just kill those pigs and take it back!" to have everything in your IP economy turn into a shit storm. Don't forget multinational corporations have NO loyalty to you, this country, or anyone but themselves.

You got millions out of work, millions of poor, pissed off individuals, many of whom have pretty much become completely disgusted by the greed and corporation kissing like we see in TFA. Frankly I don't think it would take much to light the powderkeg ATM. Wish it wasn't so, but that is what happens when your leaders develop a "let them eat cake" mentality. And we saw how well it turned out for the last ones that had that attitude, didn't we? Don't think it can't happen again, because when you are bankrupt, with no job and no hope, and your life is nothing but shit, what have you got to lose?

Re:First rebellion

[blueflash2o]

The issue here that allowed the collapse appears to be the issue of campaign finance (lobbying) and biased media coverage.

Or when you start removing the built in security to the system it helps progress the collapse faster. Like when we killed the states rights and gave the people the right to vote for the Senate which allows lobbying to have a greater affect on the system by needing the candidates in the senate race to campaign more instead of keeping the people in the state government happy.

Re:First rebellion

[Mr. X]

The % is not the important number. Our economy has grown tremendously since 1953. The pie has gotten bigger!

Re:First rebellion

[roju]

That's really cool that Linux is being used in TVs now. Can you give any examples?

Re:First rebellion

[Magnus Pym]

This is completely misleading. These numbers include goods produced by nominally American corporations even if all the work is done by employees based outside of the US. This particular scam has been debunked multiple times by the business press.

BTW, the US GDP numbers also include goods produced outside the USA by non-American labor.

If you strip out the work/products made by non-US employees of US corporations, you'll see that both the US GDP and exports have been in steep decline for the past decade.

Magnus.

Re:First rebellion

[CodeBuster]

the trade deficit picture would be significantly different.

Perhaps not as much as you might think. When you are living on less than $5 per day AND you have to pay $3 just to rent a movie, you are going to do without if you can't get it illicitly.

Hopefully the MPAA & RIAA can get a damn clue and start focusing on the real threat to their business - rampant, organized, professional international piracy.

The MPAA didn't go after Americans because they were the biggest threat to their bottom line, but rather because they were the most convenient and highest value targets. I'm sure that the MPAA/RIAA would love to see the millions of black market street vendors in the developing world disappear tomorrow, but that isn't going to happen. The losses from China, India and South America are HUGE but they are also spread out among a huge number of infringers who individually have too few assets to be worth going after; and they are hard to track down too. Try finding any individual street vendor in the slums of Buenos Aires if you don't believe that.

Re:First rebellion

[Nefarious Wheel]

While I agree with protecting your own IP, this whole process is dominated by protecting one small part of the overall industry and not the industry as a whole.

This raises an interesting speculation, though. The idea may not be to attempt to stop international copyright or patent infringement - that's a Land War In Asia if I've ever seen one - but simply to provide grounds for sanctioning goods and services from overseas that are infringing. The argument could go: "Copying our DVD player designs? We'll stop yours at the border".

Re:First rebellion

[ffreeloader]

It is not a prevarication with statistics. It's a number showing the lessening of the importance of manufacturing in our economy. That manufacturing is a much smaller slice of the pie now than it used to be means that manufacturing growth, if it can be called as such, has been at a much slower pace than the rest of the economy. The fact that the entire pie has grown shows just how far manufacturing has fallen when the slice of the pie is now less than half of what it used to be. If manufacturing had grown at the same pace as the rest of the economy for the last 50 years its slice of the pie would be at least close to the same percentage of the economy it was 50 years ago. It's not.

The above fact is so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but it seems the obvious is often denied.

Re:First rebellion

[seekertom]

you can show graphs, talk numbers until you are blue in the face. what counts is this... jobs are lost when not enough people buy stuff our workers have been making. it's a fact, most everything we have now says madeinchina. are the chinese homes full of stuff madeinAmerica? doubt it. that's the problem. we buy their stuff, keep their workers busy, but there's no reciprocity. scare mongers? you bet. i'm scared when our prez stands up in favor of groups like acta that meet in secrecy to decide our fate. to me that means this man isn't above doing the same thing himself.... operating behind closed doors... as for your wp.org graph, it stops in 2004... this is 2010. what about the recent 6 years? the other poster raves about 'his' graphs which say productivity is "up", but that's irrelevant because productivity means more output with fewer employment hours, NOT that there are more folks working and bringing home the bacon! i think you actually believe the hype about oneworldgovt being a good thing, and that global economy that is balanced by the losses of America is the way ta go! as for your statement against 'America doesn't manufacture anything', sure, it's an over-simplification, but you tell me, how many manufacturing jobs have been lost during the past 20 years in this country, how many companies in this country have closed their doors and 'moved on', as they say... thanks fer lis'nin' seekertom

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

um.. who in turn outsource those programming jobs to india.

Re:First rebellion

[babyrat]

That manufacturing is a much smaller slice of the pie now than it used to be means that manufacturing growth, if it can be called as such, has been at a much slower pace than the rest of the economy.

That would only be true if there were no additional slices of the pie to account for the change in percentage. Instead of throwing out one statistic and trying to make reasonably intelligent people believe you, why not throw out some more - what are the percentages of other sectors of the economy? How much of the GDP was 'information technology' back in '53? How much was transportation?

Perhaps manufacturing has grown much less than other sectors, however you don't provide any data to make any sort of legitimate analysis.

Re:First rebellion

[sonicmerlin]

On the other hand, Chinese citizens don't have a whole lot of money to spend on inflated prices for media and entertainment. Those industries are not innovative and unlike new tech and software industries don't produce anything of particular value. I don't believe protecting them at the expense of everyone else is really all that important.

Re:First rebellion

[phantomfive]

as for your wp.org graph, it stops in 2004... this is 2010. what about the recent 6 years?

Wow, can you not be lazy for a moment and look something up for yourself? Google has existed for a number of years now, you'd think everyone would've learned to use it by now. Apparently not you.

you can show graphs, talk numbers until you are blue in the face. what counts is this... jobs are lost when not enough people buy stuff our workers have been making.

What counts is numbers. That's how you measure how many jobs are still in the country, and how many new jobs have come up. But it is not surprising that someone who doesn't know how to use Google also isn't interested in real, hard data, and would rather go with some vague concept that supports his point.

scare mongers? you bet.

Good, I'm glad we agree on something. Now, get your head back in reality. Here, let me help you. Science is based in data.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what Obama is talking about, not picking on homemakers who shared a few mp3s online.

How's Obama going to change that? The Chinese government doesn't care about US intellectual property. Sure they bust a couple of counterfeiters every once an awhile to put on a good show, but in the end, the government over there doesn't mind if some people are selling pirate copies of Windows 7.

Re:First rebellion

[camg188]

Check out this article about where the profits go from the sale of a single $299 iPod. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100002310/what-the-ipod-tells-us-about-britains-economic-future/
Most of the manufacturing profits go to countries that make the high tech, high cost components like the hard drive and screen. Those countries are Japan and the US. Chinese companies that assemble the final product and stamp "Made in China" on it actually get very little of the profits generated.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

* Whoosh *

Re:First rebellion

[Nyder]

Ummm.... I see you ignore the fact that major portions of our manufacturing capability have been moved offshore. When was the last time you bought a TV made in the US? When was the last time you bought a major household appliance that was manufactured entirely in the US? How about a car? How long has it been since the majority of steel used in the US was made here?

yep, and this is the start of our downfall...

Re:First rebellion

[PaladinAlpha]

Is this a troll I'm just not seeing?

If the pie is twice as big, then a 15% slice of pie is the same size as a former 30% slice of pie. Period.

Heck, I'll even spell out an analogy. Let's say I make 30k a year. Every year I spend 15K buying all the Pop-Tarts at Wal-Mart. With me? I'm spending 50% of my income on pop-tarts. 15K of 30K, 50%.

Now, let's say I get a raise, and now I'm making 60K a year. I like pop-tarts as much as ever, so I keep spending 15K a year buying all the tarts at Wal-Mart. They don't have any more for me to buy, but I'm still buying as many as I always have. Right? 15K = 15K. But now, since I'm making 60K, I'm only spending 25% of my income on Pop-Tarts. 15K = 15K, but 15K/30K = 50% and 15K/60K = 25%.

According to you, I'm spending less on pop-tarts, which is incorrect. Manufacturing has experienced growth and is at record levels. The fact that it has not grown as fast as things like software development or military tech is because these things as economic powers DIDN'T EXIST before a certain point in history.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see that after inflation correction. I have a sneaking suspicion it won't look all that great afterwards.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

For grins, I checked out your linked chart. It is meaningless. If anything, it is an illustration of inflation, and the ever-increasing cost of items/services, and little else.

If you look at the data used to create that chart (http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/OTEA/usfth/aggregate/H04t01.html), you'll see that the important numbers are on the right hand side under the 'TRADE BALANCE' heading. Those numbers are where the problem is, and illustrate that we have a big trade deficit problem.

When you say 'industrial items', I take that to mean factory tools, assemblies, and things of that nature. Of these items, I would venture that the majority of the parts that make up these items were imported to begin with, so the net benefit is nowhere near the perceived benefit.

Your point is not accurate. America, in fact, does not manufacture much.

Long story short:

We are economically fucked, we have been economically fucked for a while, and we have chosen to bury our collective heads in the sand, instead of doing something about it.

If we don't find some way to become self-reliant, and self-sustaining, as both an economic producer, and as a nation, we will continue to be economically fucked.

You CAN see it in the numbers, and the political bullshit sure doesn't help.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what specifically the GP was referring to, but if you check out this graph, you will see that US exports aren't really as bad as you would think listening to some of the scaremongers. Most of the exports are industrial items, not cheap consumer goods that you purchase and use on a regular basis, which is why you feel a disconnect. But as you can see, anyone who says, "America doesn't manufacture anything" is making it up and hasn't actually looked at the numbers.

Using the same data, it's interesting to take a look at the ratio of exported to imported goods since 1960:

  Year | exprt | import | exports/imports
  1960 | _19.7 | __14.8 | 133%
  1970 | _42.5 | __39.9 | 107%
  1980 | 224.3 | _249.8 | 90%
  1990 | 389.3 | _498.3 | 78%
  2000 | 718.7 | 1145.9 | 63%
  2004 | 807.6 | 1473.8 | 55%

  (amounts are in billions of dollars)

Re:First rebellion

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Didn't mean to reply twice but I happened to come across this NY Times op-ed just now which highlights problems with the reported high productivity suggesting it is (at least partly) caused by misreporting due to outsourcing.

"But there’s a problem: labor productivity figures, which are calculated by the Labor Department, count only worker hours in America, even though American-owned factories and labs have been steadily transplanted overseas, and foreign workers have contributed significantly to the final products counted in productivity measures.

The result is an apparent drop in the number of worker hours required to produce goods — and thus increased productivity. But actually, the total number of worker hours does not necessarily change. "

Re:First rebellion

[OrangeCatholic]

You're forgetting the Civil War. That happened less than 100 years in. Basically, a bunch of dumb rednecks didn't want to work for a living. They were willing to fight and die, but they didn't want to pick their own crops.

What we're seeing now is more of the same. There's a certain redneck percentage of the population that is willing to sign up and die in Afghanistan. What they won't do is to not sign up, and just simply get a fucking job.

Laziness and corruption ruins any endeavor. People get used to a free lunch, and they will die for it rather than find a simpler way to live.

In any case, one thing that the Founding Fathers did a poor job at was defining the Presidency. There's been some discussion that the Presidency was poorly thought-out and hastily tacked on to the Constitution.

The Atlantic: Founding Fathers Great Mistake

Anyway, finding a way to keep the idiots out of the party is probably the ultimate conversation topic. I've never seen a good social project last more than a couple of years.

Re:First rebellion

[JaumPaw]

Come now, to be honest, have you ever heard of these sort of problems in Draconia?

Re:First rebellion

[VShael]

Don't try to pull the ostrich's head out of the sand.

They don't like that, and have a hell of a kick.

Re:First rebellion

[gribbly]

>I'd probably be worried about commodities as a bigger issue. Agreed. Rare earth elements are especially concerning.

Re:First rebellion

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm wondering why after 8 years of a baffoon and coming up to two years of The (disappointing) Second Coming, nobody's realised that there are more options than Blue and Red.

Re:First rebellion

[L4t3r4lu5]

This falls under the unfortunate "+1 Uncomfortable Truth" moderation. Nobody wants to mod you up, but it's pretty much a statement of fact.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you build a stable economy based on "media and entertainment"? You might as well build an economy on fairy dust and lolipops. No wonder this country is in such ruin, with economic thinking like that!

Off shoring has been a HUGE problem for more than a decade. It's been a slow race to the bottom even for people that have jobs, and now that there is no more room at the bottom, we find mass unemployment, with university educated and tradespeople fighting over the same $10/hr useless jobs.

A stable economy comes from a strong manufacturing base, abundant domestic resources and a strong agricultural base. Manufacturing jobs are sent overseas, domestic resources are barred from use (to protect the environment-unless you're China... then do whatever you want), and more of our agriculture is being shipped in from other countries. Horray!

Re:First rebellion

[tomtomtom]

'If we're becoming so much more productive where are the goods we're producing and why can't I see it in the balance of trade ? If we're so productive where are the exports ?"

They're called Treasury bonds, and you guys have been shipping them out to China by the trillion ;)

Seriously, all it would take to "correct" the trade balance is a weakening of the US dollar. Rather than being concerned that the trade balance is negative, you could instead view the situation as a happy one - that mere pieces of paper printed by your government are so desired by the rest of the world (and particularly China) that they give their goods to your country in return for less than they give them to their own people for (in the case of China, this is quite deliberate as they follow a weak RMB policy).

Re:First rebellion

[Genda]

However even these American components are made more and more by people with Indian or Chinese surnames, either here on HB1 visas or fresh out of college, and a bunch off that money will go back to their parent countries (especially if and when these folk take their know how and experience home to start businesses there.) All the while cutting the labor market for American Engineers in their own country... Again American business aborts Americans, in favor of pushing the profit margin.

Re:First rebellion

[Jawn98685]

Yes, but more likely than not many of the key parts (with the most valuable IP) - the processor/SoC, digital tuners, etc, are made for a US owned company by workers in a foreign country...

There. Fixed that for you.
I haven't seen an Intel processor that was actually manufactured in the U.S. in what, 15 years? 20?

As for your argument that RIAA and MPAA are "losing billions" to Chinese piracy, please... First of all, that argument doesn't fly here in the U.S. (no, not every pirated copy is a lost sale), so why should it be any different in a country where the average citizen has even less disposable income than here? More to the point, suggesting that music and movies will solve our trade deficit is, well, stupid, even if those industries' bullshit "lost sales" figures were based on reality.

Re:First rebellion

[Svartalf]

I'm beginning to think some might be twigging onto the concept, especially with this sort of crap coming down from Washington like this.

Re:First rebellion

[Svartalf]

That's not a pragmatist in the office. I'm still not quite sure WHAT the man is or what he actually stands for- but it's nothing to do with pragmatism.

Re:First rebellion

[Knara]

Yeah, the problem isn't so much that the USD is too strong, but the RMB is artificially weak in terms of a modern currency.

Re:First rebellion

[NeutronCowboy]

Entertainment and media aren't an asset. They are entertainment and media, two intellectual concepts who benefit tremendously from the network effect: the more people know about it and have access to it, the better it becomes.

Let's put it this way - if Chinese citizens actually paid for even a small fraction more of the American software, movies, and music they consume, the trade deficit picture would be significantly different.

Newsflash: if Chinese citizens would actually have to pay for the American software, music and movies they consume, they wouldn't consume it.

Obama talking about entertainment and media as one of the major US assets scares the living daylights out of me: it means we've become a nation of circuses, jesters and clowns, employed by other nations like the dancing bears of yore.

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what Obama is talking about, not picking on homemakers who shared a few mp3s online.

That may well be what Obama was talking about, but you and I both know damn well that the vast, vast majority of the lawsuits will be on home field, not across the pond. Hell, unlikely even Canada or Mexico. Because it's easier and more profitable in the short term to go after the low hanging fruit... the music sharers in the USA. And that's sadly all that anyone gives a shit about nowadays... the profit of the very short term.

Re:First rebellion

[Second_Derivative]

Posting to retain a reference...

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

First: kudos for the Godwin. I guess this thread just wouldn't be complete without Hitler.

Second: this thread had nothing to do with (not) protecting manufacturing jobs, it had to do with protecting American technology and media. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

Third: it really had nothing to do with Americans "consuming IP", it had to do with other countries paying for the IP they already consume.

But to bite on your tangeant... it is ironic that the people complaining the most and voting against large tax increases tend to be those who could use their benefits the most, not those who would pay the bulk of it. Honestly, how do we fix the problem that a growing segment of the population does not have the knowledge or skills to justify the standard of living that they would like to have? (and that's no slight on any "blue collar" worker, just a statement of fact that one can't expect to be paid a huge premium over Chinese workers in the same field and yet shop almost exclusively at Walmart to save a few bucks).

Europe has already tried dealing with some of these issues - and their solution was "social democracy". But in the US we wouldn't dare even think of something with the name "social" in it, because the Republicans have done such a good job convincing the people most in need of it that it's somehow inherently evil and "un-American"...

Re:First rebellion

[Kethinov]

Why is this pessimistic, paranoid drivel a +5? Of course the answer is educating these people. The bottom line is their skills are obsolete. As you said, we've got millions of people out of work and those jobs are never coming back. It's time for them to go get marketable skills and it's the rest of us who should bear the tax burden of ensuring that they're able to get those marketable skills and return to the workforce as an asset rather than a liability.

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

Probably shouldn't be getting any more specific ;)

But again, I don't really think I have to - I'd be surprised if you could find a decent HDTV (at least 40"+) that *isn't* running Linux. Especially the latest crop with Internet applications.

Re:First rebellion

[roju]

Fair enough. I'm mostly curious if any of them offer the source. Even better, if they use any GPLv3 software, they'd need to allow for users to install their own firmware. The temptation to build a custom firmware would be overwhelming. Maybe I could fix my Sharp's frustrating lack of customizable input names. :D

Re:First rebellion

[dcw3]

We're not being scared like children every other day by orange alert levels.

Unless you're flying...

March 15, 2010

The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.
For all domestic and international flights, the U.S. threat level is High, or Orange.

Re:First rebellion

[Duhavid]

I don't think the numbers you request will give you "manufacturing jobs". Total economy size and % of that that is company revenue will not tell you jobs. I think you want the true number of jobs. I further think you need the wages spent on those jobs ( and some scale against how much purchasing power those wages have ) to be able to assess what you are discussing.

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

Perhaps not as much as you might think. When you are living on less than $5 per day AND you have to pay $3 just to rent a movie, you are going to do without if you can't get it illicitly.

Well, $5/day is pretty close to the minimum wage these days (not that it's still not way less than the US, but so is the cost of living). There is a rapidly growing "middle class" in China these days that is making plenty of money to afford to pay for movies.

And last time I was in China, *legal* software (say for example, a PC video game) was often about 25-30% of the price in the US. My first thought was a little annoyance at how much we get screwed here, but then I realized it's in everyone's best interest to price soft goods like that at a rate that they might be able to afford rather than buying a pirated version. On the other hand, I don't think I even *saw* any legal CDs or DVDs :)

And note, piracy there is not about people downloading and burning their movies for "free". It's about going to the local market and buying a professionally pirated DVD with a printed case for a couple bucks.

And I don't think is makes sense to go after *any* individual infringers, especially the buyers/consumers of the content. Piracy in Asia is a very profitable business these days, and it's basically condoned or at least completely ignored by the government there. The problem is only going to be solved if the US government gets some backbone and does something at an international trade level, which is what ACTA is for (and will probably be completely useless, sadly - China showed in Copenhagen what they think of international agreements...)

Re:First rebellion

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, they already counterfeit our currency as it is... so why not everything else?

Re:First rebellion

[laughing rabbit]

But, what are those marketable skills? What are the jobs of tomorrow that the kids are supposed to be learning? Where are the funds for this education? Just like the crumbling infrastructure in the United States, upgrading the working class is not on the radar.

The work of the future is a shifting target, and tossing out abstracts and vapor add nothing to the argument. Most people are involved in the service economy anyway, and unless you own the company, the pay will never be very good.

Most people will spend their work lives catering to the well to do, or taking advantage or the poor.

Re:First rebellion

[jamie(really)]

Here is the key question: In a *democracy*, do you believe that:

a) the poor masses will vote for increasing social benefits, that rely on increasing taxation, and increased payments to "social partnership" industries (i.e. for profit beneficiaries of government programs), or
b) the USA will roll back social programs, thereby holding tax levels in check, and deal with the multiplying poor by some other means (e.g. churches, riot police) etc.

For years we have heard of the benefits of offshoring, and indeed there are benefits. But the downside is that your entire country either ends up with 70% taxation, or class war, or both. The UK is about 30 years ahead of the US in this regard.

Very simply, we are funding China into the 21st century. We are paying them to make us things, and paying ourselves unemployment benefits. Instead, we should be paying *our* unemployed to make things, and let China deal with 4 billion unemployed.

But that isn't as profitable for our super rich.

Frankly, the only good thing I see coming out of this is when the ultra rich of European ancestry attempt to move to the next world empire, they'll discover that the Chinese have got hundreds of years of white peoples racism to pay back. It was easy for the rich to ditch the British Empire (remember that?) to move to the US Empire. Would love to be a fly on the wall when they go to China.

Re:First rebellion

[jamie(really)]

Really? We don't need cars anymore? Or railroads? Or food? Or houses? Or TVs?

The fact is that those jobs could very easily "come back". Why is it that we can protect "Intellectual Property" with draconian international treaties, but we can't protect jobs?

And before you laugh at me for "basic international economics", I advise you to go and, say, spend a year at a university actually studying it, maybe a good one, like Cambridge, like I have.

These "basic international economics" that we all hold to be true and self evident, are simply the repeated recipes of the international rich for making money while your country goes to shit. Closing our borders to international trade stifles growth, they will tell you. I see. Is that a good argument? How is that housing growth 2001-2008 working out for you?

We live in a country where 15% (15%!!!!) of houses are EMPTY. 18.7 MILLION HOUSES are empty. And I can't afford to buy a house.

So the next time someone tells you that closing borders stifles growth, that does not *automatically* mean that it is bad. Ok?

Re:First rebellion

[gullevek]

Unless the other side (eg China) doesn't give a flying rats ass about any ACTA or whatever. They have more paying consumers over there than in US. Probably 90% have less cash, but if China makes their own cheap DVD knock offs (which they do) to avoid payment then no hollywood studio is seeing much money, nor any hardware maker.

ACTA works only for country who already abide to copyright laws. And none of them do have much production left anyway. This is just "get the lawyers some money" scheme.

Re:First rebellion

[hairyfeet]

It is not drivel, especially when you are spouting the same old bullshit. What EXACTLY are "marketable skills"...hmmm? There are plenty of tech guys with educations and shitloads of student loans that would really like to have a word with you about those "marketable skills" since their jobs got sent to Bangalore. And are you willing to shell out...ohhh...let's say 60+% of your pay in taxes?

We are talking MILLIONS of American workers, and even a bottom of the line trade school can run you a good 35k, and let us just say there are only 5 million Americans that would need to be educated under your "marketable skills" plan. At 35k a piece you are looking at 175,000,000,000. That is 175 billion to give 5 million of your fellow Americans a bottom of the line degree. And what of those not smart enough for a degree..hmmm? Last I checked the average IQ was between 100 and 105, with quite a few below that. Gonna execute them? Lock them up?

Here is the point pal, try to keep up. Ready? There is NO FREE TRADE. there is no such thing, it is all a lie. Tell you what, why don't you and the same number of Americans try to go to India as the number of H1-Bs coming here, see what happens. Wanna bet they turn your ass around? See they are what is known as "nationalistic" as in, they don't want you, just your money. Perot had it right all those years ago when he talked about that giant sucking sound, that was the sound of all our money going out without a dime of it coming back. Do you think those teeming masses of unemployed are an illusion? Maybe you think they are lazy? What are they gonna do, all become lawyers?

The USA is right now sitting on a powderkeg. You have millions that haven't worked in over a year. Why? Because there simply aren't any jobs to be had, that's why. All the money is gone, packed up and moved overseas, the dwindling jobs worth less every day as more and more have to fight for the scraps. Come to the south, come to middle America, and see for yourself. Dead towns and empty homes, far as the eye can see. Recession my ass, we are in the start of another great depression, but nobody has the balls to say the words. The only thing keeping a lid on the powderkeg is millions of unemployment checks cranked off the money presses, but we are at the trillion dollar debt mark, we just can't keep it up.

But keep blowing smoke up your ass, and believing that you can educate an entire nation out of this tar pit, but answer me a simple question: How exactly are you with a 100,000 degree gonna compete with someone from China or India that paid less than 15k for his? He doesn't have the massive debt you do, and in his home country he can live like a king on what wouldn't get you an apartment in the shitty side of town in most cities, much less keep you clothed and fed. How exactly do you compete with that, oh great sage?

Re:First rebellion

[dpastern]

If I could mod you up, I would. In short, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Of course Obama (and every other politician on the western planet) would back the large corporations and wealthy. Us "average" person is an inconvenience to them, and if they could do away with us, they surely would.

I'm sad that I live in Australia, because we might as well be the 53rd state, we do everything that Herr Obama (and previous presidents) say. That means we'll get ACTA :-(

Dave

Re:First rebellion

[dpastern]

Obama's done SFA. He's the most boring US president in history. Sure, Bush Jr, fucked up [a lot], but at least he *did* something. Obama seems to be the American version of our own Kevin Rudd (who I nickname "krudd"). All talk, no action, doesn't give a fuck about the people, sides with big business. I'd like to see a average joe become president, not a wealthy businessman. Then, we might see some basic commonsense decisions and respect to the people.

Oh wait, you have a 2 party system that doesn't allow any other party to compete...monopoly anyone?

Dave

Re:First rebellion

[ffreeloader]

Ummm.... How much of the economy back then was "service" compared to the 80%+ of our economy it is today?

However, that's all irrelevant to the issue. The issue is that the manufacturing portion of our economy is much smaller than it used to be and there's good reason for it.

Where's our textile manufacturing? It's in a steep decline and has been for a long time. Imports are taking over the market.

What percentage of our domestic automobile manufacturing is left? I don't know, but I see Michigan's economy is a wreck, Detroit is a wasteland, and we import millions of Japanese, German, and Korean cars. Also, even of the cars manufactured here in the US a large percentage of the parts on those cars are manufactured elsewhere.

The same goes for the parts in major (domestic and commercial) appliances.

Now, add to that what's happened to our steel industry. The "steel belt", for all intents and purposes no longer exists. US Steel used to make 2/3 of all steel used in the US and was the largest steel maker in the world. Bethlehem steel was the 2nd largest steel company. US Steel now makes 10% of the steel used in the US and is now the 10th largest steel maker in the world. It's now about 1/5 the size of the largest steel maker in the world. Bethlehem Steel is no more. We are importing approximately $1.25 billion worth of steel a MONTH rather than making it ourselves. US manufactured steel used to be the best and it was hard to find imported steel that was worth a damn. In the 60's and 70's imported steel products were a joke. You hit a nail made with imported steel with a hammer and it bent rather than go into the wood. Now, almost all steel fasteners are imported and they are the high quality product.

All of this stuff used to be built here. Now we import a great percentage of it. Those are just some of the reasons why the manufacturing slice of the pie has not kept pace with the rest of the economy.

Re:First rebellion

[Kethinov]

Marketable skills are the skills the market demands right now. Just because the unemployment rate is 10% doesn't mean there are only enough jobs for 90% of the population. There are plenty of industries with jobs to fill right now but there aren't enough applicants. The proper way for us to deal with our unemployment problem is to get our unemployed folks the skills they need to get the jobs that are available, a tax burden I'm more than willing to bear for the benefit of the whole of society and the economy.

Stop inhaling fear and exhaling anger just long enough to be rational about this.

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

. At 35k a piece you are looking at 175,000,000,000. That is 175 billion to give 5 million of your fellow Americans a bottom of the line degree.

Does that sound like a lot of money to you? It is about a year and a half of our military expenses in Iraq. Yes, we could have provided $175B to education rather than blowing up and rebuilding a country that wasn't really responsible for much if any international terrorism in the first place. Throw in another year and we'd be able to pay for everyone's health care for the rest of the decade. That still leaves a few hundred billion left!

The US doesn't have to be isolationist to fix its problems, just get a damn clue about which problems are worth spending money on in the first place.

Re:First rebellion

[hairyfeet]

Here is the problem with your theory: I am a megacorp, I can hire an American, where I will have to pay decent wages, maybe health benefits, etc, or I can offshore to a place where I can dump my factory's toxic waste straight into the river, treat my workers like dogs and pay them pennies, while cutting myself a big fat bonus for doing so.

Or if I want to stay in the USA I can just use this instructional video as a guide to allow me to bring over an indentured servant, who again I can pay peanuts and treat like shit, and use what would have been the decent pay the Americans would have gotten to cut myself a nice bonus check. See the problem yet? Kinda smell the fail?

They pushed everyone to get tech jobs last time this happened remember? what happened to all those magic tech jobs that was gonna save us? Well they were either sent off shore or were given in large numbers to indentured servants but hey! Surely after education worked so well for all the tech workers, drowning in debt with little job prospects, it'll work again, right?

Wake up and smell the fail pal. Here is the truth-FREE TRADE IS A LIE. There is NO free trade with countries like India and China, because they don't want YOU, or your goods, just your money. Yet the globalists, who are making out better than Goldman Sachs on this scam, will keep blowing smoke up your ass telling you that education will magically fix it. Just recently (sorry I don't have time to find yet another link, Google it) they were setting up law firms in India specializing in American law to be off shore law banks. So what EXACTLY is the "skills they need to get the jobs that are available"...hmmm? Because short of flipping burgers or fixing your pipes or digging your ditches (many of those jobs BTW are being increasingly filled by illegals) pretty much ANY job that requires an education can be done cheaper in a third world country like India.

So let's here a SPECIFIC LIST of these "jobs" they should be educated for, okay? And remember your average factory line worker isn't a nuclear physicist just needing a degree, many are just very basic folks with a sub par public education. So let's here it, we're all ears. Otherwise you're just blowing the same smoke they did over tech jobs. BTW, do you support erasing all the debt of those that took your advice last time and now have worthless tech degrees?

Re:First rebellion

[Dahamma]

First of all, that argument doesn't fly here in the U.S. (no, not every pirated copy is a lost sale), so why should it be any different in a country where the average citizen has even less disposable income than here?

Bullshit. Have you ever been to a market in China?

Piracy there is not people downloading DVD rips in their home - there are a lot of large, professional piracy rings mass producing near-perfect duplicates.

A couple year ago when my girlfriend was in China she bought me 3 Simpsons DVD sets (ie seasons) for about US$10 total (probably would have been ~$90 online legally). They were in professionally printed cardboard boxed cases. The first thing that made me realize they were counterfeit? Two of the seasons weren't even released yet!

And guess what? They weren't making them all for the extremely rare American tourist that happened to wander by. They were mass produced in a real factory by the tens or hundreds of thousands by organized criminals, and are purchased by Chinese citizens (who are not all dirt poor like you seem to imagine). Are they cheaper than what the studios would charge? Sure, but that was one of my earlier points - it's so systemic that there isn't really even a chance to compete with the pirates on price right now!

The international (mostly Asian) piracy situation is nothing like that in the US, and to try to equate it means you really have no clue...

Oh, and as for where they manufacture processors? Who cares. The top fabless chip companies (Broadcom, Qualcomm, Marvell, Xilinx, Altera, etc - it's a huge list these days) - as well as those who own their own factories outside the US - employ MANY thousands of people in the US, make 60%+ margins and significant profits. While the contract manufacturers (TSMC, UMC, etcc) are much lower margin commodities (but still profitable...) In fact, the economy in Silicon Valley is doing pretty well right now compared to the rest of the country because of this (East Bay housing prices notwithstanding, but that is a completely different issue...)

If anything, that REINFORCES the importance of protecting IP. US companies spend billions of dollars in R&D to design all of the technology, so they better damn well be able to protect it.

Re:First rebellion

[Kethinov]

Specific list: http://careerinfonet.org/indview1.asp?nodeid=45

There's dozens of these lists all over the place. If we empower unemployed folks with the financial means to get trained academically or vocationally for such in-demand jobs, then the unemployment rate will decline.

Re:First rebellion

[lennier]

there are more options than Blue and Red.

There are, but under the current US electoral system anyone 'defecting' from the Blue/Red centrist axis to vote a minor party gets actively punished by causing their most hated major party to get in.

If you have on a scale:
1. Libertarian (hardcore principled anarcho-capitalist)
2. Republican (mixed compromise capitalist-socialist)
3. Democratic (mixed compromise socialist-capitalist)
4. Green (hardcore principled eco-socialist)

then if you vote 1, you split the vote for 2 causing 3 to get in; if you vote 4, you split the vote for 3 causing 2 to get in. So the result is, if you favour massive rapid social change in one direction, then voting your heart's desire will signal medium change in the opposite direction. So people vote 'tactically' for the follow-up 'lesser evil' of D or R, and foom, that entrenches a centrist consensus. It's a neat self-perpetuating system.

The only way to break this deadlock would be for one or other of the big two parties to massively disintegrate, or a huge social movement cause a third party to rapidly gain enough critical mass to pass the 'voting for this will vote against my cause' barrier.

Re:First rebellion

[lennier]

In New Zealand in 1984, this 'first past the post' system led to a very interesting government change (Muldoon National to Lange/Douglas Labour) where a Keynesian right-wing government switched to a hybrid Austrian School (hard-right economically) Labour (left politically) government which poured public money into indigenous land settlements, broke a major defence pact to stay nuclear-free, and massively privatised and deregulated the economy, causing a huge swing of money and power from the middle class to the very rich. This happened because the right and left factions both joined in order to defeat the incumbent - since it was the only way within the two-party system.

So I find some of the US politics - especially people like George Lakoff who pontificate about how the current US alignments are pure psychological/philosophical stances and one is good and truth and light and the other regressiev evil delusion - kind of strange. Political alignments are just alignments, they're not generally well-thought-out. Almost any given issue doesn't naturally fall into a 'left' or 'right' divide, it's just that it's been seized as such by current parties.

Witness how 'Democrats' changed from White Jim Crow to the party of affirmative action. That realignment really didn't have much to do with party principles or philosophy; it just happened.

It would be nice if all the issues could be debated separately, on their merits, instead of distorted into huge merged camps. But as long as you have a FPP system, they will, and your politics will be poorer for it.

Re:First rebellion

[lennier]

Second: this thread had nothing to do with (not) protecting manufacturing jobs, it had to do with protecting American technology and media. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?

If new technology directly competes with old technology for cheaper, and the new technology is primarily software (IP) based rather than hardware, and if the physical manufacturing for the new technology is done offshore... then yes, they are mutually exclusive, because the new will replace the old.

The iMac says proudly, "Designed by Apple in California... made in China". Which says it all really. If the economic strength of America is moving from manufacture to mere design, then it's turning from hardware to 'information', which is a much more fragile thing. Information can be copied. If your national economy starts to depend solely on preventing information being copied, then it seems like you're in a very dangerous place.... you risk being disintermediated as a nation, cut out of the manufacturing loop entirely. And given you also have a huge military spend, that seems like a recipe for rash trigger-finger reactions.

Is America still making stuff which isn't information which competes on the world stage? If so, what? Not cars anymore. Not oil anymore. Not garments anymore. Music, TV, games, software. Drug patents. Some high-end routers perhaps? Lots of guns. And maybe drugs. Anything else?

(New Zealand's getting into a similar bind... we sell sheep and milk and tourism, but the cows are starting to trash our environment... we're getting into high tech, but as information, that's also fragile for the same reasons.)

We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

... our jobs!

Re:We should all copyright...

[wisnoskij]

Actually assuming you have a particular way you go about accomplishing your job, it might actually be patentable.

I remember not long ago some company was trying to patent how they ran their business, something to do with how to schedule and conduct the business meetings I believe.

Re:We should all copyright...

[mickwd]

.....and speeches.

What he wanted to say was: "Our single greatest asset is the innovation of the American people.....innovation and ingenuity.....ingenuity and innovation. Our TWO greatest assets are the innovation and the ingenuity of the American people.....and their creativity.....our THREE greatest assets are the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people.....and an almost fanatical devotion to Hollywood and the RIAA.....our FOUR.....NO.....AMONGST our assets are such elements as innovation, ingenuity and creativity.....I'll come in again...

NOBODY expects the ACTA imposition.

Re:We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats fucking idiotic, next were going to need open source methods for running our own meetings....

Re:We should all copyright...

[Cidolfas]

Funny doesn't cut it: this needs to be +5 AMAZING

Re:We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a surprise to anyone that the Democratic party will rush to the support of Hollywood?

Re:We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

they're tryin' to take our jobs!!

dur tran to tek r 'jaaa!

dur tek jaa!!

durr

Re:We should all copyright...

[ShakaUVM]

>>NOBODY expects the ACTA imposition.

Hey, meet the new guy.

He's a lot like the old guy.

Re:We should all copyright...

[vell0cet]

Hilarious. But I do think that America's greatest asset is actually their lawyers.

Afterall, who's shoulders with it rest on to enforce ACTA?

Re:We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "jerbs".

Re:We should all copyright...

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

I think I've had about enough change now...

I mean, I voted for this guy, and he can't get the Dems to force a traditional fillabuster for healthcare, and now Biden has convinced him of supporting big media.

Re:We should all copyright...

[icebraining]

I agree, best +5 Funny in a long time!

Re:We should all copyright...

[Nefarious Wheel]

I remember not long ago some company was trying to patent how they ran their business, something to do with how to schedule and conduct the business meetings I believe.

Can't do that any more. Google "in re Bilski"

Re:We should all copyright...

[forgottenusername]

A place I worked for got sued by a company that "invented" a system of publishing "real time" statistic updates. The system was basically a mailing list that sent mail with from a shell script. The place I work settled for an ungodly amount of money.

We live in a sick, strange world.

Re:We should all copyright...

[rtb61]

It doesn't just stop at voting for a politician, they are you employee, keep on their back, force them to listen, keep them under pressure and reinforce the idea that they will end up losing.

For a start a countries greatest assets are it's people, it's environment, it's social structures like democracy and freedom of speech. All those things to help to feed, clothe, house, heal and educate it's citizens. Entertainment is not an asset, it is entertainment, it parasitically feeds off those other assets and the principle is it is only meant to feed of surpluses not rapaciously attack the rest of gnaw away at the rest of society.

It couldn't be worse, guilty until proven innocent, censorship, criminal sentences for children copying junk, seriously what the fuck are politician thinking who support that crap. It's bloody nothing more than pointless fluff and a fair chunk of it is pretty harmful to society, especially to the values that preserve a countries true assets.

For a start, push forward third and fourth political parties, greens and libertarians, they initially might not be able to win an election but they can certainly threaten the conformable positions of existing legislative bodies. Each time you knock out a sitting member of the two party duopoly you put the fear of prison into the rest (the more independents in the system the more likely prosecutions will start occurring for corruption).

Re:We should all copyright...

[Undead Waffle]

Now Biden has convinced him? What about when he appointed 5 of RIAA lawyers to the Department of Justice?

Re:We should all copyright...

[OnePumpChump]

If your contract has a clause that anything you create on the clock (or off it) belongs to the company, you just patented yourself out of your own way of working if you go anywhere else.

Re:We should all copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post structure is suspiciously like mine.

Re:We should all copyright...

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm sorry to tell you, but your jerbs are already derken.

Re:We should all copyright...

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Sorry, Apple already copyrighted it's CEO...

Re:We should all copyright...

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Well, based on his running mate and the history of his party with Big Media, I'd say you all got fooled again.

Re:We should all copyright...

[commodore64_love]

>>>they are you employee, keep on their back, force them to listen

Ahhhh so young. So naive. Here's a portion of an email I sent to my Senator: "re: The debate over cutting PBS' funding: Please do cut them. We live in a 100-channel universe with many, many channels such as TLC, Discovery, History, and so on to fill PBS' role. PBS was important in the 1960s when it was a 3-channel universe, but today it's been sidelined and is no longer crucial. Furthermore I never watch PBS, and feel no desire to fund something I don't watch --- let PBS stand on donations from its viewers and/or advertising....." et cetera.

His reply: "Yes I agree that PBS should receive more funds and I plan to fight this cut in their funding....." and so on.

They DON'T listen.
They are like an employee
that ignores everything you say.

Re:We should all copyright...

[Golddess]

Last I heard, it seemed the validity of "in re Bilski" was still up for debate.

Re:We should all copyright...

[rtb61]

You are aware you a one amongst millions. if you believe strongly in an issue, it is up to you to garner support and work to get thousands of emails and letters on the subject. One letter is meaningless and in reality under a democratic system should be ignored. As for cutting PBS you couldn't be more in error, it should be funded as a non-commercial broacasters whose content is not driven by more advertising bullshit. As a public broadcaster their content is driven by the public and any content put up is subject to public and government review.

A better PBS forces to other for advertising profits to be more honest, simply because it's content is not whored out to the highest bidder and should government interfere in a too biased fashion it soon becomes public knowledge doing the government more harm than good. Examples are public broadcasters in every other modern democracy, sure you can point out the occasions when the get biased but compared to the whoring for advertising profits commercial channels who are biased in their content 24/7, the government funded broadcasters are far better. See that senator should have politely informed you of the real benefits and that your opinion is in the minority and should largely be rejected on that particular subject.

That is how democracy works, you have an opinion and other people have theirs, someone in there is also reason based upon sound psychological and sociological practices (we are talking about managing a society, not just empowering the rich and greedy at everyone else's expense), so balance is sought that will serve the majority and it is up to government to ensure the public understands why particular principles are maintained (obviously they have failed that bit in your regard).

Wild West Internet will be gone

[sopssa]

Does it really surprise anyone? Internet has only been in its early development and in its baby years, now it's starting to form more like everything else in the world before has. Wild West too. Of course the rampant piracy will end too.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[MessedRocker]

Don't question the ingenuity of the Internet.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Shadow of Eternity]

"Rampant" piracy? I suppose that's why they've pulled not just record profits pretty much every year but also almost always had a record breaking increase over the previous year's record breaking profits as well.

Their piracy figures, when they aren't just plain made up, are them saying "We expected this much of an increase over last year's profits and we actually got this slightly lower amount so since we didn't overshoot our initial prediction by 500% that 500% must have been lost due to piracy."

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're wrong.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anarki2004]

I find the Citation Needed Police annoying at times, but can you substantiate that claim?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[im_thatoneguy]

I think we have to be careful though with separating unjust prosecution of piracy and piracy itself.

Obama is exactly right. IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy. There needs to be a means by which efforts of the mind are as recognized legally as efforts of the body.

We're becoming a nation where digging ditches and assembling parts is going to be taken over more and more by automation and cheap overseas labor and it'll be up to our inventions and our software and our innovation in exporting ideas that continues to pay our bills and put roofs over our heads going forward.

While the RIAA and the MPAA might RIGHT NOW control intellectual property and be the face of IP in the future it's going to be the individual creators who no longer need a large corporate overlord who are going to need the same protections. So we need to be careful that an inventor in Iowa can fight off the mega corporation trying to simply steal his idea and profit off of his innovation without giving him any reward.

The RIAA's laws protect the indie artist FROM the RIAA more so than it protects the RIAA itself. If there were toothless IP laws then Universal Music could just start burning copies of some new popular band and not send them a penny. They have the market and the distribution power. They would overnight become the main source of some new indie band's music without offering any creativity of their own.

You weaken IP and it's not the large corporations that will lose money it's the little guys who will get screwed by the large distributors who have all the money and resources.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[machine321]

I find the Citation Needed Police annoying at times

[Citation Needed]

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[hey!]

We all know that "rampant" piracy is a myth.

The proper attitude of the intellectual property thief is passant reguardant .

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Sarten-X]

Meanwhile, those indie artists who actually WANT free distribution get screwed by the general assumption that all songs/movies are controlled by the RIAA/MPAA.

If an artist ever had a contract with a big label, that label will try to control their songs, permanently. It's happened before, and it will happen again. It doesn't matter what the details of the contract were. Somebody's going to make a poor design choice (possibly but deniably with intent), and say "For all these billion songs we published, start sending DMCA notices to Youtube users," and their automated system will do it. It doesn't matter that since that original (non-exclusive) contract, the song is now freely available. If they get caught, they say "Oops, sorry!" and pay no fine, and make no effort to prevent it from happening again. If they don't get caught, then it's another person who might pay them a $2000 settlement for music they don't own.

It's not even likely that tougher laws will prevent the recording labels from trampling your rights anyway. According to OSNews, each label has a list of songs they used without permission, such as for compilation albums and such. They say they're making an effort to track down the artists on that list, and that's good enough for them. They can claim that with such a huge number of songs to deal with, and so many contracts, such things fall through the cracks. They'll get sympathy from courts, and go on their merry way.

The system, especially when designed by big groups, screws over normal people.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[countertrolling]

If all our life support and entire infrastructure is entirely mechanized, why will we need jobs? Are we going to have to pay the machines?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Znork]

IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy.

IP is just various monopoly rights. See the former Soviet union on how well monopolies work. Monopolies are antithetical to an effective economy and thus will not be a foundation, but a burden.

it'll be up to our inventions and our software and our innovation in exporting ideas

Please. IP is mainly good for extracting resources out of an economy, it has nothing to do with 'exporting'. Implementing IP laws is a net loss for any economy, and most of the time (certainly in the case of the US), the monopoly rights will be held by foreign corporations.

The only way forward is to make western economies competitive again. Repealing at the very least copyright and patents would be a good start towards reestablishing a highly competitive free market and lowering the burden on western labour (thus reducing their price).

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[sopssa]

But those indie artists can already distribute free or do whatever they want with their music. If free distribution and viral marketing on the internet works so great, why aren't they doing it? It's not like the big labels have some right to your material before you make a contract with them. Until that you own the copyright and can do whatever you want with it. Already.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Cidolfas]

In theory, yes.

But the cost of fighting any of these mega-corps is so immense that, in effect, unless you're fighting somebody near your own weight class (in terms of available resources) you will lose, and likely never even get to see the verdict. Look at what Monsanto's done to agriculture in the last decade. If you don't pay to plant Monsanto's seed, they sue you into bankruptcy where you have to sell the farm to a Monsanto friend. It is defacto illegal to harvest seed from crops now, because though there is no law against it the people who used to make a living running the seed-collecting machines were sued for contributory infringement against Monsanto's genetic patents. It just costs too much for a person to defend against that. Especially since most corperations structure themselves in such a way that they don't own anything and use cashflow for everything, and the laws are written to that effect. Farmers have little cashflow and millions of dollars in assets (land, property) and therefore repeatedly get destroyed if they don't lay down and give a large cut of profits to Monsanto.

Your argument about the RIAA stealing an indie band's music and selling it on their own is crap. The laws that protect the RIAA don't cover that, and the indie bands can't afford the cost to use a DMCA-approved content protection system to trigger DMCA violations. Having music IP laws that allow for statuatory payments per performance and such is fine, but the erosion of fair use (though, historically, fair use as a legal concept has re-emerged more recently than not, and is being beat back down) is soley the RIAA powed by friends in Washington DC.

Other IPs vary, but more often than not it's the Monsantos that the laws are written for to protect, not the individual inventor.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[TheRaven64]

IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy

That's an assertion, not an argument. I'll agree that creativity and intellectual endeavour will be the foundation of any future economy. Whether these are best embodied, encouraged, and protected by a system that treats new ideas like tangible property or by some other mechanism is less obvious.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[vlad30]

Ip Laws in principle are not wrong but the length of time is. If my children and grand children can live off some IP I developed, They have little incentive to create on their own. Same goes for corporations

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[stonecypher]

Meanwhile, those indie artists who actually WANT free distribution get screwed by the general assumption that all songs/movies are controlled by the RIAA/MPAA.

When, and how? I can't name a single example of this ever actually happening.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Sarten-X]

But those indie artists can already distribute free or do whatever they want with their music.

I was referring to the ones who, for whatever reason, were with a label and have since returned to being independent. In practice, entering a contract with a label means they will try to own you, even after it's terminated, and even if it's not exclusive.

It's not like the big labels have some right to your material before you make a contract with them.

Note the second point I made. In practice, labels use whatever music they want, and MIGHT fulfill obligations later. If you sue, they can simply say "Oh, we were trying to find you, but couldn't. Hey, can we use your song for that album we released five years ago? No? Okay, we won't sell that album again. Sorry."

If you get any level of fame, the labels will try to take advantage of you, and you don't have much in the way of recourse. If you sue them, they can simply bring in the parade of high-priced lawyers, and you're stuck with what you can afford. The only way to have a chance would be to immediately sell out to another label with money, but they'd be in the RIAA too, so your suit would be dropped or settled for a trivial amount.

the only way for an indie artist to actually succeed is by playing the RIAA's game. Earn a tiny amount of fame on your own, get the attention of a big label, and sell your soul in a permanent exclusive contract. When that contract's expired, retire into oblivion and never produce music again. Be a good peon, and you might get some royalty checks now and then.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Sarten-X]

I couldn't find it when I wrote my post, but this is (I think) the instance I had in mind. There was also personal experience, when I got detected by my university's automatic system for sharing music from Jamendo. The detection system used lists from major labels, and the music was under a CC license that allowed sharing.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

If free distribution and viral marketing on the internet works so great, why aren't they doing it?

Because "they" are still living in the past.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[__aasqbs9791]

Actually that is a very good point. These people seem to think countries outside the US are all backwater dumps. Parts of them are (as are plenty of places here) but that doesn't mean they don't have some brilliant people. We will end up importing ideas as well as goods with things like ACTA. At least until our printing presses stop printing money.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[countertrolling]

Don't underestimate the power of your ISP. No internet for you!

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here - it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide from under it with a wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it personal. Do as much damage as you can. Get your message across. That way, you stand a better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous makes the difference, the ONLY difference in their eyes, between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life and that it's nothing personal. Well, fuck them. Make it personal."
- Quellcrist Falconer

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[icebraining]

You're going to have to pay the guy who owns the machines that produce what you want.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Implementing IP laws is a net loss for any economy

If that is so, then why do countries in the West with relatively strong IP laws have thriving markets for books, films, music, software, etc., while places like China where there isn't such strong protection for IP have a thriving thriving market for copied stuff that originated in the West?

Of course artificial monopolies created by IP laws are a net loss after the works have been made, where they deliberately restrict what would otherwise be cheap mass distribution of the works. If we repealed all copyright protection tomorrow, society would benefit enormously, for the next year or two. But this completely ignores the incentivisation aspect of our current IP systems, and what would happen five or ten or twenty years down the line.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

While your point is entirely fair and valid, I am still waiting for someone to propose a credible alternative to the principles of the current system (not to be confused with their current overweight implementation).

I know the old joke that the surest sign of intelligent life in space is that we don't know about it. However, in the real world, there is nothing in copyright law today that would prevent entrepreneurs in creative industries from adopting new business models that do not rely on copyright protection. If those models were more successful, they would therefore be a better incentive to create and share works, and businesses following them would be more profitable. That being the case, it is telling that in a forum like this, full of geeks with an interest in the subject, no-one seems to have heard of such alternative models taking over yet.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Form my observation if the US is going to rely on their national intelligence to support the economy, they are in BIG trouble!

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[brit74]

IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy.

IP is just various monopoly rights. See the former Soviet union on how well monopolies work. Monopolies are antithetical to an effective economy and thus will not be a foundation, but a burden.

Nah, you've got it wrong. Would you also say that Bruce Springsteen has a "monopoly" over sales of his concert tickets; monopolies are bad, therefore, everyone should be allowed to create and sell tickets to his concerts? Of course not. IP covers a whole lot of things - it includes trademarks (i.e. the right to exclusive use of a name). Do you think that Honda's "monopoly" over the name "Honda" constitutes some sort of unfair monopoly which degrades the economy? No. Do you think that open-source software has a right to put any restrictions on how people use their software (like whether or not to release the code, or sell it, or rename it)? Without the concept and enforcement of "intellectual property", then everyone should be allowed to to anything with it. What about a company coming along and taking a musician's songs or author's writing, packaging them up in a CD or book and selling them in stores? Without IP, that's perfectly okay. The fact of the matter is that without IP, it's pretty darn hard for creators to get paid for their work because it's all 100% public domain without IP laws. This idea about repealing copyright for a competitive marketplace is bizarrely out of touch with real-world economics, though I can certainly understand why it appeals to the freeloaders on the internet (who have much to gain by taking everything they can grab, but nothing to lose because they produce nothing for anyone to take). I really can't understand why Slashdot, of all places, seems to be so out of touch with economics in the real world.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

A credible alternative is the simple abolition of copyright and patent law. We don't need them. I don't care if you think it's credible or not, I'm working to make it happen with or without you.

(Plagiarism is another matter, more properly covered by fraud law).

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[megajason]

I'm not sure I agree with you totally, but...

The only way forward is to make western economies competitive again.

Right on. Leaning on IP isn't the way forward. We can't expect to be an entire nation full of "thinkers" with a "service economy" forever. You can't eat intellectual property. You can't live in it either. Ultimately we have to be able to create what we need or at least create what other people need.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Nefarious Wheel]

I wonder if anyone is designing a layered model of how economies are developing and devolving in today's world? There has to be some operating principle that models and plots the transition of a country's economy from agriculture -> industry -> services -> intellectual property, followed by -> broad disenfranchisement due to the imbalance between those who can provide the IP and those who cannot?

I bet there's some interesting math involved, not to mention a certain amount of heady scare.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[TheRaven64]

The model employed by successful Free Software projects and, indeed, 90% of all software written, seems to work well. Get someone to pay for that act of creating the work in the first place (which is hard), not for making copies (which is easy). Trying to find the difficult thing by charging for the easy thing doesn't make sense.

This is how TV shows are funded, for example. A group puts together a pilot at their own expense (or, sometimes, pitches a concept and gets funding for the pilot). The network then looks at the pilot and pays for it to be created if they think that they can make money selling advertising space. This model might actually (more or less) work even without copyright - you could still sell advertising space for the premiere even if people could copy and redistribute it immediately afterwards, if enough people wanted to watch it immediately.

More rationally, however, you could cut out the middle men. At the moment, to watch TV, you pay advertisers (with your time and - they hope - attention), advertisers pay networks and the networks pay studios who actually make the show. What if, instead of pitching the pilot to the networks, a studio put it online and allowed anyone to share it? Then, if you like it, you invest, say, $10 in the series. Once the series is made, they release it. If you like it, you pay $10 towards season 2, or towards the creators' next project. If the amount required for the project isn't reached within a fixed time period, the money is returned.

Obviously, it's in the interests of the existing group of middle men to ensure that people don't take this model seriously, and propagate the meme that copyright is the only way to fund the creation of ideas. In fact, it's a problematic model because you can only make money from copyright after publishing it, which means that the decision of what should be published is in the hands of the groups with a lot of spare capital.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Zarluk]

The RIAA's laws protect the indie artist FROM the RIAA more so than it protects the RIAA itself.

About indie artists, let me quote Frank Zappa, in a live performance of 'Tities and Beers':
"Don't talk to me about hell. I Know that, I've been there... remember I signed for United Artists for 8 fucking years!"

What indie artists are you talking about? Madonna?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[shentino]

I pirated Avatar.

I watched the AVI file.

I think the movie kicked ass.

I no longer feel shy about springing the bucks out when it hits the USA on DVD.

And this time, I get it crystal clear, with ENGLISH subtitles, and most likely, a few extra features.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Errol backfiring]

You never played in a band and got a song broadcasted, did you?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Znork]

The easiest and most simplified way to demonstrate the net loss in the production/incentive stage would be to equate IP laws with a tax/benefit scheme (from a macroeconomic point of view there isn't a significant difference). As such it becomes simply a matter of efficiency at accomplishing the goal, and at general efficiency levels of the IP industries with between 5-20% of funding going towards the goal they're even less efficient than most government schemes. IE, IP is a net loss even compared to outright funding the production with taxes and allowing free distribution.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[OrangeCatholic]

I have an even better idea than Znork.

IP is going to be the foundation of any future economy.

IP is just various monopoly rights. See the former Soviet union on how well monopolies work. Monopolies are antithetical to an effective economy and thus will not be a foundation, but a burden.

it'll be up to our inventions and our software and our innovation in exporting ideas

Please. IP is mainly good for extracting resources out of an economy, it has nothing to do with 'exporting'. Implementing IP laws is a net loss for any economy, and most of the time (certainly in the case of the US), the monopoly rights will be held by foreign corporations.

The only way forward is to make western economies competitive again. Repealing at the very least copyright and patents would be a good start towards reestablishing a highly competitive free market and lowering the burden on western labour (thus reducing their price).

I will not accept anything less than +4 Interesting for my contribution here.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's an interesting analogy, but I think it needs more explanation. For example, where do your key figures of 5–20% come from? And why is it appropriate to compare copyright-supported revenues (which are charged only to those who benefit from the work in question, when they buy their copy) with taxation (which would presumably be charged to everyone, whether or not they benefitted from any given work)?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Anonymous Coward]

right. I work my a$$ off to create something, and everyone else gets a free ride. That's going to encourage people to work? HA!

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[taoye]

Who do you think's going to maintain all those machines??

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Znork]

The purpose of an economy is to maximize (perceived) wealth within it; monopolies as a general rule result in lower total wealth generated than what the economy would generate without them (although they tend to create concentrations that may give the appearance of more wealth, as you don't note the smaller piles of wealth lost).

Concert places are in themselves limited, so selling more of them would not create more of them, and no extra wealth.

Trademarks are less damaging, especially in their use as identifiers. They're not without damage though, in the sense that they divert excessive amounts of funds into advertising rather than more wealth producing fields (advertisements are fairly overproduced due to the various regulations that overincentivize them).

Without IP, that's perfectly okay.

Sounds great. Lets do that.

The fact of the matter is that without IP, it's pretty darn hard for creators to get paid for their work

The fact of the matter is that with IP they're not getting paid much anyway, in fact, most get nothing. And beyond that they get to compete on a very tilted playing field and exposed to legal risks in their own work. Basically any funding method would be better for creators, because it's hard to find one that works as bad as IP. Personally I tend to argue for something similar to the mandatory radio licensing, but applicable to all copying and exacted as a percentage of gross revenue per copy, and handled like any other tax/benefit scheme (if we really feel that extra incentives are actually needed).

economics in the real world.

Sounds like you ought to read up on economics a bit. Economists such as von Mises and Hayek have criticised IP for the damage it causes to a free market economy, so outside the IP lobbyist groups it's certainly not as if copyright or other IP variants are accepted as a net gain for the economy.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[brit74]

Ah, looks like you're another Intellectual Property anarchist. Quite frankly, I put you into the same category as regular anarchists - also people who don't make any sense. You might be armed with lots of excuses why anarchy is the best system, but it still won't work.

Without IP, that's perfectly okay.
Sounds great. Lets do that.
So ... nobody gets paid except the distributor. Do you ever just stop and think about how crazy your scheme is?

The fact of the matter is that with IP they're not getting paid much anyway
Nice. I like the "let's make stuff up" method of argument.

Basically any funding method would be better for creators, because it's hard to find one that works as bad as IP.
Actually, I'd describe it more as "IP is the worst form of profiting from your work; except for all the others" -- kind of like the old Churchill Democracy quote.

Sounds like you ought to read up on economics a bit.
Ha. You're funny.

If you're wondering why I'm not giving you more serious consideration and response to your idea, it's because your idea is so stunningly bad that it doesn't even warrant a response. It's like arguing with David Icke. You've already established yourself as being so far from reasonable that it's not even worth someone's time to try to use reason with you. Seriously, how did you even get to this level of unreasonableness?

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[countertrolling]

The machines themselves. They will do everything we want them to. If not for the politics, we would be much further along.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[stonecypher]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law; as the article clearly explains, no part of copyright law in involved in that. That's an internet company overwhelmed by piracy that doesn't want the hassle of being some minor artist's personal defender, and a record label behaving poorly.

Re:Wild West Internet will be gone

[Sarten-X]

Would you mind pointing out where it "clearly explains" it doesn't involve copyright law? To me, it looks like Warner Music is blatantly abusing copyright law to pressure a third party into catering to them.

Warner Music were claiming the song as their own and MySpace bought into it without even checking.

That looks like a fraudulent claim right there, but it's not, since it wasn't made in an "official" manner. Not that it particularly matters, mind you, since under the current state of the law, "copyright holders" (henceforth known as attackers), whether or not they actually own the copyright to an item, can claim practically anything they want, and it doesn't cost them a thing. Should the defender put up a fight, they have more than enough money to run the defendant into the ground financially.

It could have been worse...

[Third Position]

...at least he's not a Republican!

Re:It could have been worse...

[armanox]

I fail to see how Democrats and Republicans differ on the matter. Both support large government at the expense of your rights.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because the republican party is sooo much better. Also your sig... sieg heil Germany

Re:It could have been worse...

[Third Position]

That was the point. Apparently someone can't take a joke.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

...at least he's not a Republican!

Nicely put. But this forum is overrun by one of the most disgusting forms of near-sentient fecal matter (right-wing trolls), so we can expect a quick rise to the basement.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You also fail to spot an obvious joke, while spouting libertarian talking points at the same time. Both are symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome.

Re:It could have been worse...

[betterunixthanunix]

I know that you are joking, but in all seriousness, that is how a lot of people seem to have viewed Obama -- not on the actual issues, or the sort of people surrounding him (Biden...) or their views, but just on his party affiliation and skin color. It is a sad day for democracy when voters stop caring about the issues; it seems that day has already come to pass, and all we can hope for is a great awakening (but I won't hold my breath).

Re:It could have been worse...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I don't have the right to mass reproduce Iron Man 2 and sell them for 5 bucks a pop in the middle of Shanghai.

I get this feeling we're all getting our panties in a bunch over nothing.

Re:It could have been worse...

[RightwingNutjob]

Start a third party. Yeah, it's hard, but guess what, freedom is hard. .

Re:It could have been worse...

[hey!]

Let me explain the difference: The Democrats pretend this is good for you. The Republicans pretend what is good of their corporate masters is good for you.

Re:It could have been worse...

[teknomage1]

Don't you see? This is a brilliant strategy. By coming out in favor of ACTA, the Republicans now have to rail against ACTA for destroying America's freedom. Then Obama can "concede to political pressures" on the issue and ACTA is withdrawn, thus protecting America from this crap for another 4 years. It's pure genius.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats pretend to be on our side while they're running a campaign, while Republicans just come out and say "Unless you've got a billion dollars stashed away somewhere, I don't give a shit about you."

Re:It could have been worse...

[rattaroaz]

What's with the commentary. Aren't you supposed to do a whooshing sound, or am I on the wrong forum?

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how Democrats and Republicans differ on the matter. Both support large corporations at the expense of your rights.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...at least he's not a Republican!

Yet...

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

[Democrats and Republicans] support large government at the expense of your rights.

As far as Republicans go, this only applies to RINOs

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. These "rights" you speak of... Who creates the environment for them and has the capacity to protect them? The government, perhaps?

Re:It could have been worse...

[FriendlyPrimate]

I fail to see how Democrats and Republicans differ on the matter. Both support large government at the expense of your rights.

The Democrats are slightly less hypocritical about it.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. However, the recent Republicans really aren't Republicans anymore. At least not how I define them. They have drifted far from the values of small government, low taxes (like JFK), personal responsibility, etc. of years ago. The entire system has drifted left and "progressively" moving away from the Constitution. Really sad.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Al's Hat]

There sure are a lot of RINOs out there.

Re:It could have been worse...

[richlv]

an ex-ussr european here. do the two parties in usa _actually_ differ ?

one seems to be a communist part no. 1, and it is pushing for more milk to workers in dangerous conditions.

second one is a communist party no. 2 and advocates increasing the wine dosage for those who donate blood.

and they are identical in every other way.

Re:It could have been worse...

[martin-boundary]

Both support large government at the expense of your rights.

That's true. But the Republicans will bomb small countries while doing so.

Re:It could have been worse...

[hedwards]

It's completely, completely different. Democrats support imposing stiff penalties on infringement because it's supported by the media companies. Republicans support it because it's basically anti-American and corporatist.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

They dont. both are equally as scummy and corrupt.

It does not matter what color scarf they wear, they do what their campaign contributors tell them to do.

The Dems have been highly screw-the-public for the corporate overlords over copyright forever. Only the past few presidents did the republicans realize they can get even more money by backing it. Sonny Bono was their crowning achievement and victory for corporations over citizens. The Democrats tried really hard with Orrin Hach to match the damage done by Bono to society.

This is reality. All politicians are scumbags. This is a universal fact seen all over the globe.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Philip_the_physicist]

A sufficiently high-altitude "woosh" is equivalent to the wind whistling inside the person's empty skull.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

They have different mascots and each has their own set of fans whose primary distinguishing characteristic is hating the other side's fans.

Re:It could have been worse...

[ravenshrike]

You expect Obama to concede he's wrong on something? At this point he's quintupled down on health insurance reform, even though win or lose it's going to end up fucking the Democrat party up the ass come November. Difference is, if it doesn't pass at least the dems'll get lube.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how Democrats and Republicans differ on the matter. Both support large government at the expense of your rights.

Woah, holy shit, have you not even read the news the past year? Or even the past nine years?

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, JFK was a Democrat.

And the America that's drifting 'leftward'? In some alternate universe, maybe.

'Values of small government' = neocon code for 'let big guys beat up on little guys and get away with it'.

'Personal responsibility' = neocon code for 'let anyone who's facing adversity and is unfortunate enough not to be rich just suffer; if they're rich, give them a nice big bailout at taxpayer expense'

Speaking of taxes.. come live in Sweden for a couple of years, THEN bitch about taxes.

Now fuck off and crawl back under your rock.

Re:It could have been worse...

[phantomfive]

The parties are mostly the same because Americans have a lot more in common with each other than we have different. Each party tries to make itself appealing to the largest number of voters. They've both long since forgotten what ideology they were founded on (if they hadn't, they would have disappeared when the issue they cared about got resolved, much like the populist party).

Re:It could have been worse...

[that this is not und]

And Clinton bombed a small country while trying to distract everybody from his sexual harassment practices.

Re:It could have been worse...

[ArsonSmith]

"more" i think is the word you wanted. Suppose to be for the little guy?? more like for screwing the little guy. At least the republicans come right out and say we're for the business/corporate overloads.

Re:It could have been worse...

[bitbucketeer]

Look at a Nolan chart... it's really not left or right that matters, it's the up and down directions that are the most important.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Copyright our blood abroad...

Re:It could have been worse...

[u38cg]

Voters have never cared about issues, and really, it's not that important that they do. The range and complexity of tasks a government undertakes is far too broad for one citizen to make an informed judgement on, and the nature of voting systems is such that not all votes are equal anyway (Arrow's paradox and so forth). The real point of democracy is it allows the populace to remove the government as and when it wishes. If you stop and think for a second, that's quite something - you run the largest economy in the world, 300 million people, you have armies at your command and a flotilla of support staff - and when the electorate turfs you out, you go quietly.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how Democrats and Republicans differ on the matter. Both support large government at the expense of your rights.

Democrats want to take your money and give it to the poor.
Republicans want to take your money and give it to the Filthy Rich.

It's communism or fascism. Take your pick.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pro skub.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Jhon]

Hmmm. These "rights" you speak of... Who creates the environment for them and has the capacity to protect them? The government, perhaps?

Um... you got that backwards:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

And should a government fail to protect these rights:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I'm just sayin'.

Re:It could have been worse...

[mcgrew]

They both support the foreigm multinational corporations and ignore the American citizens. The only difference is when two corporations are at odds; then it may be that one party supports one foreign corporation and the other party supports the other foreign corporation.

Th SCOTUS has decreed that corporations are people, but that doesn't mean they're Americans. If a single stockholder is a foreigner, it's a foreign corporation.

When is Sony going to take its test an become a US citizen (of course they have to deny their Japanese citizenship)? Or even partly government owned GM, who has foreign stockholders?

Re:It could have been worse...

[hduff]

and they are identical in every other way.

One party has better representation on talk radio and cable "news".

Re:It could have been worse...

[hduff]

It's completely, completely different. Democrats support imposing stiff penalties on infringement because it's supported by the media companies. Republicans support it because it's basically anti-American and corporatist.

We are screwed wither way, so no effective difference. The industries who want these controls have purchased enough politicians to make it happen.

Re:It could have been worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same thing!

Not Trolling ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... I'm just asking:

What would we expect from any President? Pick anyone from the last batch, or even the next batch, of candidates. Do you think any one of them wouldn't back big business in this situation?

Re:Not Trolling ...

[justinjstark]

I would have much more faith in a third party member or somebody like Kucinich. And as much as I dislike some of Ron Paul's religiously motivated politics, you can't tell me that he would even think about supporting ACTA.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being reasonable. The right-wing mouth-breathers are out to subvert democracy, suppress free speech, prevent progress and impugn Obama wherever possible. That includes this forum.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

Fair enough - both of them probably would have fought for the American consumer. It's a shame that only two could realistically be suggested to defend the citizens over the corporations. And these two candidates are outliers on our political landscape.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only liberals are allowed to complain about their leaders, is that right? Remember just a couple of short years ago when the liberal talking point was that dissent was the highest form of patriotism? I do. Grow the fuck up, you fucking douchebag.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[sonicmerlin]

Dissent IS a form of patriotism. But misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction is NOT.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Jenming]

Gold standard...

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like a form of protectionism, for the US economy, but the whole media business model became flawed when the internet appeared, so I expect it will just be a huge drain instead. Either way xxAA et company wins.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[countertrolling]

...you can't tell me that he would even think about supporting ACTA.

They would all get the same offer, either their signature or their brains will be on the contract.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

Dissent IS a form of patriotism. But misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction is NOT.

I see, so you've only got a problem with dissent you disagree with and/or uses facts or logic that makes your point of view look untenable and/or is in *your opinion* "misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction"?

What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree? Or is that protection only for Progressives & others on the Left with the "correct" views & opinions?

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's obstructing? Democrats control Congress and the White House. Or have you not been paying attention? Who's fault is it that your President couldn't sell a fucking life raft to a drowning man, and that Democrats in Congress are so divided that they couldn't agree on if it is night or day?

The fact that you can't even comprehend that two different people with two completely different upbringings and experiences might have ideological differences is glaring proof of your blind partisanship and your intellectual inferiority. Try getting your talking points from somewhere besides the PuffPo or the Daily Kook for a change.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Improv]

Kucinich or Nader would probably not have supported ACTA, but unfortunately they're fringe politicians (as is Ron Paul, whose views I usually strongly dislike). Intellectual Property is unfortunately a sacred cow in American politics (and in any country that's part of the Washington consensus).

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only liberals are allowed to complain about their leaders, is that right?

Of course not, But only intelligent people should do so.

Remember just a couple of short years ago when the liberal talking point was that dissent was the highest form of patriotism?

Apparently your memory is faulty. A few years ago, Il Duce 43 (without the brains) was driving this country into the ground and unending war. Any sane patriot could articulate the disgusting direction in which he had taken this country (as did some from the right), not just us liberals.

The fact that you responded as you did implies that you consider yourself the subject of my comment (right-wing mouth-breathers). Therefore your reply is simply fulfilling the anti-democratic objective that I had outlined.

I do. Grow the fuck up, you fucking douchebag.

Ouch. Who wrote that line for you? The "sleeps with his sister in a trailer park" level of eloquence seems well above your comprehension level.

In response, I'd like to say: please fuck off and for the sake of the future of the human race, never vote and never reproduce. There are too many brain-dead dipshits already.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

so you've only got a problem with dissent you disagree with and/or uses facts or logic that makes your point of view look untenable and/or is in *your opinion* "misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction"?

No, he's only got a problem with misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction. Didn't you read his post?

What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree? Or is that protection only for Progressives & others on the Left with the "correct" views & opinions?

Good job pulling that one out of nowhere.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Spewns]

Only liberals are allowed to complain about their leaders, is that right?

As long as the other crazies do nothing but walk around with picket signs of Heith Ledger's face as the Joker with a Hitler mustache painted on it, yes.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's obstructing?

The Republicans are. Just because democrats are spineless jackasses who can't agree on anything, doesn't mean Republicans aren't going out of their way to obstruct bills which they would have supported in a heartbeat if they were penned by a fellow Republican.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Dalambertian]

... I'm just asking: What would we expect from any President? Pick anyone from the last batch, or even the next batch, of candidates. Do you think any one of them wouldn't back big business in this situation?

Ron Paul?

Re:Not Trolling ...

[nurb432]

If they don't, their political career is over.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[nedlohs]

And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?

And unsurprisingly it's the stuff he doesn't agree with.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dkleinsc]

3 candidates I can think of off the top of my head that would have not taken this kind of stand in favor of big business:
- Ralph Nader, because he's built his entire career on going after corporate chicanery.
- Ron Paul, because he as a general rule doesn't want the federal government to either support or oppose a particular industry or business model.
- Dennis Kucinich, because he's consistently advocated the use of government power to put a check on big business's abuses of their power going back to his days as mayor of Cleveland.

Notice how seriously anyone in the mainstream media took either of their campaigns (for instance, asking Kucinich about UFOs rather than health care or Iraq).

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?

No, that much is fairly common knowledge among the sane.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[eventhorizon5]

As long as the other crazies do nothing but walk around with picket signs of Heith Ledger's face as the Joker with a Hitler mustache painted on it, yes.

Those "other crazies" you're referring to are part of the psychotic LaRouche PAC, which is actually a leftist organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_touch_of_teh_crazee.jpg

"(LPAC)— Advocates for a single-payer health care system are on an organizing drive across the country to try to get single-payer into the debate on health care reform. The LaRouche movement supports single-payer, but nothing will happen on it until the Obama Administration's Nazi health care policy is defeated and the HMOs are defeated." (http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10437)

-eventhorizon

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph Nader wouldn't have.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Philip_the_physicist]

He wouldn't be able to get that done inside 2 terms without a lot of luck and support on the Hill. It doesn't really matter what he says about it, it isn't going to be anything more than a pipe dream

Re:Not Trolling ...

[ravenshrike]

Sarah Palin. The only remotely realistic candidate for prez with a history of actually kicking the crap out of corp/gov corruption.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suspect representative Ron Paul(republican,but no one wants to claim him) from Texas would oppose this legislation.

yes I really do.

that's all. stop reading. go away.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?

No, that much is fairly common knowledge among the sane.

Who exactly are these ideally "sane" people about whom you speak? Do they happen to be people that [gasp!] generally agree with you?**/the poster politically & ideologically, and share common cultural viewpoints?

Are those on the Left and in the Progressive movement now publicly of the general opinion that engaging in the business of declaring people that non-violently disagree with their ideological & political points of view "insane" as they do in certain countries to political dissidents and troublemakers is OK because they're disagreeing with *you*?

Strat

**I'm not certain if you share ideologies and/or political viewpoints with the OP or not from your post, so only conditionally include you. If you don't, then of course I'm not including you.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[tirefire]

Really? Can you elaborate on that? Everything I've heard about Sarah Palin up until now has disgusted me, but if what you say is true, I just might want to vote for her (in primaries or general election, whatever) in 2012.

After all, Joe Biden used to be a "Drug Czar". Any ticket with Joe Biden on it is instant fail in my book.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly are these ideally "sane" people about whom you speak?

The ones who can recognize incredibly blatant misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction for what it is, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right. This isn't about ideology, this is black-and-white: you can "disagree," but in doing so you would be wrong. This is pretty well agreed upon by the sane people of either political leaning.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[sonicmerlin]

If you are willing to calmly debate with someone who disagrees with you, then your dissent is warranted. But if you go around screaming "Healthcare is going to kill your grandma!" or "Obama's setting up death panels!", then we have a problem.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[sonicmerlin]

Are you...joking? I can't tell if I should be double-taking or laughing.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you realize you proved his every point in your post you hubristic fuck.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Vectormatic]

Joe Biden used to be a "Drug Czar"

Over here we just call them Drug Lords, you crazy americans with your russian words..

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dangitman]

What about protecting free speech, and especially that speech with which you disagree?

When did the poster you were responding to ever claim that it shouldn't be protected free speech? All he said is that it wasn't patriotic.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

If you are willing to calmly debate with someone who disagrees with you, then your dissent is warranted. But if you go around screaming "Healthcare is going to kill your grandma!" or "Obama's setting up death panels!", then we have a problem.

If the allegations are untrue, simply prove them wrong. Unless of course they're essentially accurate in the end-effect parts of the healthcare bill might have. Then you're just engaging in disingenuous distraction by attempting to label those people as nutcases.

This seems to be a popular tactic of late when politicians and others want to ignore the wishes of the majority of people. Right out of Saul Alinky's "Rules For Radicals"; "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" and also; "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."

Once you've read Saul Alinsky and Cloward & Piven, a lot of things the Progressives say and do that wouldn't otherwise make sense suddenly do.

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[rpillala]

It's still protected and worth protecting. It's just not anyone's patriotic duty to spread FUD etc.

Opponents of "political correctness" want to be able to say anything, but don't want others to be able to call them on it.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[sonicmerlin]

Really? You think Republicans were simply mincing on words and in fact arguing that the "end effects" of the bill would result in death panels? Are you seriously that crazy? Where in god's name in the health bill does it say death panels will be set up, or Grandma is going to die at the hands of the government? It's up to the perpetrators of the claim to prove themselves.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL @ "4, Insightful".

Not that there's anything wrong with your comment, but anyone who sees "insight" in it is a fucking moron.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[twostix]

As soon as Obama was inaugurated the 24/7 American Patriot Dissent Machine renamed itself as the 24/7 American Obama Patriot Machine.

Any dissent which days before was front and center on every blog, newspaper, cable news outlet, protest headquarters, faculty meeting, etc effective immediately became vile racist treachery and that had to be denounced if uttered in relation to Obama.

Many moderate supporters of Obama such as myself were bitten by this turn around. Opinions and views that just weeks earlier had been "metro and cool" when Bush was president were suddenly cause for outrage, mocking and hyperbole if aired now that Obama was president. Where we were recently (according to our "betters") the educated and sophisticated "independents", we suddenly were finding ourselves as a group being denounced from the very same media for simply daring to air the same uncertainties that were so popular to talk about under the last administration.

And so a new generation of everyman has learned a sharp lesson about the "cool" metro left, a lesson last learned in the late 70's:

Don't trust them as far as you can throw them. For despite the front of being "tolerant" and "compassionate" and "inclusive", in reality they are absolutely ruthless. They make the likes of Karl Rove and the Freepers and Fox News look like tame puppies in comparison. One needs only look at the locked down, utterly bizarre world of the average University Campus to see a microsim of the outcome of the progressive lefts policies.

And this "moderate" who got many a +5 insightful on this site in the lead up to the election arguing for Obama, will *never* fall for the siren song of progressive left should it ever arise again.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[mcgrew]

Notice how seriously anyone in the mainstream media took either of their campaigns

Notice how in the last election there were five parties with Presidentia candidates on the ballot in enough states to have a methematical chance of winning the election, yet the MSM only mentioned two of the parties, and three were even shut out of the debates?

The media are owned by the corporations, and they don't want you to know about the Constitution party, the Socialist party, or the Libertarian party, let alone any of the other parties.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[taoye]

We shouldn't have to rely on fringe nutjobs to get good governance. Alas...

Re:Not Trolling ...

[IndustrialComplex]

Over here we just call them Drug Lords, you crazy americans with your russian words..

With a latin root no less. ;)

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. Well said, well put, and I am completely empathic, having also been burned by the Progressive vitriol.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[MarkGriz]

And how has that stance worked out for them?

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Xest]

Yes, even Ron Paul.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dkleinsc]

Both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich continue to represent their congressional districts.

Kucinich (who I know more about because I'm in his district) has beaten several credible and well-funded challengers easily. Oh, plus he was able to snag a truly gorgeous and intelligent wife (pic). So at least personally, he's making good money as a Congressman and sleeping with a hot redhead. One could do a lot worse.

Politically, he's most recently made headlines for refusing to vote for health care reform that requires all citizens to buy from a government-controlled list of privately owned businesses. He's gotten enough support in the House that he could well stop Obamacare from going through the way that the "centrist" Democrats want it.

So yeah, that stance isn't too bad for 'em.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We shouldn't have to rely on fringe nutjobs to get good governance. Alas...

It would be more accurate to say that good governance is on the edge of the fringe. Alas indeed...

Re:Not Trolling ...

[IndustrialComplex]

It's up to the perpetrators of the claim to prove themselves.

And it is up to you to bring this debate to the perpetrators of the claim, and not use 'Them' as a strawman when debating other people and issues.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[MarkGriz]

Sure, they may be fine politicians in the congressional districts.

But the OP asked "what would we expect from ANY President", and since all 3 candidates you mentioned failed repeatedly to become President, I'd posit that their stance has served them poorly in that regard.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly support such a stance. I just happen to think that an anti-business stance doesn't serve one well who wants to be President

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly are these ideally "sane" people about whom you speak?

The ones who can recognize incredibly blatant misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction for what it is, regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right.

Circular Logic Powers ACTIVATE!

Re:Not Trolling ...

[IMightB]

I keep telling people that go off into death-panel hysterics. Look, we already HAVE death panels, except that they're private. Personally, I'd rather have public non-profit death panels than private for-profit ones.

I think that it's pretty unfair for anyone to expect no limits on health insurance. I mean what would YOU decide if you were being given the decision to spend 1M to give someone an extras 30 days but they're going to die anyway, or you can spend the 1M and actually SAVE lives.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[IMightB]

Also, the correct decision is NOT spend the 1M twice and call it a day.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

I keep telling people that go off into death-panel hysterics. Look, we already HAVE death panels, except that they're private. Personally, I'd rather have public non-profit death panels than private for-profit ones.

The problem with the public non-profit "death panels" as compared to private insurance denials of coverage is that with private insurance and care, if you're denied coverage you have the option to either shop around for alternate coverage or simply go into debt yourself and obtain the treatment you need.

With a government-mandated public healthcare system, if the government refuses to treat you, you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit, has the costs paid by taxes, and doesn't have to deal with the same regulatory compliance costs.

I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.

This whole thing isn't about healthcare, costs, debt, or insurance. It never was. It's about control over people's lives, finances, and lifestyles.

This radical expansion of government power will allow government to regulate every aspect of life. Nearly everything has some effect on health, and as we've seen with the regulatory creep that's happened with the Interstate Commerce Clause, they wouldn't need to stretch much to claim regulatory power over just about anything they desire.

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've created your own fantasy world, but the fact you feel like this about me and my friends makes me happy. It's like we're powerful super villains! Mahahahah!!!

Re:Not Trolling ...

[KarmaOverDogma]

I understand you have strong and sincere feelings about the parent posting, but I feel it's unfair to frame the poster's comments as construing his wanting to be judge and jury on what constitutes patriotic dissent.

People who deliberately spread unprove-able smear campaigns saying, like GWBush ditched his military service with the air national guard, or that Obama wasn't born a citizen on US soil are being irresponsible hate mongers, in my opinion. Is their speech protected? Absolutelty. Is is promoting responsible public discourse? No. Is it "patriotic?" *I* don't think so (although supporting their constitutional right to say it IS).

SCOTUS has a series of rulings on what is considered to be protected speech and I wont debate that here (I agree with most of what they say, not that my opinion makes a whole lot of difference there).

I'm fairly sure the GP has a problem with anything he considers to be "misinformed fear-mongering, blatantly FUD-spreading speculation, and purposeful yet meaningless obstruction..." and so do I. I'm also sure you can cite numerous examples of lies and misinformation about those on the right (like tea partiers, for example) and you would not consider this to be "patriotic."

I'm willing to be he considered the following to be "patriotic" dissent:

1) non-violent Vietnam protests
2) non-violent Civil rights protests (many were violent because police simply beat/water hosed, or - in the case of Kent State, SHOT the protesters)
3) loudly proclaiming, via social media, opposition to lies about public figures on the left or right and/or the causes they support.

The problem, as you allude to, lies in what would ultimately follow from trying to regulate speech on it's ethical merits (or lack thereof)

As I see it, your argument is a red herring, because the GP never suggested this. I believe he was talking about passing his own personal judgment on what *he* thinks is *patriotic* dissent and how people should engage in rational, civil discourse on matters they disagree with. You may not agree with his doing this, but he still has the right to do it. I support his right to do this.

And I support your right to strongly and loudly disagree with him.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

The problem, as you allude to, lies in what would ultimately follow from trying to regulate speech on it's ethical merits (or lack thereof)

As I see it, your argument is a red herring, because the GP never suggested this.

I did not accuse him, either. I asked questions with the question-mark punctuation and everything. I was curious if he, as from his posts he seemingly shares a great many political and ideological beliefs with the Progressives who *do and have* advocated restricting speech with which they disagree, shared those views on speech also. I thought that in light of his post, they were reasonable questions.

Anyone has the legal right to say anything within the very minimal restrictions laid out by the SCOTUS. They may get sued if they create a tort in doing so, but that is civil between two private entities. I and most Americans, and it seems you as well, share a special disgust for those who would stifle opposing viewpoints for tactical & strategic political & ideological reasons.

I don't care who does it, what party, religion/no religion, or ideology they believe in. Suppression of speech...particularly religious, ideological, and political discourse...is wrong and against the freedoms this country was founded to protect for ourselves and future generations.

Freedom isn't free, neither in terms of battling foreign threats, nor the domestic battle of ideas against those who would take our rights and freedoms away to empower their political/ideological agendas. These ideas must be confronted and exposed to daylight rather than allowed to fester unopposed & undiscussed in the shadows. They must be confronted without fear whenever, wherever, and by whomever these ideas may surface.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance both without and within.

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Three jokes that have one thing in common: they are totally and utterly unelectable. Thank God.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dylan_-]

you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit,

There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.

I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.

Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit,

There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.

        I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.

Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.

The UK!==USA.

We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different societies and forms of government, as well as completely different economic structures. It's just not a valid comparison. Besides, the USA has the medical care the world comes to when they want the best.

There are problems, yes. These problems can be addressed without a complete restructuring and socialization of the entire system. This is but a stalking horse for moving the US closer to a socialistic/fascistic system of government, meanwhile lining the pockets of politicians and their masters at the cost of economic servitude for future generations as the nation is plunged even further into debt that dwarfs anything any nation has done to itself in all of history.

Even if one were to grant that a restructuring was needed, the bills proposed so far do not do the job. The bills proposed so far are nothing but political paybacks and payoffs with short shrift given to actually improving *care & cost*, meanwhile plunging the nation further down an unsustainable abyss of debt.

We as a nation are already on the verge of economic disaster & collapse. Spending a trillion-plus on a plan consisting mostly of payoffs, paybacks, political favors, and a raw government power-grab serves only those in power and those who wish to see the current capitalistic economic system and democratic representative republic governmental system replaced.

No.

Not even if I have to go hang the arrogant, corrupt, power-hungry SOBs myself from the tress along the Mall in D.C., and I won't be alone. It's about time for our government to return to fearing it's citizens as the founders intended, not the other way around.

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

from the tress along the Mall in D.C.

Gah! *Trees*!

I even previewed too. :-|

Re:Not Trolling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul would not back big business, or Fed, or military. I am glad he did not win the election, for he would have been shot dead in the first week of presidency.

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dylan_-]

The UK!==USA.

We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different societies and forms of government, as well as completely different economic structures. It's just not a valid comparison.

Then compare with Australia...or France...or Germany...or...what, there's not a single country in the world that you can learn from? The USA isn't *that* unique.

Besides, the USA has the medical care the world comes to when they want the best.

Yeah, if they aren't going to London, or a private clinic in Switzerland...well done, ordinary Americans subsidize healthcare for super-rich foreigners. Shame they can't get the same treatment for themselves.

This is but a stalking horse for moving the US closer to a socialistic/fascistic system of government

Socialism and Fascism are polar opposites: you can't be moving towards both at the same time!

Why is it that you can't pick up an example from some other country on the planet and fix your extreme healthcare spending problems?

Re:Not Trolling ...

[BlueStrat]

Socialism and Fascism are polar opposites: you can't be moving towards both at the same time!

No, they are two sides of a non-monarchy totalitarian government. The real scale runs from total anarchy to total government control. Socialism and Fascism are near the extreme of the scale towards "total government control". A very imprecise working definition could be; Socialism is where the government is in charge of business, and Fascism is where business is in charge of government. I know this is all very simplistic, but this is a /. post.

Then compare with Australia...or France...or Germany...or...what, there's not a single country in the world that you can learn from? The USA isn't *that* unique.

Most of Europe for most of history has been ruled by Monarchies, but in more recent times has teetered between Socialism and Fascism. All three types share the characteristic that the government grants rights to the people that in default state they don't have as the government has all power, and they may be rescinded.

In the US (theoretically) the people grant powers & surrender rights they naturally already posses to the government conditional on the government obeying the will of the people and may be rescinded by the people.

The difference in the direction of the granting of rights & powers is totally opposite of every other government on the planet. This why the US would have a very difficult time implementing a universal healthcare system, as such a system would necessarily require government to take powers for itself that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government.

This totally opposite framing of where rights originate and who grants powers to whom is why many solutions that other countries implement could not work here. At least not without a total transformation of our form of government.

Maybe some would favor a fundamental change in how the US government works, but I don't feel universal healthcare is worth scrapping large sections of the Constitution. Particularly when all the complaints about the current healthcare system can be addressed without it.

There have been a number of other solutions proposed to fix the problem areas, but Democrats controlled by the Progressives won't allow that. The healthcare bills proposed by the Democrats have nothing to do with lowering costs, improving health, or (ha!) reducing/slowing the national debt or even reducing taxes as every bill proposed so far would cause the exact opposite outcome from the claims made.

The goal of the healthcare bills proposed by the Progressive-controlled Democrat majority has been an expansion of the size, scope, invasiveness, and power of government over the people. Progressives want to "progress" *past* the Constitution and it's limits on government power to a utopia where the government takes care of people from cradle to grave, and so therefore has power over every aspect of life from cradle to grave. This I will not allow to happen in my country while I live, and I am not alone.

Strat

Re:Not Trolling ...

[dylan_-]

All three types share the characteristic that the government grants rights to the people that in default state they don't have as the government has all power, and they may be rescinded.

This is mostly wrong. In England, it's true that sovereignty rests with the monarch, but as far back as 1320, the Declaration of Arbroath established that in Scotland sovereignty rested with the people and was granted to the monarch. Similarly it is granted to the government now. The French revolution (circa 1789) established the right of the French people to govern themselves and was hugely influential on the development of the USA.

"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: The Texas schoolboard mandates that textbooks 'de-emphasise' the RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT that Hollywood was founded on industrialised copyright infringement.

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering both Hollywood and the government are run by a bunch of jews, what did you expect?

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Next up: The Texas schoolboard mandates that textbooks 'de-emphasise' the RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT that Hollywood was founded on industrialised copyright infringement.

For people wondering about the context here. See Motion Picture Patents Company :

"Since the 1890s, Thomas Edison owned most of the major American patents relating to motion picture cameras.Since 1902, Edison had also been notifying distributors and exhibitors that if they did not use Edison machines and films exclusively, they would be subject to litigation for supporting filmmaking that infringed Edison’s patents.

[...]

Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to Hollywood, whose distance from Edison’s home base of New Jersey made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and covers the area, was averse to enforcing patent claims."

Via.

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parse error, cannot assign const std::string to const std::string, did you mean to use == ?

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[westlake]

Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to Hollywood, whose distance from Edison's home base of New Jersey made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents.

This has the flavor of legend.

Three decades earlier Hollywood had been chosen by the emergent film industry for more than just a balmy climate and abundant sunshine. Within a day's drive from Los Angeles was an astonishing variety of topography. Hitchcock found on a production-office wall a map of California that marked where within the state could be found the Blue Nile, the Swiss Alps, the sands of the Sahara, Sherwood Forest, the rugged coast of Spain, the Siberian snows, the Red Sea, the South African veldt, to say nothing of the mighty Mississippi, the cattle ranches of Wyoming, the horse pastures of Kentucky, and the mountain forests of Vermont.

Perhaps the most memorable sequence in...all of Hitchcock's films--is the attempt by a bogus crop-duster to kill Cary Grant on an open prairie in Indiana. The Midwest state could hardly have looked so parched, but then the sequence was filmed near Bakersfield, California, in the sunbaked Central Valley.

Hitchcock on Location

 

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[CodeBuster]

Hollywood was founded on industrialised copyright infringement.

It was actually patent infringement, but your point is well taken; It is indeed ironic than an industry dependent upon copyright as a legal protection against infringement was founded by infringing upon Edison's motion picture camera patents. Of course, Hollywood will argue that the statue of limitations on such violations has long since expired; even if that doesn't exactly inspire admiration for their stated principles (i.e. they still look like hypocrites).

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[countertrolling]

RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT...

Has been copyrighted, and Texas couldn't afford to pay the royalties.

Re:"Single greatest" = "sole remaining" amirite?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Edison is given a lot of credit for inventing, truth is he ran the business just like a lot like a lot of modern companies. So rather than actually inventing something, he'd buy out somebody elses invention and take the credit. The real father of embrace and extinguish, if you care to look at it that way. (And most people think the Tesla story had some glaring revelations about Edison.)

For instance, did you know that the original Edison cameras and projectors only had friction feed and tended to bind up and malfunction often? So Edison's company ends up buying out Edward H. Amet's Magniscope such that he could acquire the 35mm film format and the all-important sprocket feed that has been pretty much used ever since. (If you hunt hard enough, you can find an old history book or two or even the pre-buyout patent description.) And I'm sure there's quite a few other camera innovators from that era which were acquisitions. (They paid well though. A hundred thousand or so back then is like a million today, but that was still peanuts to Edison's company. Also just like large companies today, they bullied with thier other patent holdings. It was just easier to accept the buyout and move on.) But in the end, just like modern large corporations - Edison ends up controlling all the important patents that affect the market and having an effective monopoly. Today we see the same kind of thing with how DVD formats, codecs, and DRM schemes are handled.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to drop you obama in the toilet, retard.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

The late, great Frank Zappa had something to say about president Obama:

A foolish young man of the Negro Persuasion
Devoted his life to become a Caucasian
He stopped eating pork, he stopped eating greens
He traded his dashiki for some Jordache Jeans
He learned to play golf, and he got a good score
Now he says to himself,
"I ain't no NIGGER no more."

American people: "I don't understand you, would you please speak more clearly..."
Barack Hussein Obama: "Mer-ce-deeez BEENNNNNNNNNZ!"

I said it before

[DigiShaman]

National Security folks. National Security. Gotta keep that GDP up for increased tax revenue. At least, so they think.

Fuck you Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

You son of a bitch. I can't believe I voted for you. You asshole.

Re:Fuck you Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe anyone who can read and who isn't black with a victim-hood mentality would vote for Obama to run so much as a lemonade stand. What part of his past did you miss out on? His radical leftist associations, his shady real-estate dealings with convicted felon and slumlord Tony Rezko, or his bemoaning of the Constitution as a document of negative liberties?

Re:Fuck you Obama.

[Spad]

In other news, politicians - especially in the US - are beholden to their campaign contributors.

Seriously, politicians are paid for by industries, your only real choice is which industry you want to support. Don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone above a local representative level gives a toss about the voters unless they absolutely have to (Not that local reps do half the time, but they're rarely owned by corporate interests, just self-interest, which might end up being the same as yours if you're lucky).

Re:Fuck you Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

If only Obama really was a "radical leftist." If anything, he's a Republican in disguise.

Re:Fuck you Obama.

[Spewns]

If only Obama really was a "radical leftist." If anything, he's a Republican in disguise.

I'm not sure why this is modded down. The Democratic party in the US is at best moderate-right.

Re:Fuck you Obama.

[Spewns]

I'm not sure why this is modded down. The Democratic party in the US is at best moderate-right.

I'm a "Troll" for saying this? Oh well - I suppose no moderation system can be fool-proof. If you're under the delusion that somehow the Democratic party or Obama is in any way, shape, or form significantly and consistently "leftist," I advise and challenge you to learn about real liberal politics.

Same song

[Airline_Sickness_Bag]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Same song

[justsomecomputerguy]

Step away from the song lyrics. Or there will be... trouble.

Re:Same song

[Anonymous Coward]

And fooled again...

Re:Same song

[interkin3tic]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Is there anyone here who honestly expects democrats to be the exact opposite of republicans on every issue? Especially when a small fraction of the voters care about said issue, and against that there is millions of dollars of campaign contributions to be had? I hate ACTA and its sponsors too, but come on, national politics are always about the lesser of two evils. It strikes me as pretty foolish to act like because we don't have a saint, we have the exact same sinner.

Re:Same song

[frank_adrian314159]

Or there will be... trouble.

And if I don't there will be double.

Re:Same song

[Xiver]

It was true long before it was a song lyric.

Re:Same song

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not the democrats per se, but I naively though Obama would be different. Now I'm completely jaded. What's the fickin' point in even voting anymore? Who the Hell is there to vote for anyways?

Coffee party

[Billly Gates]

I am sick and tired of my country being run by special interests whether its the financial industry, tobacco, health care, or the media. Whats worse these special interest groups that run the US now run the world through sleazy treatries that make our corrupt laws, world laws.

Do something about it and join the Coffee Party? I know this sounds kind of korny but 150,000 just joined it in the last 72 hours and the numbers already rival the tea party. Together we can influence primaries to have candidates who represent us and not hte special interest. Or join the tea party if you are conservative but I feel they are being taken over by special interests already and are more afraid of government than special interests.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the oil industry, pharmaceutical, the military-industrial-complex or religious groups.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

Or join the tea party if you are conservative

If the coffee party is non-conservative, why isn't it called the Half-caf-latte-no-whip-mochachino-with-sprinkles party?

Re:Coffee party

[istartedi]

And labor unions, and trial lawyers. There will be no true progress until a movement emerges that gores the oxen of both major parties.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the astroturf group run by a political operative that worked for Barack Obama and Sen James Webb (D-VA)? She also just happened to be a Strategy Analyst for the NY Times.

The one that is organizing a "grassroots" get together in Chicago that isn't actually being lead by anyone FROM Chicago?

They aren't an independent group... they're just another special interest group like Obama for America. If you want to be a tool, by all means, do so, just admit to yourself that you are someone else's pawn.

Re:Coffee party

[QuantumPion]

The so-called Coffee Party is actually just another astroturf wing of the Obama campaign machine.

Re:Coffee party

[Dynedain]

I just spent 5 minutes looking through their site and couldn't find a single thing that they are actually about. It's even worse than the Tea Party in that regards (and their name just sounds reactionary).

Even their top level FAQ button is just crap about username/registration process.

What are they actually for?

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing I'd most like to see, even more than any form of health care reform and such, is a reliable form of instant run off voting. (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method ). With that third parties would not be spoilers and might grow into feasible choices, and when you have more than two choices, it becomes a lot harder to demonize your opponent with lies, since it helps the third party..

Re:Coffee party

[pitchpipe]

If the coffee party is non-conservative, why isn't it called the Half-caf-latte-no-whip-mochachino-with-sprinkles party?

Just because the coffee party lacks the BDSM part of the tea-baggers doesn't mean they're "no-whip"!

Re:Coffee party

[angelwolf71885]

TEA PARTY = grass roots COFFEE PARTY = Obama Astroturf as someone close to the Obama administration started the coffee party and is PROGRESSIVE we must stop California from infecting the rest of the country fokes drink TEA not COFFEE

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Tea Party are right wing without a plan, and Coffee party are without a plan or direction.

Re:Coffee party

[lytles]

the problem that i see is that there's no accountability. same thing for the tea party. or for that matter, obama. i gave a bit of money to the campaign, and there might be a lot of people that did that don't agree with some of his decisions. but it's very hard to apply any sort of leverage - the campaign is the single point of contact, and as such largely controls the message

for the sake of argument, lets assume that 30% of the money that the obama campaign raised was from people who actively oppose the speech the article is referring to. (yes, i know it's probably _far_ lower ... this is for the sake of argument) it's almost impossible for that 30% to find each other, to figure out that other "supporters" aren't happy with the current direction. if that block could get together, they'd have some influence. but we can't

i supported the obama campaign largely because the financing was (at least initially) driven by small donations. that concept has the potential to be revolutionary, but i think there needs to be another step. the people making the donations need a way to maintain some control, to have a unified voice

we need a proxy - to not give money to a campaign directly, but thru a proxy that represents a particular set of beliefs - and maybe even to negotiate with various candidates to try to find the best match. the coffee (or tea) party might be a step in that direction, but it seems to be more about positive energy than any particular issue (or at least, not issues that i'm strongly in favor of)

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can find, the Coffee Party's founder has too many ties to the current president. Also, you display of false modesty when you mention the number of people who have joined is a bit of a turn off.

Re:Coffee party

[Attila Dimedici]

Do something about it and join the Coffee Party [coffeepartyusa.com]?

I love your solution to disagreeing with behavior by the Obama Administration: Join an organization started by members of Obama's Presidential campaign. You are worried about the tea party being taken over by special interests, so you suggest joining an organization that is basically just a subsidiary of the Democratic Party (which you seem to believe, likely correctly, is run by special interests).

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I don't know if you're trolling or if you're just a typical Glenn Beck listener, but I'll bite anyway.

TEA PARTY = grass roots COFFEE PARTY = Obama Astroturf
The "tea party" is only as grass-roots as the "coffee party" is.

as someone close to the Obama administration started the coffee party and is PROGRESSIVE
Wait, which is it? Are they associated with the Obama administration, or are they progressive? They can't be both, considering that the Obama administration is vehemently anti-progressive.

Re:Coffee party

[TimHunter]

I just spent 5 minutes looking through their site and couldn't find a single thing that they are actually about.

You know, you'd think /.'ers could find their way around the web without me having to hold their little hands.

Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

Coffee Party USA is made up of people acting independently of political parties, of corporations, and of political lobbying networks. To this point, all products created and hours logged for Coffee Party have been carried out in the spirit of volunteerism. In the coming months and years, we hope to transform our disappointment in our current political system into a force that will return our nation to a course of popular governance, of the People by the People for the People.

We are diverse -- ethnically, geographically, politically, in age and in experience.

We are 100% grassroots. No lobbyists here. No pundits. And no hyper-partisan strategists calling the shots in this movement. We are a spontaneous and collective expression of our desire to forge a culture of civic engagement that is solution-oriented, not blame-oriented.

We demand a government that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions.

We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift -- Democracy -- and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation.

http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/about-us

The so-called Coffee Party is actually just another astroturf wing of the Obama campaign machine.

From the Coffee Party web site: http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/content/coffee-party-fact-check

Re:Coffee party

[Spewns]

TEA PARTY = grass roots

Good one. I didn't know "sponsored by Fox News" == "grass roots."

Re:Coffee party

[angelwolf71885]

i love how idiots like you think that because fox agrees with them that they sponsor them btw a libertarian started the tea party you jack ass

Re:Coffee party

[icebraining]

I don't really care about the specific issue (not north-american here), but a featured post in that site made me laugh: "Holland today is probably the worst country in Europe".

They don't know much of Europe, do they?

Re:Coffee party

[icebraining]

This comment made me laugh. The ignorance about historical events is appalling. Let me enlighten you:

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and reference is often made to it in other political protests.

Note: I'm not pro-tea party or pro-coffee party, in fact I don't care (not American)

Re:Coffee party

[angelwolf71885]

your ignorance is astounding thats NOT the tea party you idiot that the BOSTON tea party witch is a different matter as it focused only only 1 real issue witch was the forced use on British tea for witch the tax was all profit for Britten.... but im still correct because the movement is libertarian back in 1773 and now libertarians stand for the freedom of the Constitution as write in 1783 and the bill of rights written in 1789

Re:Coffee party

[dkleinsc]

Not to raise a "tu quoque" argument here, but of course the Tea Party is precisely the same thing, just a part of a different political machine (the same one that brought Sarah Palin into the limelight).

Which brings me to Rule #1 of understanding any political organization: follow the money.

Re:Coffee party

[rastilin]

I love your solution to disagreeing with behavior by the Obama Administration: Join an organization started by members of Obama's Presidential campaign. You are worried about the tea party being taken over by special interests, so you suggest joining an organization that is basically just a subsidiary of the Democratic Party (which you seem to believe, likely correctly, is run by special interests).

Precisely, join up and outnumber the original members. At that point, the organization is yours.

Re:Coffee party

[HiThere]

Yeah, that sounded like what they would say about themselves.

You didn't address his assertion about who founded it...which sounds believable. And which, if true, casts doubt on a lot of their self-characterizations.

As for his "I couldn't find a thing about what they were actually about", I'm not sure that waffling is what you want me to think they're about, but if that's what you want, ok.

FWIW the PolitiFact site ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ ) now says that Obama has kept 96 out of the over 500 campaign promises they track. They break it down into more detail, and I don't always agree with them as to what constitutes keeping a promise. If you're interested you might check it out.

Re:Coffee party

[Natales]

Really? did you go to one of the meetings? I doubt it, because you sound like you have no idea what this thing is really about about.

I went to the meeting yesterday and MOST people I met would qualify as independent, centrists with few on the center-left and few on the center-right. All if not most felt disenfranchised. People that originally supported Obama because of the "Change" mantra are disappointed when they see little to no change at all.

I couldn't care less how the Coffee Party was started or who started it. The movement has a life of its own. The people is making it that way.

I see nothing wrong with the idea that just regular folks can get together and talk about politics, and particularly doing so in a climate of civility and respect for other people's point of view. This was poised to happen, given the discourse we see from Washington. Who cares if a former activist and film maker did it? It could have been a retired Admiral and it would be the same.

And before you go bashing me, I have as many Libertarian ideas as I have Socialist ones. I'm all over the spectrum and I'm trying to find a common ground with the system in this country instead of proposing a rip-and-replace model that won't go anywhere.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

your ignorance is astounding thats NOT the tea party you idiot

tea party witch is a different matter

for witch the tax was all profit for Britten

freedom of the Constitution as write in 1783

I'd say, based on this post and a brief perusal of your posting history, that you shouldn't call others ignorant or idiots: Your command of written English is extremely poor, and the quality of your posts suffer as a result. I suspect this stems not so much from ignorance, which you appear to possess in abundance, as stupidity, of which you certainly have no lack.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H Christ, your posts are every bit as ugly as you are. English - learn it, live it, love it. Until then, stop posting.

Re:Coffee party

[OrangeCatholic]

Yep. Some kind of voting system that doesn't involve meta-voting (i.e. predicting the winner) would certainly be a big win.

Re:Coffee party

[OrangeCatholic]

This sounds like a potential honeypot where you go and talk and nothing ever happens.

Generally you start a political party around and idea that everyone agrees with. Not hey, let's invite everyone and see what happens. First of all, you get massive cruft, second you get all the spies from the opposing party on day one.

Give them a couple weeks. If they can't come up with some position papers or an organizational chart, then it's a joke. A true political party has leadership.

   

Re:Coffee party

[Attila Dimedici]

If that was his idea, it makes some sense since the "coffee party" is small enough it wouldn't take very many people to outnumber the original, unlike the "tea party".

Re:Coffee party

[locallyunscene]

Sorry you're wrong. The Tea Party protests on tax day last year drew 300,000[fivethirtyeight] people across the country after Fox News advertised by airing more than 100 commercial promotions in the ten days before Tax Day. That may seem like a large number yet the Immigration reform protests in 2006 drew more than a million people nationwide[wikipedia]. So did the Prop 8 protests[wikipedia] in 2008, and that was just a Californian issue.

There is genuine grassroots anger at government spending, but the Tea Party in not an embodiment of that. It is manufactured to co-opt that anger.

Re:Coffee party

[Anonymous Coward]

You can shove your "astroturf" talking point, you little minded liberal.

Re:Coffee party

[Billly Gates]

First off the person who created the coffee party volunteered her time for Obama to help him get elected. She does not nor has ever worked for the white house.

FYI the tea party is run by Dick Army who is a republican who operated conservative lobbyists.

This was just a cheap shot by Fox News to discredit the movement.

If you want to support your democratic or republican representative and then whine be my guest. At least I gave a solution.

Re:Coffee party

[Billly Gates]

The person who founded it does not work for nor has ever worked for Obama. She only volunteered her time when he was running.

To blame her would be the equivalent of calling you a Bush lobbyist and white house astro turfee because you once held a poster in 2000 for Bush or volunteered your time to him years ago.

This was a very cheap shot by the tea activists who own Fox news.

Re:Coffee party

[HiThere]

But did she volunteer her time as a high official in his campaign? It *does* make a difference.

FWIW, I'm currently so deluged with various groups making (political) claims that I can't quickly verify, that I'm pretty much in overwhelm about the entire process. I have, however, noticed that with a reported 84% of the voters in favor of a public option (How did they derive that number?) Congress is having trouble deciding to vote for it. Really gives one faith in the system, and confidence that all one needs to do is express a reasoned opinion to be paid attention to.

Re:Coffee party

[Attila Dimedici]

She was also a campaign worker for Jim Webb in Virginia. The Coffee Party shares office space with another Democratic Party organization. The founder of the Coffee Party also laid out the proposal for the Coffee Party at a convention for Democratic Party activists before she started the Coffee Party.
The Coffee Party is organized top down. The Tea Parties are generally occurring as local groups decide to hold protests. The Tea Party isn't run by anyone because it is not a single organization. There is no national Tea Party organization (although several people have tried to form one, Dick Armey among them).

Re:Coffee party

[DemApples]

The central platform of the Coffee Party is campaign reform - the $100 cap on donations, repealing corporations having the same rights as individuals, etc. They're all about getting both sides of the aisle working for the people instead of special interests.

Re:Coffee party

[Attila Dimedici]

The Coffee Party is an organization whose sole purpose is to get Democrats elected, preferably Democrats who favor big government.

Logical

[AceJohnny]

Those up high have understood that the USA's commercial future is not in manufacturing (they left that to China or Germany). If it's not physical goods, then what else is America selling abroad? IP, that's what. That's where the USA's commercial future lies, and that's what it'll have to defend at all costs, trampling their people's and other nation's right to defend that.

It's that or become insolvent. (look up the USA's trade balance over the last few 20 years. Think it'll improve? Think again.)

Re:Logical

[ral8158]

ahahahahahahahahahaha. You think basing our economy on intellectual property will improve the trade balance and keep us from insolvency?ahahahahahahahahahaha
oh christ have mercy.

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

What would help is not let countries such as China decide what the value of their currency is, but to compute its value from the exports and imports.

The Chinese yuan is worth a lot more than 0.15 U.S. dollars. If we could actually force the real value of the Yuan, manufacturing would once more be viable in this great country.

Re:Logical

[Opportunist]

Only if for some odd reason countries start to prefer spending money for thin air (that's pretty much what IP actually is) to making money for real goods. But then again, the theory behind Communism was that people prefer working to earning money, so hey, let's give it a whirl...

Re:Logical

[laron]

Yep. Microcode and entertainment are both considered IP. American Pizza baked by Tajik immigrants and delivered by your local Mafia chapter remains a bit of a mystery.

Re:Logical

[HalAtWork]

Makes it that much easier to ignore us then.

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Go kill yourself.

Re:Logical

[Rivalz]

Just curious but cant we do both? Developing IP employs how many people? Ever look at the top companies that earn the most money? How many people do they employ?

Re:Logical

[swilver]

Yep, they understood. What they apparently still don't understand is that a country that only produces goods that can be copied easily for practically zero costs might not be the best bet.

That and of course the drag on the economy from more and more money draining in black holes over patents, copyright and other IP law (I don't think that sueing an American company over a patent by another American company will do much good to the economy as a whole).

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wasting your time. Slashdot has several constituencies, but on matters pertaining to copyright protection it's basically the Tea Party. Rational argument is utterly useless with these people.

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is, that really, if you only trade in IP, you have no leverage. What if china starts ignoring it (instead of just stealing it as they do now)? They already own half the country.

No, we're fucked.

Re:Logical

[CodeBuster]

what else is America selling abroad?

The dollar? It is rather strange that foreigners continue to give us real things in exchange for pieces of paper, but that seems to be the way of things.

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

um.. false scarcity is not a solution. we BETTER offer something unique that's grounded in reality. selling ideas only works in 3rd grade...for a bout 3 seconds.

tha'ts what this sounds like to me: a couple of kids arguing over whose idea it was first.

Re:Logical

[Moabz]

World war IV will be fought over downloaded songs.

Re:Logical

[Anonymous Coward]

and how can the US regain its manufacturing prowess when politicos and unfortunately many fellow slashdotters, demonize the entities that raise the required capital to make things, and then tax teh hell out of anyone who turns a profit making stuff. Makers can't be makers if the taxman makes it too damn hard to raise and maintain the capital intensive structures that permit manufacturing. Layer-on the kow-towing to unions that drive US Labor out of the world marketplace, and we have no one but the tax and spenders to blame.

Re:Logical

[mcgrew]

If it's not physical goods, then what else is America selling abroad? IP, that's what.

Yet few Americans actually earn their living through IP. Note that all the major players in the entertainment industry are foreign corporations like Universal, Sony, Virgin? If you work for a software company you work for an IP company, which is a lot of slashdotters, but most people work in industries like construction or the service sector, which have nothing to do with IP.

This doesn't benefit the worker, only the rich, amd most of the rich that this benefits are foreign stockholders of multinational corporatioins.

Re:Logical

[rwv]

If you work for a software company you work for an IP company, which is a lot of slashdotters, but most people work in industries like construction or the service sector, which have nothing to do with IP.

I work in the software industry. As a software developer, I can assure you that it's feasible to program an embedded software controls system that can replace your construction workers.

And saying this revolution wouldn't benefit the worker is also misguided because *eventually* prices will catch-up so the guy who can no longer make a living installing toilets will be able to buy lower-priced toilets (because his services aren't inflating the cost of goods sold) while he pursues some other line of work enabled by an emerging (probably more desirable) industry which will owe its existence to the lack of manufacturing jobs in this country.

I've got my fingers crossed that the emerging industry will be Spa/Resorts in Space!

Re:Logical

[TSPhoenix]

As someone living outside the US I see it similarly, the US exports mostly luxury items and little in the way of necessities. As such I'm still baffled why other countries jump through all sorts of outrageous hoops to accommodate them as many simply do appear to need the US. I understand why the US is good to export to, it is a substantial and reliable source of income for exporting countries. But if all these trade regulations coming out of the US are so terrible why do other countries take them lying down?

As far as I can see the US would be absolutely boned if exports and imports ceased (as would many other countries), whereas everyone else would be fine until the US comes crawling back without its totally one-sided trade agreements.

Of course I really don't know that much about the subject. I just don't know why other countries let the US impose trade restriction upon them that only benefit the US. If anyone cares to give a good explanation for why things are panning out as they are, I'd be grateful.

Re:Logical

[hany]

To protect "ideas", they (US) still need physical power.

And if they do have physical power to enforce their "ideas" world-wide, they can lower the costs and improve earnings by simply dropping the "creative business" altogether. Replacing it by simple "protection service": you pay us and we do not beat you up.

So ... I guess the future of US is to become a protection racket (if it is not already).

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[wisnoskij]

You seem to have a skewed sense of statistics and what constitutes a viable proof.

"These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks)"
Well first off control groups are only helpful when they only have 1 thing different from each other (the thing you are studying). And you cannot say that an Asian-American is identical to a African-American in everything except that a African-A will be inclined to vote for a fellow African-A while a Asian-A will not.
Ethnic groups have their own racism's (for all I know Asian-Americans are on average racist against African-Americans, and that is why they voted less for Obama).

"Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans."
Here is the bottom line, while I am sure some people only voted for him because of his skin color we have no reason to think that McCain represented Americans any more then him, or that any other past president did.

And you plan to fix this "problem" by encouraging other to vote by skin color.
So while we do not know who the future presidential candidates will be, you already somehow know that the black ones will "not represent mainstream America" and therefore must be opposed?

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[TheRaven64]

Please don't feed the copy-and-paste trolls. If you're going to feed the trolls, at least find one that puts some effort into trolling.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

What idiot modded this copypasta insightful?

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

Decorative GASSED JEWS!!! :D

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

blacks are like 12% of the population and more than half have been disenfrachised from voting because they're in jail or felons... not a significant percentage of the vote. Whites+Hispanics put Obama in office, but mostly whites. I voted for him because he's the only candidate who isn't a total sell-out, don't give a shit about his race.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[ravenshrike]

*blinks* You voted for the guy from Chicago who only managed to get elected to the lower offices by DQing his opponents and getting his buddies to release confidential court records of his opposition opponent as the not total sell out? What color is an orange in your universe?

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

Were they confidential court records that were suppressed to cover up the truth?

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[ravenshrike]

No, they were Jack Ryan's divorce records. They should not have been released at all, but suddenly Obama pops up on the scene, and the records get released by a friendly judge. Afterwards, of course, everybody in the judicial sector agreed they shouldn't have been released, but by then Jack was sunk.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. Both Ryan and his wife agreed to make their divorce records public. On April 2, 2004, Barack Obama formally established his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats not to inject them into the campaign.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[OrangeCatholic]

I don't care where he copied it from, it's Insightful as all hell. Looking at the North Carolina primaries vs. Clinton, the lowest number I found for blacks was 87% for Obama (Blacks age 30-44). Overall it's 90-96% of blacks in favor of Obama.

The worst was where they asked if "race is important to you." Whether you said "yes" or "no" didn't affect the outcome, meaning the racial voting patterns were entirely subconscious.

Sure, blacks were perfectly entitled to vote for Obama in the general election. McCain+old+crazy+Palin+crazy = terrible campaign. But the OP is right, in the primary versus Clinton, only 40-70% of whites voted for Clinton. 95% of blacks voted for Obama.

Clinton ran an incredible campaign, too. She took the "Hope" that Obama talked about and made it real. But the blacks couldn't see past their crack pipes to do the right thing.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

Only if you're black. Or have a nigger-sized penis, in which case you can get away with anything.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[tsm_sf]

But the blacks couldn't see past their crack pipes to do the right thing.

One of the things I really enjoyed about the Obama election is that it brought the crazies and the racists out in the open.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[L4t3r4lu5]

Well, in my universe the fruit came before the naming of the colour. So, an orange is orange-coloured. I don't know what name you would give that...

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a snide comment? You realize ad hominem attacks just make me look right.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[ak3ldama]

On April 2, 2004, Barack Obama formally established his position about the Ryans' soon-to-be-released divorce records, and called on Democrats not to inject them into the campaign.

Yep, I'm sure that is all there is to this story... We apologize for being so confused.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[godefroi]

Of course he did. Politicians "call on" groups and/or individuals to do things all the time.

Note that I have no knowledge of anything related to the incident, and indeed this is the first I've heard of it, but the fact that a politician of ANY party (I'm not affiliated with a party, and likely never will be) called on anyone to do anything is not an indication of honesty or high morals.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[treeves]

Jack Ryan...hmm, better ask Tom Clancy. He can settle this for sure.

Re:Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Gizzmonic]

Well, if you have something new to add, let's have a link. Otherwise you are just promoting knee-jerk cynicism, which only keeps Americans out of the voting booth.

Let's Do Something

[justinjstark]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Re:Let's Do Something

[Jay L]

But what if we don't have any senators? For instance, I live in Massachusetts.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Opportunist]

ACTA will actually make the US poorer.

Yes, ACTA is aimed towards giving IP laws more power, globally. But how much do you think countries with real problems care about protecting IP laws from countries they don't care about? Do you think China will put some muscle behind enforcing IP laws? Or anyone in the far east, maybe with the exception of Japan? Do you think Russia cares a lot, or any of the post-Soviet Union countries? South America? They got bigger problems. Yeah, they'll certainly pay lip service to it and maybe, when enough of a stink is brewing, they might stage a sting or two, arrest a few token low level copy sellers, then ignore the problem. Why? Why not? What's their interest in it? They have little to no IP, it's like asking a landlocked country to spend money to make the coasts that don't belong to it secure.

In the US, ACTA will be enforced fully, of course. Not only the IP of the US, but also the IP of other countries. Yes, including countries like Russia, China and all the others that will not put the same amount of muscle behind it. So who benefits from it? THe US? Stop kidding. Yes, the IP owners in the US will be happy about it, but the US as a country will lose money in the process. Because its consumers have to hand money to the IP owners abroad, with nothing to little coming back in return.

And I'm not even talking about how DVDs are sold for a buck there because else you couldn't sell them at all.

Re:Let's Do Something

[shoehornjob]

This will not work because you don't have any MONEY. It always amazes me how people think they can influence the political climate by banding together and making their voices heard. Do you really think that politician x will hear you as he is being bought off by various corporate interests? Welcome to the new corporate America. Mod me how you like but we all live in this world...some of us can't quite see it yet.

Re:Let's Do Something

[MunchMunch]

My letter. I spent plenty of time on it. It should make good virtual birdcage liner for all the virtual parrots at the White House:

"Mr. President,

I, like many, helped to vote you into office in 2008, because I believed you represented a new paradigm of politics. Certainly, in that election, many people projected their own hopes and values onto you, and no doubt to some extent I did as well. However, I have been extremely disappointed with your positions on copyright law issues so far.

Not only have you appointed numerous officials from the RIAA and MPAA, but you have recently commented that the US needs to support the extremely invasive ACTA treaty provisions. No doubt this position came after many discussions with your RIAA and MPAA appointees, and Vice President Biden. Mr. Biden has consistently voted in favor of expanding copyright protections, even when they detract from fair use, always in favor of industry interests.

Make no mistake, Mr. President--you are choosing to support big business at the expense of your constituency. Copyright is a necessary fact of life, but because it is a monopoly, the Constitution made it a pragmatic right, not an inalienable one-- it must be limited only to the extent it "promotes progress."

Copyright law now is far removed from that vision. Instead, the MPAA and RIAA lobby for tougher and tougher laws. They do not this to "promote progress," but rather to ensure they reap a greater and greater amount of consumer's money. Congress, and indeed, most former presidents, have also sided with the industry. Recently, however, the heretofore unrepresented public has organized and opposed or severely limited copyright legislation.

ACTA and similar treaties are a new strategy, meant to bypass the congressional process. They launder policy. In backroom sessions, outside of public comment or attention, these treaties propose extremely invasive and draconian measures that the RIAA and MPAA could only dream of. Measures such as a "3 strikes" internet disconnect rule, a rule that completely undermines the American judicial system and puts enormous power into private industry hands. And the public can only hope for a leak or other glimpse at these bills before they are enacted and passed onto Congress for a vote--a vote which all but must pass because now they are "treaty obligations."

The fact that you could support this abominable secret treaty is utterly disheartening. If you continue to stand by this position, you will not have my vote in 2012, no matter how progressive you are on other issues.

Sincerely,

(me)"

Re:Let's Do Something

[chrb]

Yes, ACTA is aimed towards giving IP laws more power, globally. But how much do you think countries with real problems care about protecting IP laws from countries they don't care about?

From the position of the MPAA and RIAA there are several different positions that they care about or don't. Russians and Chinese copying music and movies isn't a big problem - those countries have always had large scale piracy operations and undeveloped IP markets, and the potential profit margins are thin or non-existant. If this were to change, then there would be an opportunity to develop new markets, which the RIAA/MPAA would be interested in. But at the moment the markets are lost. The real global battlefield is in the European Union - a larger market economy than the USA, where the average price for a DVD or CD is much higher than the US, and with a voracious appetite for American produced content. If groups like the Pirate Party begin to make serious headway in scaling back European copyright, then the RIAA/MPAA is going to lose control over one of its most profitable markets. The other market they really care about is (obviously) the USA. It is not such a large battlefield since U.S. laws are already more MPAA/RIAA friendly. By agreeing to a global copyright enforcement treaty, that is supported by American corporations, they will be able to easily pass legislation with broad cross-party support, and with little room for debate because the details have "already been agreed and signed" before being considered at the level of national law.

Because its consumers have to hand money to the IP owners abroad, with nothing to little coming back in return.

Have you got any idea how much money is spent by European consumers and businesses on U.S. software, movies, books, films etc?

Re:Let's Do Something

[RightwingNutjob]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy

Your naivette is refreshing, but I would not like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Having an ipod doesn't make you tech-savvy. Neither does having a cool campaign website or having a twitter feed. The man's just as clueless about the nuts and bolts of tech and tech policy as any other career politician whose education was in the law and not in engineering. The only branch of government that's historically had any semblance of a clue about tech has been the military, and even then, they farm most of the heavy thinking out to academia and defense contractors, those being the people who actually understand this stuff by virtue of having created it.

That's why any government involvement in tech policy should be approached with caution. In the case of the military, it's tapping an existing source of knowledge, and it happens to have some good side effects in the civilian world (medicine, materials science, computers, etc). In the case of legislation, it's awfully close to the Indiana pi bill.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Heratiki]

You can look at Russian releases of DVD's. Pirating is so prolific there that the movie theaters produce and output (close to-) DVD quality movies just for the region because otherwise they wouldn't make a dime. Almost immediately after the release of a movie in the theaters there it's pretty much on the street at that time. All caused by the fact that almost no one could afford to do it any other way than bootlegs. Now take the US where movie ticket prices are already astronomical and getting higher and higher with over priced food and drink to add to the night. It's going to become unbelievably hard to obtain anything without some very harsh Digital Rights Management which will increase the cost and decrease the quality of the music/movies. Sigh. ACTA will give them any and all the power they could ever want. ACTA is an Abomination of Rights Manufactured by Assholes.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Nefarious Wheel]

"Mr. President, ..."

Mod. Parent. Up.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Opportunist]

Oh sure, and you will see the same happen to the EU. Why they agree with it in the first place is beyond me, the EU is an even bigger loser in the whole ACTA deal than the US (not only losing on the customer but also on the producer side), but hey, at least the parlament now put the foot down and asked to at least see what's cooking. My hope is that they'll blanket decline putting it into law should they not be provided the info wanted.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

A lot of good that will do to buttered hands and well-paid lobbyists with personal access to those in power.

But I would agree we should all still do this. As soon as our calls and letters stop, America loses. I'm only being realistic when I say it probably won't work, but you never know, our leaders have listened to us before *sarcasm*.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Anonymous Coward]

Unprecendented openness... ha ha ha

ACTA is a perfect example...

Re:Let's Do Something

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

These "imbalances" are not really different from other trade issues. I imagine that the countries will be expected to pick up their game, or face trade sanctions. Eventually, it will be a net gain for the US.

Re:Let's Do Something

[OrangeCatholic]

>It always amazes me how people think they can influence the political climate by banding together and making their voices heard.

Of course they can. Have you ever noticed how $SOUND_BITE can instantly kill an issue?

Politicians might listen to lobbyists, but the one thing that overrides lobbyists is TELEVISION.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, his teleprompter-fu is epic...

Re:Let's Do Something

[Opportunist]

Oh they will, they will! They'll pay any lip service to the battle against counterfeiting, almost as much as they do in the war against terrorism or the one against drugs! They also care about as much about it.

Why'd you want to impose trade sanctions against me? I do what I can, unfortunately our police force is terribly understaffed and underfunded, but for a bit of development aid we might talk...

Re:Let's Do Something

[Runaway1956]

Well, you haven't had a senator worthy of the name for decades. THANK GOD that "Senator Ted" finally cashed in his ticket to hell!

Re:Let's Do Something

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The US isn't going to trade with them if it means operating at a loss. That "lip service" will be enough for it to be beneficial to the US, or the trade won't happen.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Runaway1956]

Just for info - I wrote my senator a few weeks ago regarding ACTA. The dizzy wench sent back a form letter, which made it apparent that she and her staff are completely ignorant of what ACTA is all about. They have zero concept that ACTA and any laws that support the goals of ACTA actually award some tenuously defined "rights" to some sub-class of people, some of whom may or may not be citizens of the United States. They haven't a clue that awarding those rights actually infringes on the rights of a far greater number of people who most certainly ARE citizens of the United States.

I don't mean to discourage anyone from writing their congress critters - but you should be prepared to explain what "rights" mean, and whose rights that congress critter should be protecting. You should be prepared to explain that prostituting themselves to corporate big money is NOT what they were elected to do.

I truly don't know what's going on in Washington - has my senator taken a bribe? Is she just ignorant? Does she not care? Does she believe that she is protecting American interests? Has your senator and congressman taken a bribe?

It's not an easy thing to do, getting their attention. There are so many fund raisers to attend, so many lobbyists with deep pockets to keep appointments with - they don't notice a dozen, or even a hundred voters asking for attention.

Just be prepared, is all I'm saying. Don't expect a response that makes any sense.

Re:Let's Do Something

[karcirate]

Welcome to the new corporate America.

I'm sorry, did I read that right? New? Corporations, lobbyists paid for by said corporations, and politicians "bribed" by lobbyists money (from their corporations) have been around for quite some time.

What you do not realize is that the new thing that came to this country is that people are now able to express their views in ways that make it easy for politicians to see what the people care about. And no matter how much money is involved, senator x ain't gonna get any lovin' from his corporation if he gets voted out of office, and these days, he is able to find out pretty easily what will keep him in office.

So what is happening now is that our politicians are slowly emerging to stick their heads a little bit out of their corporations pockets' and listen with about half an ear to what the people want.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Opportunist]

Well, mostly 'cause there's nobody really wanting to "win" either war, drugs or terrorism. There's more money in fighting than in winning.

Wonder how it's gonna work out for copyright, though.

Re:Let's Do Something

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy

You know these things?

Tech savvy: He has a blackberry. Ooooh. He is SO cool.

Boosting the economy: Like what? Are you waiting for cap-n-trade? That'll help. He's been spending all his time on health care. how you get that he's trying to boost the economy is completely beyond me.

Re:Let's Do Something

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I would imagine that copyright would be different, since it benefits, on the whole, the government, corporations, and the people. There's interest at all levels to prevent infringement.

The only potentially reluctant party is the other country, but like I said, the US has the power here.

Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no surprise here. Big business runs Washington. The government will never, NEVER oppose the agenda of the entertainment industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, the NRA, or the energy industries. I will be shocked if the health care overhaul that is eventually passed doesn't somehow infringe on the health insurance cartel's current way of doing business.

Re:Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government will never, NEVER oppose the agenda of the entertainment industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, the NRA, or the energy industries (emphasis added)

Wait, what? The Clinton presidency was one of the biggest blows to the NRA agenda - many new anti-gun laws and an increase in enforcement.

I mean yes I agree with you that there are a lot of special interests at work, and the NRA is one of them, but they do have real and potent opposition.

Re:Come on...

[colinrichardday]

The AMA?

Yeah, that's why the government has stuck it to personal-injury lawyers and reformed medical malpractice laws. Oh wait, it didn't?

Re:Come on...

[OrangeCatholic]

What is it about malpractice laws that needs reform?

There might be some big awards, but if there's a case of a doctor "unfairly" targeted by a malpractice suit, I'd like to hear it. If anything, these guys get away with murder before anyone gets around to suing them.

Re:Come on...

[IndustrialComplex]

The AMA?

Yeah, that's why the government has stuck it to personal-injury lawyers and reformed medical malpractice laws. Oh wait, it didn't?

The AMA has a whole grocery list of issues which it lobbies for. The personal-injury lawyer? They have one thing that they want, and that is for nothing to change.

So when the AMA comes forward with a list of 10 items and 1-9 gets rubber stamped, but on number 10, the trial lawyers say "Hey, those 9 items are great, but could you just not act on number 10 for a bit?" Are you saying that the AMA has really 'lost'?

The AMA has worked hard to insulate Doctors from some necessary reforms and made it a VERY protected profession. The barrier for entry to be a Doctor is VERY high (monetarily), and the AMA likes it that way.

One of the reasons that medical care is so expensive is that pretty much all of the decision responsibility has been removed from the individual and transferred to medical professionals. It's an issue that has many causes, so I don't lay it explicitly at the AMA's feet, but they do have a tremendous amount of influence in Government.

Afterall, how many politicians would survive an election if they were able to be labeled as 'Disregarding the warnings of the AMA'?

How does it go?

[vivin]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

OR

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

How terribly disappointing, Obama. At least the EU threw out this stupid treaty. Hopefully this won't be successful at all.

Re:How does it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the EU threw out this stupid treaty.

Hum, sorry to disappoint you, but European parliament (elected by people) did not throw out ACTA. EP only told European commission (nominated by European countries governments): "hey, don't you dare negotiating a treaty without us: show us what this is all about, you morons!"

Well maybe the formulation was different, but that's the spirit of it.

What's true, on the other hand, is that European Parliament has already opposed three strikes law (which, incidentally, is embedded inside ACTA).

Re:How does it go?

[RobVB]

How terribly disappointing, Obama. At least the EU threw out this stupid treaty. Hopefully this won't be successful at all.

Actually, the European Commission (the equivalent of the White House) has been supporting ACTA, or at least it hasn't been opposing it.

It was the European Parliament (the equivalent of the Senate and Congress) that opposed the secrecy surrounding ACTA. Even they haven't given an opinion on the contents of ACTA.

Re:How does it go?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the EU threw out this stupid treaty. Hopefully this won't be successful at all.

But the EU had nothing to lose. Most content comes from the US to the EU, very little from the EU goes to the US. If the EU had a content industry as large as the US that provided huge export revenues then I think the vote on the treaty would have been very different.

Re:How does it go?

[Xtravar]

He has to maintain the status quo on many issues, lest he be too 'radical'. Now, on to some deeper commentary-

If there's one thing about President Obama that I'm sure about, it's that he is smart and knows when to pick his battles. He doesn't need the insurance industry *and* the entertainment industries against him right now. He needs to pick off special interests one by one, and not all at once, lest they gang up on him. Which, I think, may be why they aren't completely shafting the pharmaceutical industry in health care reform.

Perhaps when this copyright act is closer to being a done deal he can change his tune, but let's all remember that nothing has happened yet. Politics change with the landscape, and there are certainly more pressing issues to confront right now.

Re:How does it go?

[interkin3tic]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.

Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.

Re:How does it go?

[sonicmerlin]

To quote/paraphrase Jon Stewart, I can't tell if Obama is Obiwan playing chess on a 3D board while everyone else is stuck in 2D, or if he's getting the snot beat out of him.

Re:How does it go?

[IndustrialComplex]

Honest personal opinion: If Obama gets ACTA passed, but -actually- fixes health care, I'm voting for him again.

Obviously, the two do not go hand in hand, and I'm making no statement as to the likelyhood of him actually fixing health care. If he passes ACTA, but not health care, I will be voting for someeone else and will publicly apologize for voting for him the first time. However, if saving political capital on this one means it can be spent on something that is a much bigger deal to me, then I don't at all regret voting for him.

Would you consider healthcare to be 'fixed' if the Bill currently before congress is passed? Trust me, I'd love to see issues such as Healthcare fixed (even if it does come to a government option) I have no love for insurance companies and dislike the concept of insurance, but I'm not seeing much in this Bill which will fix much of anything.

Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.

Re:How does it go?

[interkin3tic]

Fixing Healthcare is something that we won't know has been done or working until far beyond the date which this Bill is passed, and the 2012 elections are already concluded.

Good point. How I will judge whether or not it's been "fixed" will rely mostly on whether or not everyone now has affordable coverage for any health issue, it could do that but fail to get costs under control, with exploding costs we only realize after he's re-elected. The same could be said about absolutely every thing a politician does though.

I'm glad that he did it.

[Anonymous Coward]

ACTA is a truly wonderful thing. We, as Americans, need to strengthen our thought property, not make it more accessible. It's one of the few things that we still do well.

With that being said,

Luckily for at least us Europeans, the European Parliament has already shot the ACTA agreement down in an overwhelming 633-to-13 vote, while also forcing total openness - something the US does not want. This means that despite Obama siding with the content providers, ACTA will most likely not come to fruition.

I hope ACTA becomes a reality. It will solidify my reason to move to Europe (and start calling myself European if they'll have me). I'll pretty much have no reason to stay around here.

Give me that last push I need, Obama. I'm hoping for it

-An Anonymous Game Designer.

Re:I'm glad that he did it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving to Europe will only give you a reprieve for a little while. Eventually, the same PTB's will ratchet up their money donations to selected politicians to subvert their own European democracies. May take a little longer depending on a particular country's election finance laws, but they have time and very deep pockets.

Great, another failure

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew my vote was between Dumb and Dumber, but stuff like this still pisses me off.

Copyright or Patent?

[kurokame]

"But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."

Wait, MPAA/RIAA? Since when do they deal with fake iPods? I hate them as much as the next guy, but I can't find a word in the article relating to copyrights that wasn't inserted by the author.

Obama's speech (as quoted by TFA) seems to relate only to patents and perhaps branded goods, even if ACTA extends to both. It would be interesting to know if this is indicative of an official focus with regard to ACTA.

Re:Copyright or Patent?

[Xelios]

Isn't that one of the main problems with ACTA? The MAFIAA is just riding on the coat tails of a legitimate piece of legislation, to combat commercial IP theft and counterfeiting. Seems to me Obama supports that part of the bill, but didn't say anything specific about the piracy side of it. Just the way they like it. They'll quietly slip through on the heels of a piece of legislation that probably is needed, and probably will do some good.

SOP in politics these days. Just quietly stitch the unappealing laws into legislation that really does need to be passed.

Sounds like the title book by Al Franken book

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell"

Since I voted for him, I can say with all sincerity, change my @ASS!

Unrealistic World View

[gweihir]

In any reasonably free society, copying of digital content is impossible to prevent. In non-free societies, it does not matter as those in power can take the money of anybody anyways. So, trying to prevent copying of digital content is just a sure path to failure. Incidentially, protecting outdated business models holds a society back and is bad for eveybody.

Well, I guess it does not matter that much for the rest of the world, the US-centric century is certainly over, as its economic power is vanishing rapidly.

Re:Unrealistic World View

[RobVB]

In any reasonably free society, copying of digital content is impossible to prevent. In non-free societies, it does not matter as those in power can take the money of anybody anyways.

True. However, preventing copying of digital content is a step towards a non-free society, where those in power can take the money of anybody anyway.

Re:Unrealistic World View

[Anonymous Coward]

What's an "outdated business model"? Trying to sell digital goods?

Re:Unrealistic World View

[16384]

In my opinion it's much worse than that. We are not that good at creating new things, but are extremely good at learning and adapting existing things. By enforcing excessive restrictions on copying we are limiting progress, and I think it goes against what we normally would do. While I think there should be some provision to reward the original creator(s) of the works (such as a limited time copyright) the present system goes WAY too far and is clearly excessive.

Re:Unrealistic World View

[gweihir]

Good point! What is also urgently needed is that copyright is attached to the creator and cannot be sold in any meaningful way. An example would be that copyright mandates that > 50% of the end-user price goes to the creator of the work. As digital distribution is eincredible cheap, that would be feasible. Of course there are details to be solved and it is still possible that a pure donation solution (keep in mind: WOrldwide distribution) wopuld also work.

I really despise obama now.

[unity100]

despite i have been a staunch supporter of him and quarreled with my conservative american friends for close to a year since his candidacy to his election and even beyond.

really, from this point on, i dont think i will be hypocritical to defend him in any regard. there are things that can be overlooked and forgiven, noone is perfect. but ransoming rights and liberties of the thought process to private individuals is nothing less than feudalism at its best. and someone who can justify this to himself cannot be defended in anything else.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Totenglocke]

As an Obama supporter, how can you be surprised by this? It fits his views and policies perfectly.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You've been duped. You have lost. Have a nice day.

Obama was a corporate-backed candidate, sent by Wall Street and friends to allow them to steal money from the taxpayers. He sold his message of hope and change to the latte liberals, but of course that was all just a campaign lie. The questions that need to be answered are:
1. Why did the media hate Senator Clinton so much? (calling her racist, etc.)
2. Why did the media like both Obama and Bush when they are so-called opposites?
3. Where did Obama get his money from?

If you answer these questions, you will be well on your way to understanding the process.

Disclaimer: I was a Clinton supporter.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[lytles]

agree with you to a degree, but it was pretty clear to me where he stood on IP and such when he selected biden as running mate. as much as i don't like where he's headed, i don't think we can claim that he's changed directions much

actually, i'd say he's been remarkably honest to the message that his campaign sent (both explicit and implicit) ... just too bad that i didn't agree with too much of that message :(

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that republicans still refer to liberals as "Obama lovers", they seriously think we still support him. How can they be so stupid?

Anyway, the real problem I see is that liberals are a party without leaders, how can anyone achieve anything when every single politician is sold out?

Re:I really despise obama now.

[unity100]

only way is to change the system.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Spatial]

Disclaimer: I was a Clinton supporter.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[shutdown -p now]

Wow. So Obama does something that is actually fully consistent with his pre-election promises, and that throws you into rage; while the many times he reneged on what he said was fine and peachy?

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is a candidate of the center (or center left), which practically by definition does not attract many angry ranters, in particular, none with their own radio talk shows and rabid drive-time audiences.

The right attacks him as Socialist, Marxist, Communist, apologist for America, moonbat, etc.

The left attacks him as a corporate sellout, Bush clone, etc.

In fact, he's none of the above. There are many, many key policies on which he differs sharply from Bush. But he understands that as President of the United States, he needs to try to represent all of its essential interests, not just those of particular groups that backed him or would be useful for his campaign. And he knows that good intentions don't count, what counts is what he actually manages to pass into law, and that requires negotiation and compromise. When you do that, you piss off a lot of people, and he knows that's part of the job. Health care reform and Afghanistan are Exhibit A and B.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I know. I just tried to pick the least bad, IMO, and put that as a disclaimer.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Black Gold Alchemist]

So basically, he lied to people to get their support (not like the others don't do this).

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what I said about good intentions not counting. For example, he could have put his foot down at Copenhagen and insisted on a tough treaty with enforceable provisions, but that would've meant he would come home empty-handed. Or at least without the Chinese and Brazilians signing on. That doesn't mean he's given up, that means he'll take what he can get and try again later.

Is he guilty of being a politician, and doing politician type things? Yes.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[unity100]

he promised change, reform. he didnt do any of these. and what he stands for now, is not anything other than something being pushed into people by circumventing democracy itself, to limit their freedoms for profits of the few.

that cannot be promised in no election speech.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[shutdown -p now]

So you didn't look past just "change"?

Obama was definitely vague on some points of his platform, but he was just as specific on the others. IP was one of those. After he was elected, it became even more clear on short notice - change.gov has been around for a while, and has some rather explicit statements on the subject.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[unity100]

what i mean is, i expected to be pro ip at least a bit. tho i hoped, i didnt expect he would be ip abolitionist.

i totally didnt think he would go all medieval, al feudal, as if he was a henchman of a feudal lord. and especially after he owed his victory to the internet and all the new and rebellious things it represented.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[sonicmerlin]

Except...he's let the banks and Wall Street get away with every crime they committed that resulted in our economy nearly falling off a precipice. His banking reforms are pathetic cop-outs to Wall Street, and nothing has changed in that sector. He reappointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury head and had him write the reforms, which is just insane as the guy is pure evil.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[Ninth Marion]

His support for ACTA is consistent with what I expect of Obama, fair enough. However, one of the planks of his campaign was transparency and openness in Government. Why does he not come out and support open negotiations for ACTA? That is a broken promise.

Re:I really despise obama now.

[mcgrew]

Noone is NOT perfect; no one is. I don't even care much for the guy's music.

Future wars

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,

I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against <insert media vilified nation here> for a grave and gathering threat of...copyright infringement!

Re:Future wars

[BlueStrat]

We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,

I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against [insert media vilified subsection of the population here] for a grave and gathering threat of...copyright infringement!

FTFY

ywkthnxbye :)

Strat

Re:Future wars

[colinrichardday]

I can't wait until the US launches a pre-emptive military strike against [Free Software Foundation] for a grave and gathering threat
of...copyright infringement!

You're going down, Stallman!

Re:Future wars

[Bigon]

Not sure why this one is ranked "funny"

Filll out a complaint to the whitehouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Imaginary property hurts us all.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

It seems that the RIAA, MPAA, and similar organisations have been successful in lobbying the US administration into supporting their cause. This means that the US government will continue to (financially) support an industry that is simply outdated, and has failed to adapt to the changing market - which seems remarkably anti-capitalistic and anti-free market, even for a Democratic president.

Obama has surrounded himself with people that do not believe in the free market and whose heroes are people like Chairman Mao, Lenin, and Marx. He plainly states that he sought out Marxist professors and left wing radicals while in college. Assuming that he would believe differently than the people he has surrounded himself with stretches credulity to its breaking point.

So, how can anyone be surprised when he acts anti-capitalistic and anti-freemarket? If you are, you simply haven't paid attention to what he has done, rather than what he has said. He most definitely believes government knows best, and ought to control far more aspects of American life than it ever has before.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

Flamebait? Everything I said is true. Just because you don't like what I said doesn't mean it's a troll or flamebait.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[sonicmerlin]

Why do idiots like you exist in such large quantities in the US, and only in the US? I'm starting to think that there was some self-selection sample bias in terms of the genetic and/or psychological predispositions of the early American settlers.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

I guess because idiots like you exist that cannot understand how anyone could possibly disagree with your arrogance, and love of big government.

Are you done with the insults and ready to actually discuss things now, or is all you can do is hand out insults because that's your only argument to what I actually said.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[nedlohs]

Yes it is a self selection sample bias of the early Americans.

And that outlook is precisely why some shitty little colonies became a global superpower, economic powerhouse, and research and innovation center or the world.

Of course they've been overwhelmed now, hence the imminent collapse of all of that.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe because he's an idiot that believes the republican party and john mccain is his friend.

and indeed he is an idiot.

similar to a variant of idiots that believe the democratic party and obama is THEIR friend.

either way, both of you are fucked. and the two of you are going to work together, perhaps unknowingly, to fuck over a whole lot of people.

if both groups, including you, ended up killing each other. that would be win win situation in my mind.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that this post is modded Flamebait show how much we have forgotten as a nation. Capitalism brings and has brought us unprecedented economic freedom and prosperity and now half the country would be satisfied with the high-taxes, high unemployment, and nanny state the Democrat party is crafting for us.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[Anonymous Coward]

christianity ?
or any religion at all...

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[sonicmerlin]

Our greatest decade of economic growth in recent history was the 1960s under JFK, a Democrat. Corporate taxes were much higher at that time.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[OrangeCatholic]

From the way you write, with references to Mao and big-government, I think they assume you're a knee-jerk teabagger. Which you might be. "Big Government" has been such a trope since the Reagan years that it's a worn-out meme, and comes across as shrill.

In other words, despite being right, I think you may have deserved flamebait mods. After all, there is a reason why "flamebait" is different from "troll." Flamebait is 100% true, just extremely annoying. "Macintosh is garbage" is the ultimate flamebait example. 100% true 100% of the time :)

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

Ahhhh.... But JFK would be vilified by much of today's Democratic party. He was NOT big government oriented or entitlement oriented. His most famous speech included the words "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". This is the antithesis of the progressivism we see in government today that is exemplified by Reed, Pelosi, Kucinich, Obama, and the rest of the left wing of the Democratic party.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

Well, the thing to do is to ask what a person means, and what they're about, not insult and moderate to oblivion based upon assumptions.

As to the term "big government", it doesn't matter that it's a common term. It fits the situation. Both the size and power of the federal government has grown beyond belief in the last few decades. In that same time we have been declining in economic strength and political will. We have become a nation depending on government entitlements rather than remembering what made us the greatest nation on earth, and what made us THE MOST desirable nation on earth to live in. Immigration rates, while federal government size/power was much smaller, prove it.

People didn't immigrate here for government benefits. They moved here because government stayed out their way and allowed them to succeed or fail on their own merits. My great grandparents immigrated here at the turn of 20th century and my great grandfather became a successful logger. He had more than $1 worth of logs on the landing when the stock market crashed in '29. He went from dead broke to wealthy in less than 2 decades without government interference or entitlements.

Also, just fyi, I am a political independent. I'm against progressivism in all of its forms whether it comes from the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm also not a tea party member either, although I think they are correct in many of their political stances. I think for myself. I read for myself. I'm a student of history and have been fascinated by it since I was able to read. I truly believe that those who don't know and understand our history cannot understand what we came from, what made us great--politically, morally, economically, and militarily, and what will keep us a great nation.

As a nation we are leaving behind the very principles that allowed us to become great to begin with, and that's both sad and very frustrating to me.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

He had more than $1 worth of logs

That should be: He had more than $1 million worth of logs....

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this?

[ffreeloader]

And maybe you're an idiot because you make just as many illogical assumptions as the idiot that first called me an idiot here and the mods that modded me as flamebait.

'Our single greatest asset'

[Culture20]

'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people'

Because we (Americans) don't make anything solid anymore. Essentially, we give people in other countries the plans to make $FOO, in exchange for a few free $FOOs, then we have to come up with a new $FOO2 to make sure the other countries want to build the new $FOO2. If the manufacturers ever decide that what they are making is good-enough for the next twenty-thirty years, we're screwed unless we can pretend that we own the ideas.

Re:'Our single greatest asset'

[Yoozer]

'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people'

... because we sold all the other stuff to China.

Re:'Our single greatest asset'

[OrangeCatholic]

>Because we (Americans) don't make anything solid anymore.

That's not true. January's trade deficit was $37.3 billion. Sound bad for one month? We exported $142.7 billion in that same month. And that doesn't count the domestic market.

So to say "we don't make anything" is a bit of a stretch. We don't make enough.

Obama=Bush III

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, as if anyone could possibly be surprised Obama is a corporate whore. What do you think happens if you can't run for president unelss you can raise $60 million. Do you think his benefactors gave him that money expecting nothing in return?

How's President Hope'N'Change working out for you?

[Mark Atwood]

He's just yet another dirty Chicago politican, with the added advantage of a huge cohort of religious followers who made him the Obamessiah.

Slashdot Official Translation

[Dystopian Rebel]

'Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people [...] It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.'

TRANSLATION:

"Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and the creativity of the American Lawyer. As our education system collapses and laziness and ignorance steadily increase until the Constitution is entirely without meaning and it becomes impossible for our society to function without coercion -- we expect lawyers to bring home enough cash to sustain not just their coke habits but also our military... with a small amount of funds possibly left over for health care (but don't bet on it). We won't have the money in this century to bully anyone with our military capabilities, so we're counting on our lawyers to win the important battles."

Re:Slashdot Official Translation

[Nerdfest]

You're defying prophesy. It has been said that in the future “There's only four things we do better than anyone else: music, movies, microcode, and high-speed pizza delivery”

Re:Slashdot Official Translation

[AlexMax2742]

Blaming lawyers for our troubles is short-sighted. The number of opportunities in law is actually going down, and the typical advice for people who want to go to law school these days is don't bother. That doesn't sound like some dystopian future world where lawyers would be in high demand suing each other into oblivion.

If your anger should be directed somewhere, it should be directed at the wealthiest 10% of america, who own 72% of it's wealth. Which would be fine (after all, there's nothing inherently wrong with being rich), except they also don't pay their fair share of taxes either, which means cutbacks in education, social services, and so on. They will use their considerable political influence to continue that things continue the way they are, and of course, they've managed to drill into people's heads that more taxes == evil, so you have people frothing at the mouth and protesting against their own best interest.

Re:Slashdot Official Translation

[TooMuchToDo]

+1 for Snow Crash reference =)

Re:Slashdot Official Translation

[HyperQuantum]

We won't have the money in this century to bully anyone with our military capabilities, so we're counting on our lawyers to win the important battles."

The courts' verdicts will lose their significance if there is no longer a power to enforce them.

Really? REALLY?!?!

[hguiney]

Obama seems to love giving token support to the more popular side of big issues like these without actually researching them first. If he's supposed to be a man of the people, how about supporting consumer rights such as the right to make legal backups of purchased media and the right to enjoy that media on devices of our choosing? Protecting IP is important but not at the expense of the people who make that IP valuable.

Its only fair...

[Tangential]

Its only fair, the RIAA and the MPAA have made a sizable investment in Obama and especially in Biden. It wouldn't be fair for them to have spent all that money and gotten nothing but a bunch of justice department positions in return. They've made a sizable purchase of politicians. They should be able to enjoy the fruits of ownership.

Anyone remember RIAA/MPAA's stance on Open Source?

[correnos]

In case you don't, it was in the news a while ago. They called it piracy and against capitalist ideals. Am I the only one who is beginning to get worried?

What about "Free Culture"?

[supersloshy]

But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.

Look at the Free Culture/Software movement, Obama. There's people all over the place "stealing other people's ideas", except it isn't stealing. When you steal something, you take it from them without their permission. Should you need permission to make a program that does the same thing as another program? Should you need permission to cover, adapt, or remix something someone else did? It's not like you can just sue random people off the street for singing a song you "own" (Oh wait, that happened quite a few times already. Nevermind). None of these uses of our culture should ever be thought of as infringing; doing so practically removes our right to say as we please (then again, people over the years have stated that we have never had "free speech" anyways).

"Fair Use" has produced millions of dollars, and you dare imply that it didn't? By supporting the ACTA/RIAA/MPAA, you're supporting concentration of wealth (which just so happens to be concentrated towards the few companies that are trying to control our culture), which is never a good thing. "Intellectual Property" doesn't need to be "protected" in this matter at all, and these ideas are just getting more and more absurd. Things aren't going to get better if we have people like Obama supporting these crazy ideas.

Open letter to the United States Government

[GuyverDH]

Dear Mr. President and members of Congress and Senate,

Please, stop listening to the corporate un-citizens. I say un-citizens because all they care about is lining their pockets with money. Not to say that most Americans wouldn't love to line their pockets with money as well, but only Corporate citizens (which aren't even real citizens as they can't be called to fight for their country, aren't held accountable for their actions unless someone with more money than them can fight them) have the money to pay for you to listen to their needs. The luncheons, the corporate sponsored getaways, the private flights and perks are all their way of buying you, you the representatives of us, not corporations.

If you really want to protect the creators of ideas and artistic endevours, you must do away with tyranical organazitions like the RIAA and MPAA which prosecute little children as well as dead or dying citizens for a percieved (never proven) loss of a few pennies, all the while wholesale stealing from the very creators they cry woefully to protect.

I'm going to copy en masse an e-mail sent to me - please read it, please consider it, and please, when you are done, think about pushing corporate citizenship back where it belongs, to non citizenship - without rights, without needs to protect as you would the individuals who actually do the creating of everything you wish to protect.

Pretty interesting if one reads all the way to the end. Follow this by reading "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man", by John Perkins. We had a surplus in 2000 and no way does the banking industry and those who rule it want to see that again, even if it takes two wars.

EVERY U.S. CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the troll in this?

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[sonicmerlin]

I wish there was a tl;dr mod. Because holy mother of cow milk this was too long.

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[Skreems]

None of those taxes existed 100 years ago, and we were the most prosperous nation. Sure. We also had nearly 10% illiteracy nationwide, no highways or telephone network, or dozens of other things funded by government taxation that have enabled economic expansion over the past century. And if we're no longer the most populous nation, the ones that are outperforming us actually tax quite a bit more heavily than we do.

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to read to read Charley Reeses column. I found him to be insightful and informative, yet a bit angry. I stopped when I found out he was a little racist. I found myself asking, "If this guy is so smart, why can't he get over his racism? Why can't he at least avoid using language that suggests racism, again if he is so smart?"

Even here, he finishes his complaint regarding taxation in America with a jab towards America's multicultural-ism.

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[twostix]

In 1910 there was 10% literacy???

Hint: If you're going to pull a number out of your backside try to go for something that at least sounds semi-reasonable to the average man.

I will say if you're the product of one "of the other things funded by government taxation" over the past century then you prove the parents point I'm sorry to say.

Also in the early 1800's (to go back two hundred years in case you can't count either) there was about 80-90% literacy and the average ten year old who spent three days a week at the local parish school getting rapped over the knuckles for not deciphering Shakespeare correctly was more literate, articulate and well versed in logic, debate and reason than the vast majority of individuals coming out of the public education system at present.

Sorry to bring a fact into your hazed pop-culture oriented distortion of history.

Whatever is necessary to advance your political religion right?

Re:Open letter to the United States Government

[Skreems]

You misread my post. I said "10% illiteracy". I'm guessing we can count you among the 0.1% who are still in that category today?

Holy flamebait batman

[damn_registrars]

In a move sure to surprise no one, Obama has come out on the side of the MPAA/RIAA and has backed the ACTA:

I'm glad to see that slashdot maintains such a fair and unbiased approach to reporting. This goes well with the editorial opinion they passed on to us as news on Tuesday. Sure, I know that slashdot is not an actual news agency and has no reporters of its own, but they could at least pretend to not be promoting an agenda when choosing which articles to link to from the front page.

Re:Holy flamebait batman

[Anonymous Coward]

In a move sure to surprise no one, Obama has come out on the side of the MPAA/RIAA and has backed the ACTA

If a person *is* surprised that a US president would back big business interests, they might need to seriously re-evaluate their perception of reality.

You don't get elected these days without them.

Re:Holy flamebait batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling in article summaries == more page hits
More page hits == more ad revenue

Re:Holy flamebait batman

[shoehornjob]

Flaimbait indeed. Seriously though, I'm a relative newbie to this site and I have never seen bias of any kind here. lol

do your own work

[unity100]

it was substantiated repeated times in the past, and slashdot ran stories on them. if you search it, you can find. latest was a research from netherlands that showed the pirates bought much more cds than anyone else, ironically.

Re:do your own work

[Shadow of Eternity]

What parent said.

As annoying as the Citation Police can be, I assure you that Research Zone Jaywalkers are even worse.

Re:do your own work

[CharlyFoxtrot]

do your own work

We have this new thing on the internets now called a "hyperlink", it was created especially so people could directly "link" to other stuff to further explain their claims. It's pretty neat and that way it's less work for everyone ! Technology eh, what'll they think of next ?

Re:do your own work

[unity100]

well then, if that great technology is so enabling, please find me those links and prove me that it is really that effortless.

It's not the "size" of the government...

[weston]

... it's who's buying the policy.

ugh. gimme a break.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intellectual property and copyright are going to be the single greatest hinderance to innovation within this country as patent trolls and copyright lawyers can expect ever increasing amounts of litigation and profit based off of hurting those who are actually going out there and developing products and services which help push the limits of technology. Personally, I come from the belief that if someone can do it better, they should, and that true competition is based off of who is the best. A simple case and point with this is the iPhone*, while Apple introduced little that truly innovated (phone, web-browsing, iPod, email) it was their method and vision which differentiated the iPhone apart from other offerings on the market and earned its position in the mobile market. Imagine if Blackberry held a patent that gave them sole-access to emailing using a non-tethered wireless connected input device, while Nokia held a patent for making phone calls from a device with no central bay-station, and Microsoft held a patent preventing the use of Web-Browsers on anything but Windows Mobile Phones? Well, Apple would've released a really fancy iPod (it's arguable that that's all they did...) and that would've been it.

For a truly competitive market we need nothing but innovation, ingenuity, and gusto, but the free-marketeers and oligopolists will never let that slide because they don't want innovation they want /absurd/ profits. I know things must be paid for, and that a great amount of money is spent on R&D by firms in high-tech, but! They have an advantage of capital, internal knowledge, and a huge labor force to help curb competition already--why do they need more of an advantage. I'm getting lazy, so... /end rant.

Oh wait, one final remark, if another country has access to a large unskilled labor-force and can reproduce something for less--they should. America on the other hand should be using it's highly-skilled labor force, *cough* comparative advantage *cough*, to produce goods which cannot be reproduced without capital and highly-skilled labor.

*I know the iPhone has an absurd amount of patents on it, most probably bullshit, but just ignore this for the example.

What intellectual property?

[whizbang77045]

The only "ideas" being defended here that I can see are audio and video (and maybe, text). Sorry, but once the digital revolution hit, Pandeora's box was opened. They can pass all the laws they want to, but they'll be almost impossible to enforce. Second, the duration of copyrights has been extended, not because it makes sense, but because large corporations, many of them foreign, lobbied in this direction. Whatever happened to the voice of the people? We need shorter copyright terms, and reasonably priced content. The reasons for piracy would largely disappear, as would the reasons to need still more lawyers and law enforcement personnel.

There, he said it *almost*

[roguegramma]

He could just as well have said:
"We welcome low standards for patents and long timespans for copyrights because this will help our economy, and we will push these rules down the throat of other nations."

Very misleading article

[nickovs]

While I'm no particular fan of the MPAA, the RIAA or the ACTA, it deserves to be pointed out that the article is substantially misleading and inaccurate. Firstly, the speech to which they refer, in the section about IP protection, talks exclusively about protecting the licensing of technology and make no mention what so ever of the MPAA, the RIAA or music of video piracy. While these organisations happen to also support the ACTA, it is grossly misleading to say that the speech comes out in support of either of them. Secondly, the article says that "the European Parliament has already shot the ACTA agreement down". This is completely incorrect. The European Parliament have demanded that the European Commission make public the nature of its discussions in the ACTA negotiations, and the EU Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern that the treaty might be incompatible with existing EU law, but the parliament have not passed any resolutions regarding the content of the treaty itself (not least because it's secret, so they don't know what it says).

The process through which the ACTA has be created is highly suspect but it does its opponents no service if those who campaign against it can't present an accurate case.

Re:Very misleading article

[Anonymous Coward]

what about fair use ?
what about health care redlining ?

we just need BOTH sides of the contracts enforced.

jr

Re:Very misleading article

[magus_melchior]

I don't know what's worse, that our President doesn't (or can't) openly speak out against ACTA and excessive copyright/IP laws, or that there are only 2 posts in this highly-modded discussion that do not automatically protest the President based on a troll article.

Oh, who am I kidding, this is Slashdot. Libertarian and leaping to conclusions that aren't there in reality.

Re:Very misleading article

[c0lo]

This is completely incorrect. The European Parliament have demanded that the European Commission make public the nature of its discussions in the ACTA negotiations, and the EU Privacy Commissioner has expressed concern that the treaty might be incompatible with existing EU law, but the parliament have not passed any resolutions regarding the content of the treaty itself (not least because it's secret, so they don't know what it says).

The process through which the ACTA has be created is highly suspect but it does its opponents no service if those who campaign against it can't present an accurate case.

Signals of common-sense still exists

The resolution does not call for ACTA to scrapped, however. Instead, negotiations should center only on more effective "counterfeiting" enforcement. As Engström put it in a blog post on the new resolution, "If there is to be an ACTA agreement, the parliament wants it to be about combating goods counterfeiting (i.e., fake Rolexes and hand bags, fake Viagra on the net, fake cigarettes that are even more harmful that proper ones, etc.). It should not be about restricting our fundamental civil liberties on the net... Today is a day when it feels good to be a Pirate in the European Parliament."

To be noted that the ACTA treaty will need to be ratified by the EU Parliament, thus it seems that there are still hopes in regarding this.

Re:Very misleading article

[c0lo]

Ah, yes, here are some details.

This is a resolution by a virtually unanimous parliament, but it is not formally binding for the Commission.If they want to ignore us, they technically can.Then we will have to fight on.

And once we do get access to the documents, the fight over the content of the agreement will begin in earnest. This was a big win, but it was only a battle. Most of the war remains.

Wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the title should be "U.S.'s Obama To Limit Internet Freedom". ;-)

idiot

[unity100]

this is precisely capitalism, and precisely what you term as 'free market'.

in any environment in which you allow groups or individuals to become more powerful than others, eventually those who get to the top first subdue or eliminate others and a power hierarchy gets established. this is how precisely feudalism came to being in the first place.

this is the nature of social dynamics, and it will never change. unless there are rules and laws preventing anyone from becoming more powerful than others, there will always be a pyramid of power in the long run.

wealth is power.

put in layman's terms, your 'free market' can exist and be free only in the early times. like in the initial times of united states. later, when some groups get more wealth than others, they will get to the top and establish a hierarchy. so, this is the EXACT thing you should have expected to happen - groups who set up the pyramid first, ensuring that pyramid continues to be, and they stay on top of it.

enjoy your 'free' market capitalism. its much more hard to combat than aristocracy.

Re:idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

this is precisely capitalism, and precisely what you term as 'free market'.

It may be capitalism, but only because there are kinds of capitalism other than free market capitalism, A market restricted by copyright and patent monopolies is simply not a free market. Cheap cloning is a feature and macroeconomic advantage of a free market system that copyrights and patents are designed to prevent.

A "capitalist" system with copyright and patent is about as capitalist as the USSR was communist - i.e. not very.

Re:idiot

[ffreeloader]

You're calling me an idiot? LOL.

Selling out, screwing over, etc... constituents by corrupt politicians exists in every form of government. It is not specific to capitalism, nor required by capitalism to function optimally.... Thus Obama corruptly selling out US citizens isn't a function of capitalism.

It's a basically a law of nature though that the more power you give to politicians, the more aspects they control in a society, the greater the negative effects of their corruption are on their constituents. Thus, communism as seen in every communist country, socialistic governments, etc... are even more susceptible to the evils of corrupt politicians and the result of their corruption is even more pernicious in those societies than it is in a society in which government officials are limited in power.

   

Re:idiot

[unity100]

the difference in capitalism is that, in capitalism the illusion of 'you can do it too' is maintained. so, despise the chances of 'making it' way to the top is less than getting to be a baron while starting off as a peasant in middle ages, people are deceived that they also can 'make it'.

the system also keeps an illusion of a participative democratic process - supposedly you elect your representative and they legislate on your behalf, but no candidate can overcome others without getting support of the wealthy elite.

if you compare it to feudalism, you find it much harder to combat against - in feudalism the oppressors are the same as the wealthy elite, and target and its methods are clear as day. you can unite people against it and fight it, and effect a result. this is the story of american and french revolutions.

in capitalist democracy however, whereas the wealthy elite runs the country, they rule it through a people elected proxy in assemblies and administration. so, you cant establish the legalese to fight against them.

capitalism and communism are extreme ends of the same spectrum on both sides.

solution, is, since you seem to be interested in it, social democracy. which is wrongly termed socialism in usa, however correctly termed as social democracy in europe. this ideology has been dominant in northern european countries in the last 50 years, and judging by their success, it works beyond well.

Re:idiot

[hibiki_r]

It's still a free market, it just happens to be a market where part of the goods that are sold or bought are intellectual property. Now, you could claim that there are other restrictions, or claim that intellectual property should not be respected in the same way as physical property, but to claim that IP goes against the concept of a free market is a 'true Scotsman' argument. Your argument bases itself on your ability to redefine your terms as you see fit.

IP can be a positive force instead of a negative one in certain scenarios. The problem with the concept is that, in the current situation, with blanket copyright and patent terms that last many years, the harm that is done by the IP laws outweights the gains. The optimal copyright and patent terms, if they have to be the same for all fields, is very close to zero days.

Re:idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, copyright and patent monopolies destroy the free market in physical goods, because they actively conflict with physical property rights, as shown by e.g. Stephan Kinsella. You can't have both real and imaginary property coherently in one system. You're kind of right - if it was a thing there were no physical property laws, a free market in imaginary properties might be possible. But that's not the situation. The physical free market, the market normal people care about, is destroyed by imaginary property.

Re:idiot

[JesseMcDonald]

It's still a free market, it just happens to be a market where part of the goods that are sold or bought are intellectual property.

Which, depending on the particular definition of "free market" you subscribe to, may or may not be a contradiction. The term is simply too watered down to be useful, in large part due to over-application of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as demonstrated in your post. True, if your intent is to determine whether something/someone is or isn't a member of a particular group, you can't just redefine the group to suit your preferred conclusion. However, the AC was replying to this comment:

this is precisely capitalism, and precisely what you term as 'free market'. (Emphasis added.)

This clearly leaves the definition of "free market" up to the OP (ffreeloader), who just as clearly agreed that Obama's endorsement of "IP rights" was anti-free-market. This establishes that the term "free market" was meant to refer to the particular definition(s) which exclude the concept of "IP." Ergo, in the context of this thread the AC was making a perfectly sound argument, and the other potential definitions of "free market" have no place.

P.S. It would be nice if we could reserve a specific, concise term for "the libertarian form of free-market where all legitimate interaction between individuals is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle, where property rights take the form of absolute (but not inherently exclusive) rights to continue using said property in the manner in which it has previously been homesteaded from unowned land, and where such rights may be passed from owner to owner exclusively via contract." Unfortunately, every time this has been tried the new term has been similarly co-opted for incompatible uses—like "free market", which is often used where "market" alone would serve—to the point that we're running out of meaningful alternatives.

Re:idiot

[ffreeloader]

You're ignoring the power/control of a government that tells you what you can do, what you can earn, etc.... That is far harder to overcome than anything you listed, even if I accept everything you say as true.

The more power a government has over the social, economic, and educational options of its citizenry the harder it is for the citizens to effect any meaningful change, and the fewer real freedoms its citizens have. They are completely at the "mercy" of their corrupt government officials. The actions of the Soviet, Chinese, Albanian, etc... peoples and governments prove this.

It's the apathy of US voters, and I was guilty of that apathy for a long time, that has allowed the corruption to continue. However the problem with corrupt government officials and corrupt laws can still be overcome through the electorate. The Obama care debate shows this to still be true, as the only reason he has not been able to get it passed is because of voter outrage. The Democrats have complete control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and still can't get this bad law passed as the politicians know they will get voted out of office if it gets passed. The majority of US voters have spoken, and spoken loudly. It looks to me like a general awakening as to how much we citizens have abdicated our responsibility as citizens to govern ourselves. We're fed up and we're not going to take it any more. Either things change or we WILL throw the bums out.

Re:idiot

[unity100]

whereas if you remove or diminish the government, this time private organizations and people take its place. it is far worse, since you can have no claim over anything privately owned, whereas you can claim your right to government.

soviet, chinese, albanian, all these countries were located in geographies with long standing traditions of repression and authoritarianism. they just changed the mantle of authoritarianism they had on. however still, despite all that totalitarianism, repression and (on the surface) lack of freedoms, the citizens of those countries have never had that high living standards and liberties if you compare to their history. why, serfdom (eastern european serfdom was akin to slavery) was only abolished in russia in 1865. mind that, not a minority, but the entirety of the society were practically slaves up to this point.

in either case its the extreme end of the spectrum, even if it provided russians with much more freedom than their ancestors comparably had. not to mention that, the citizens of those countries have never had proper education, countries were never able to have a middle class (either aristocrats or serfs), therefore the basic liberties, human rights, principles of equality, tolerance etc were totally unknown in those parts. naturally after their revolutions their governments reflected their attitude, with all the intolerance and ignorance.

as i said before, so far the best method humanity has invented and saw working has been social democracy, in which citizen's, public's needs and wants are put forth over anything else, assured and provided by the state, and corporations kept in check with rules and regulations that prevent them from behaving like the ones in usa, as if they were owners of the nation.

so, the crowning jewel of this entire human civilization now sits, maybe rather tellingly, on the top of its head, in scandinavia. their success in regards to liberties, freedoms, standard of living, fair distribution of income, education, innovation compared to their population and natural resources, dwarf all other countries that came to being.

(ps im not scandinavian neither i am a social democrat.)

the first

Re:idiot

[sonicmerlin]

See, I understand certain aspects of progressivism, but I think in some cases it goes too far. While I'm economically progressive, I'm socially conservative. I look at women and see them working full-time, only stopping work to care for their children until they're 6 months or 1 year old, and I can't help but feel depressed at the state of "progressive" nations.

Equality is fine if two quantities are indeed equal, but humans are *not* all equal. We didn't evolve that way, and our psychologies do not fit into such rigid idealistic categorization. In fact it is quite effectively argued that modern law favors females over males, given the natural differences between the two that are not accounted for by law.

I didn't mean for this to descend into a male vs. female rant. What I'm trying to say is that "progressive" societies have become materialistic and ignored many of the spiritual and emotional benefits of traditional societies. Values preached in philosophies such as Buddhism or Confucianism are simply thrown to the wayside to focus on the material well-being of everyone.

This might seem good on the surface, but underneath I feel that things are lacking.

Re:idiot

[OrangeCatholic]

I think you're misusing the word capitalism. If you set up a lemonade stand, and you make money, that's capitalism. If you want to set up a lemonade stand, but someone else's lemonade stand already has all the tax breaks and building permits, because they have 5 congressmen and 30 lobbyists, that's communism.

Let's not forget that communism was enterprise run by government committee for purpose of maintaining the appearance of economic success.

There are so many ways to describe what's going on in our country without dragging the very basic idea of capitalism down with it. Because if capitalism is as corrupt as you say, what are you going to replace it with? Social democracy? That's a government, not an economy.

Re:idiot

[unity100]

tax breaks building permits schmock shmeck.

you americans STILL dont get the point.

i set up a lemonade stand first. i make big heaps of money. with that money, i can offer more to the lemon producers and secure better deals. i also can offer much lower prices. i practically can do anything with that money, including buying the entire sidewalk off.

then noone can enter and offer 'competition' to me. if they do, i either can undercut them out, or buy them off.

wealth is power. you need to realize this. back at the end of 19th century your country didnt have any regulations, it was as near as can be to a 'free' market, and you ended up being owned by 3 people.

Re:idiot

[ffreeloader]

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on your continued assertions that a big, progressive government is the way to go. I'll prove to you that it's a bad way to go by doing nothing more than listing current events and what has led up to it.

Here in the US we have allowed Congress to give the President the power to be able to bypass the Legislative branch to get what he wants, and the legislative branch to bypass our Constitutional protections. Now we have a President and Democratic-controlled Legislative branch willing to inflict legislation on us that more than 70% of the citizens of the US do not want. Every poll taken shows we don't want Obama care, yet the Democratic leadership and Obama say they are going to pass this bill no matter what.

This isn't a corporate-backed bill. It's a politician-backed bill. Most businessmen are against it because it will raise taxes, and will raise our deficit. Plus, we, as a nation, are about to lose our AAA credit rating if we continue going further into debt. That will raise the cost of doing business as the more the US government borrows the less money there is in the credit supply. That will raise interest rates all by itself. If Obama keeps on going down the path he has chosen, and he swears he will, he will bankrupt the US in short order.

So, who is screwing we US citizens over against our collective will? Big, European-type, progressive government.
   

Re:idiot

[unity100]

Here in the US we have allowed Congress to give the President the power to be able to bypass the Legislative branch to get what he wants, and the legislative branch to bypass our Constitutional protections. Now we have a President and Democratic-controlled Legislative branch willing to inflict legislation on us that more than 70% of the citizens of the US do not want. Every poll taken shows we don't want Obama care, yet the Democratic leadership and Obama say they are going to pass this bill no matter what.

polls put out by fox and its cronies, which are the mouthpieces of the very corporations who are sucking america's money in exchange for their lives, you mean.

while a german gets chopper lifted to airport, then to airport to fly to germany to receive treatment because his leg was broken in turkey, americans are left out of hospital doors even if they have private insurance, thanks to shuffled legal contracts to favor the profits. i wont even comment on what kind of healthcare is delivered in scandinavian countries with socialized healthcare, because it would break us both into tears, its out of this world.

this may be a politician sponsored bill. it doesnt matter. actually it was supposed to be as such too. politician is a statuse mankind invented to speak the will of the people and do good for the people, yet rarely ever worked to that extent.

 

Plus, we, as a nation, are about to lose our AAA credit rating if we continue going further into debt.

you, as a nation has lost your credit rating LONG before, when bush & co started to suck your treasury dry with no accountability and borrowing money from china to no end, despite they didnt spend anything on american citizens. where the money went, is STILL unknown.

my last word is ; a government by the people, for the people, can only work for the people if that government has enough power. and it is the way it should be, for, if the government is not for the people, and it doesnt have enough power, there is NOTHING preventing other power focuses from herding the country to their end. most powerful focuses in current time and age are megacorporations. nobility is long past by.

i again advise you to research on recent 50 year history of scandiavian countries.

IP based society.

[Hylandr]

An IP Based Society is great for every other nation on earth, for in 20 to 30 years all the world has to do to destroy America is simply start ignoring her laws.

Do we then start sending troops into nation X for downloading Disney movies? How about when they all decide to stop paying royalties?

- Dan.

Re:IP based society.

[syousef]

Do we then start sending troops into nation X for downloading Disney movies?

Can you start by arresting my wife? She has legal DVDs not downloads or illegal copies, but those Disney flicks drive me insane and should be illegal!!!

Just kidding honey! Honest (Quick arrest her!)

Re:IP based society.

[lokpest]

Do we then start sending troops into nation X for downloading Disney movies?

I can just picture it before me! ;-D

Another un-winnable war.

[Simulant]

We sure know how to pick 'em.

Re:Another un-winnable war.

[countertrolling]

The war isn't meant to be "won". It is meant to be perpetuated.

Re:Another un-winnable war.

[Anonymous Coward]

The war on piracy. We must stop the new terrorists!

and we have always been at war with eurasia.

Re:Another un-winnable war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wartime gives special powers to special people. study your law.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How the Constitution could have saved us...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you throw out all the things you think you'd like the federal government do and just read what it should be, it's clear that politicians have created a self-feeding machine.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that the federal government has jurisdiction in a number of areas, and all other rights belong to the states (unless the states specifically give up a right via an amendment). Lobbying Congress, bribing a Senator, etc... was supposed to be of little value to business because states set their own policies. This would mean that businesses would naturally move to where the climate was most hospitable and states would have to balance heavy-handed regulation and taxes with the jobs and prosperity that attracting businesses would bring.

When a fundamental shift of power from the states to Washington occurs, the balances are gone, everyone stops competing, and instead tries to secure favorable legislation nationwide. Now we have the unholy alliance of government and corporations. Politicians depend on corporate money and corporations depend on provisions biased in their favor.

Our decentralized nation was a good idea. Perhaps a bit inconvenient at times, but it allowed many different ideas to be tested across the country and empowered people with better access to government. We need to re-establish the Constitution as the Law of the Land and hold those accountable who willfully violate it.

Re:How the Constitution could have saved us...

[colinrichardday]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that the federal government has jurisdiction in a number of areas

And two of those areas are copyright and patents (Article I, Section 8)

Motherhood and apple pie...

[davecb]

He made some un-controversial statements about protecting U.S industry from commercial copying: "But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor."

I don't think anyone would mind that, and that is what a legitimate anti-counterfeiting treaty would prevent.

Alas, the commentator leaps out from beneath his bridge and shouts "the RIAA wants that too, and they're evil, so Obama is evil". That's then picked up by a page headed "Obama Care - Stop Him", and retitled "Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA" and referenced here as "Obama Backs MPAA, RIAA, and ACTA".

Do you begin to see a pattern here? This is a classic "guilt by association" scam, in which you say "X", and are promptly tarred and feathered by a commentator who says "but the <insert your choice of evil group here> is in favor of X, therfore you're a member/supporter/fellow-traveler of <evil group>.

One should attack Mr. Obama for what he said, not for something Mr. Sandoval said on his behalf...

--dave

Re:Motherhood and apple pie...

[HiThere]

You're right, the evidence isn't there. But it isn't available to show that he's wrong, either, and based on the maneuvering that's being done the commentators opinions seem a plausible interpretation. You can't offer any evidence that he's wrong, because they (the feds and their accomplices) have hidden the evidence. And since if he were wrong there's not much reason for them to have hidden it, he's probably right, even if he can't prove it.

Re:Motherhood and apple pie...

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

Yeah, People could just listen to the president directly. White House
One-click, 5 minutes of their time

Re:Motherhood and apple pie...

[countertrolling]

One should attack Mr. Obama for what he said...

Might want to wait to see what he does. If anybody knows the difference between talk and action, it's a politician.

Neal Stephenson is a genius

[Vahokif]

When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:

• music
• movies
• microcode (software)
• high-speed pizza delivery

Re:Neal Stephenson is a genius

[rwa2]

Don't forget the military!

If all you have is imaginary intellectual property, the only way you can really protect it is by force. Well, and trade sanctions, but those won't mean much soon...

Re:Neal Stephenson is a genius

[slyborg]

Unfortunately, we're down to movies and high-speed pizza delivery at this point.

Re:Neal Stephenson is a genius

[Saint Dharma]

When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:

• music
• movies
• microcode (software)
• high-speed pizza delivery

If it means I can drive The Deliverator car, then sign me up. Saint Dharma

Re:Neal Stephenson is a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know - you seem to be a pretty dab hand at hyperbole, bad analogies, over-broad generalisations and leaping to conclusions - maybe you can sell those as services instead?

Re:Neal Stephenson is a genius

[Some Bitch]

music

In your dreams boys, the UK is king of that particular hill.

Imaginary property is insolvent

[betterunixthanunix]

It is really not a defense of these policies to note that we are moving to an economy where copyrights and patents are our chief export; it is just a description of the broader problem that nobody wants to manufacture their goods in America anymore. The solution is not to try to push other countries to accept our versions of copyright and patent law, it is to bring those manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Sadly, the major parties seem to have no interest in the seemingly obvious solution...

Re:Imaginary property is insolvent

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is not to try to push other countries to accept our versions of copyright and patent law, it is to bring those manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Sadly, the major parties seem to have no interest in the seemingly obvious solution...

It's certainly obvious, but it's no solution to anything.

Nobody wants those jobs, and certainly no American could afford to do those jobs at market rate.

The manufacturing jobs are never coming back. The United States simply can't compete with developing economies, who have the means, the labor force, and the singular need for manufacturing and industrialization for their own domestic development. Once that is achieved in all developing countries, the global "manufacturing" market will contract considerably because there just won't be a need to produce as much crap anymore, and with increasingly sophisticated automation, what needs to be produced will require far less human labor to do so.

Couple with significant population growth, the simple reality is that there isn't a long-term need for a 95%-employment labor force of any kind, let alone high employment in manufacturing, but there is a need for money, and that means the economization of intellectual labor, pure and simple. There is no alternative short of a complete restructuring of our economic and social systems.

You get the same idiots who think that companies should be able to "trim the fat" and maximize labor force efficiency while simultaneously railing against any form of social welfare. Well, news flash: if the US economy only requires 50% employment to sustain itself, then the employed half will have to pay to support the unemployed half. If there are 8 people and 5 jobs, you can't fault the unemployed 3 for not working, since there's no need for their labor.

"Bring the manufacturing jobs back" is just another way of saying "add make-work jobs that the economy doesn't need"

Re:Imaginary property is insolvent

[Anonymous Coward]

gonna fail

Re:Imaginary property is insolvent

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much work, and takes too long (aka: longer than the next quarterly report) to see profit. By going with IP, you see instant profit, and all you need are a truckload or two of lawyers and bullying... just what the USA does best. Or at least does the most.

when the only thing your country produces

[Truekaiser]

is stuff like the latest Britney spears cd(i know it's kind of a exaggeration but it's closer to the truth then you realize) draconion laws such as these are needed to a degree.

Re:when the only thing your country produces

[frank_adrian314159]

When the only thing your country produces s stuff like the latest Britney Spears CD...

... you don't have to worry about IP laws because no one would want to steal it anyway.

Re:How's President Hope'N'Change working out for y

[sonicmerlin]

As far as I know most democratic supporters are disappointed with Obama's centrist policies. So you're just trolling. Good luck with that.

Breaking news, Obama needs tax revenue

[cdrguru]

If you aren't paying for your entertainment media, then you aren't paying taxes. Similarly, the rightholders aren't paying income taxes on the money they are getting.

Therefore, piracy reduces tax revenues. Obama would really like to have a health care system that didn't just skyrocket the deficit out of control, while maintaining the idea that everyone (even the illegal immigrants) are getting health care coverage with government subsidies. Well, obviously he can't do that with shrinking tax revenues, now can he?

Has your income gone up this year from last year? Do you expect to be paying more or less in income taxes next year? Well, big media companies are looking at exactly the same situation and the government is getting nervous. Smaller tax revenues mean more deficit spending and maybe (gasp!) some programs getting cut and pork projects not getting done.

This will result in congresscritters not being reelected because they failed to "deliver" for their constituents. Yup, I'd say everyone in the US is worried about that.

Re:Breaking news, Obama needs tax revenue

[swilver]

You are so short-sighted. That money will simply be spend on other luxury products. Money doesn't just disappear.

In fact, I think having that money not flow straight into the pockets of the extremely rich (the entertainment business) will probably be better for the economy (and thus result in more taxes being paid).

excuse me

[unity100]

but if an individual cannot distinguish the importance of freedoms over 'right of ownership' over thought processes, and comes up defending the private interests that seek to monopolize thought, there is nothing to defend about him.

acta is evil. it is the most evil thing since spanish inquisition. the very fact that whole thing proceeds by CIRCUMVENTING democratical procedures is itself appalling from the start, leave aside all the 'measures' that seek to cramp down freedoms for some parties' interests.

it wouldnt be radical to say that anyone who sides with evil, for WHATEVER reason, is the enemy, for, by siding with such kind of evil, they have become dangerous to our freedoms themselves.

Re:excuse me

[davecb]

Sides with, in the sense of actually being a member, supporter or fellow-traveler of <evil group>? Sure! But has Mr. Obama said that, or were the words put in his mouth by Mr Sandoval?

Honi soit qui mal y pense (Edward III)

--dave

Re:excuse me

[shutdown -p now]

acta is evil. it is the most evil thing since spanish inquisition.

But... Godwin??? er, I mean, Hitler???

Re:excuse me

[Vectormatic]

Hitler at the very least was up-front about trying to take over the world, he sent in the tanks and divebombers, not some sneaky underhanded bunch of lawyers and politicians...

Just wait till they start shipping people off to Gitmo for copying a dvd, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they somehow manage to make copyright infringement a 'terrorist act' within a few years

The Great Lessing forsaw this...

[CupBeEmpty]

...in this presentation.

Surprise!

[paxcoder]

Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity

...and surprise.

Because noone expects American invasion!
(jk - we do)

Re:Let's Do Something More Agressive

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Let's develop a new business model for artists (that results in more money in their pockets overall). Let's convince young people (the media firms' primary customers) that the media companies are evil, for the same reason everyone hates Monsanto or $EVIL_CORP.

The only hope for freedom is the destruction of the media companies. If we fight the individual legislation, they will simply bring it back, again and again.

Well, obviously.

[Hurricane78]

Biden, and half the staff are ex-MAFIAA people.

Wasn’t there this staff position, where the first guy hired, went to jail shorty after it. And the replacement also went to jail on day one. Then the third one, I think, stuck. And they all had massive ties to the MAFIAA.
Don’t remember which position it was though, or I could look up the exact facts.

But who cares. ACTA is already dead here in Europe. The Pirate Party is gaining strongly, and this will only strengthen it.
And unless massive censorship kicks in, the Internet will route around it.

Look at Brazil. They already ignore the whole patenting/copyright madness of the USA as part of an embargo.
Sorry US government (not talking about the population here!), but your times of having the world in a tight grip are over.
Bush/Cheney broke the ban. Now avalanche is rolling, and it’s going down.

(I just hope the US population doesn’t get punished for the faults of their government. :/)

Tech savvy -- Why would you think that?

[perpenso]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior ...

Why would you think that? Do you consider every lawyer or politician in love with their blackberry to be tech savvy? Every politician on twitter to be tech savvy? Obama is extremely intelligent but his training and experience is as a lawyer. We have had past presidents who were honest-to-god engineers. Carter was one of the first naval officers trained to operate nuclear power plants. Hoover was a mining engineer that developed various processes to improve yields. He wrote a popular university textbook for engineering and translated a classic medieval mining text. He was also an advocate and user of the new tech of his day, radio and aviation. I'm sure there were other presidents who were pretty tech savvy in their day but this is all I can think of offhand.

Re:Tech savvy -- Why would you think that?

[GameboyRMH]

I'd say Obama is the most computer-savvy US President in history - quite a sad fact, considering that he's a fan of Macs and Blackberries, some of the un-geekiest computer devices in history targeted at passive consumers who see their gadgets as appliances or fashion accessories. Even switching to Windows could be considered a step up for him.

It's not just IP laws

[weston]

In a perfect world, more production per unit of labor would mean that we would all have to work less to achieve the same level of prosperity. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the U.S. because our current intellectual property laws allow a relatively few people to take the lion's share of the benefit from the production being done.

Not just IP laws. The fact that a lot of industrial manufacturing is capital intensive combined with the relatively small segment of social networks that access to capital flows in. Or, as Marx might have said, most workers don't own the means of production under a capitalist system. Go back in time and reduce patent and copyright protections circa 1910 or even 1810 (where the benefits were more limited) and story of how the gains in the system play out for labor is pretty much going to be the same.

It's not that copyright and patent laws don't represent another barrier to entry: they sometimes do. But most of the time, they pretty much protect industrial competitors from other would-be industrial competitors.

We software geeks tend to see things a bit differently because for the last 20-30 years, we're one of the few groups lucky enough to be in an industry where we do more or less own the means of production (got a computer? And a compiler? Or interpreter for a capable language? Congratulations! You have production capacity!) because it's relatively affordable. So our barriers to entry are less about capital and more about other things like product awareness, network effects... and cost of compliance with the law, including copyright & patent law.

Maybe this will become more important in the future if it turns out that more industrial capacity becomes available for ownership down at the household level, and that's reason enough to make sure copyright and patent law are a balance bargain rather than a giveaway to lawyers and other people whose sense of entitlement is so great that they really, genuinely view ideas as genuine property, and so I think fighting against ACTA and its ilk are worthwhile... but let's not kid ourselves, copyrights and patents haven't really been the main tool of abuse in the relationship between capital and labor.

Cartels

[Midnight Thunder]

I thought cartels were generally considered illegal. By supporting these entities he is essentially supporting the notion of legal cartels. I think the USA is going to become more and more isolated in its point of views.

I had great hope for some real change when Obama came in, but he standing shows that there isn't really much separating the Democrats and the Republicans. For me, it really goes to show the whole notion of democracy in the states is more about changing the logo of the party in charge, rather than anything else. Which ever party is in charge, it is still the corporations which hold them by the balls. What it will take to institute a government which is by the people for the people, rather than by the people for the corporations.

I have nothing against copyright, rather I disagree with copyrights going beyond a reasonable amount of time.

One question I do have, is what will the reaction of the open source community be in 70 years when the first copyrights of Linux become public domain? This is not a indication of support for long copyrights, but trying to understand the reaction of the community when the shoe is on the other foot.

Re:Cartels

[chilvence]

One question I do have, is what will the reaction of the open source community be in 70 years when the first copyrights of Linux become public domain? This is not a indication of support for long copyrights, but trying to understand the reaction of the community when the shoe is on the other foot.

Thats a bit obvious. The whole purpose of open source is to turn copyright on its head, to enforce peoples right to copy, and their responsibility of allowing their copies to be copied. So of course if people 70 years from now take advantage of expired rights on linux to do whatever (I dunno what you imagine 70 year old code would be useful for...), but for the sake of argument lets say use it to secretly take over the moon, then of course it would be insulting to the spirit of open source.

  But that would unfortunately be impossible to defend against because open source uses the rules of the system to break the system, so technically still plays by the rules. This is unfortunately an implicit acknowledgement of the rules, even if open source is idealogically opposed to them. No one who wrote the laws actually predicted that a movement would spawn to specifically dump the restrictions introduced by copyright. They thought they had it all figured out. The irony of your question is, the 70 year expiration period is specifically to force locked up copyrighted works into the public domain - and the open source movement just purposefully does it a bit quicker for everyone's benefit!

(and I think its probably very difficult to see the situation that clearly if you are remotely involved in the legal soup that constitutes all this bullshit...)

Re:Cartels

[OrangeCatholic]

>I had great hope for some real change when Obama came in

Why? Because he held up placards that said "Hope" and "Change"? *laugh*

>what will the reaction of the open source community be in 70 years when the first copyrights of Linux become public domain?

Not a big problem because it will be a rolling effect. At first, only the 0.0.1 kernel will be public domain, and what are you going to do with that?

Re:Cartels

[NormalVisual]

One question I do have, is what will the reaction of the open source community be in 70 years when the first copyrights of Linux become public domain?

If recent history is any indication, copyright terms will have been extended yet again by then, so it's probably not a realisitic scenario.

If true, only because of artificial constraints.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> as a percentage of our economy, manufacturing production is pretty stable.

If this is actually true, I suspect the following:

(1) As a percentage of our economy, it is stable, but that both (a) as a percentage of world production and (b) in terms of raw tonnage, production is down because industrial production prices are rising faster than inflation.

(2) This would be wholly false if the government had not bailed out GM. General Motors is one of the largest, if not the largest, auto manufacturers in the world. Its production capacity could not be allowed to be destroyed, for military reasons if none other.

(3) The Military Industrial Complex is responsible for most of this manufacturing production. This isn't tinfoil hat, it's just the size of the defense budget and the national interest in keeping production capacity at home.

Hey, look! Another straw!

[zogger]

Quick, grasp it!

Ideas=dime a dozen. Implementing those ideas is worth a lot more. That means manufacturing, real wealth creation. The fatcat politicians and wall street labor arbitragers destroyed manufacturing in the US for short term megaprofits, and created ever so much more complicated "financial instruments" and other sorts of gambling games and debt to replace it, along with running the printing presses with the currency. Those cons are about run out now. So..check the economic headlines over the past two years. Now, they are hosed, they hosed the economy. They have no back up plan that can work now. This is a last ditch effort to try and save it. This will be futile, or as they say, "good luck with that".

EU already shot ACTA down.

[unity100]

you have to read well.

EU passed a resolution that banned any form of 3strikes anywhere in europe. Held the regulations and rules it put out before over anything proposed in acta. this means no isp liability of policing their networks for private parties' copyrights. it mandates that cutting an individual's internet access cannot happen unless through a court. it demanded full disclosure of the acta text to all members of the parliament, as mandated by eu laws. eu laws also mandate that parliament share anything with eu public, so anything that is disclosed to eu parliament has to be disclosed to entire european public.

european commission has to abide by it. there is no other route that they can take. commission already said that they are going to push the other acta negotiating parties for full disclosure. if they dont, commission wont be able to stay on the table any more, for they are not allowed to negotiate and sign anything before eu parliament knows it.

and if the text is disclosed, that means shit will hit the fan.

so yea, eu parliament seems to really have shot acta down. and probably not only for europe, for entire world.

Re:EU already shot ACTA down.

[Dripdry]

The mental image I get is a political cartoon with a poor-looking child, America, stomping up and down with a black cloud over it's head screaming "It was MY idea! MY idea!" and adults with country names on their dress shirts are faced away, sitting at a table, talking with each other or sipping drinks and laughing.

Good call.

ACTA or ad acta

[prefec2]

ACTA will only work when every (first world) country is implementing it, but the EU-Parliament is already against it, because the discussion on ACTA and all documents are kept undisclosed. You could say: Who cares what this parliament is thinking? Well Obama should care, because if the parliament is not involved and the documents are not public, then the EU will not implement ACTA which means almost 500 mio people will not be threatened by ACTA. Third world countries will not adopt to ACTA either when the EU is not doing so.

Even though, some information leaked and it looks like that ACTA would not be legal in Germany as the constitutions defines certain rights. For example the state is not allowed to transfer information on Internet-traffic to private organizations without reasonable suspicion and a letter from a judge. Also the three-strikes-law-idea is against the rules in the EU, and obviously it is against the French constitution. And I am absolutely sure if they would try it in Germany it will fail too. As cutting you of from the Internet violates your right to be informed. And this right is very important in a democracy. It is definitely not an allowed sanction by any European constitution or agreement. So ACTA may be a dead horse and Obama is riding it. It would be better when he would tell all these US-Americans that general health care is good and that securing the existential basis of any person in a country is a necessary thing.

The most dangerous part ...

[zuperduperman]

The worst part really is the endorsement of the concept that IP violations are "stealing":

But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea ...

Ideas cannot be stolen. It is a physical impossibility. The copyright & patent industry love to blur the lines of the law and pretend that using IP without authorization is as heinous as breaking into someone's house and stealing their physical goods. But it is a complete lie. It's bad enough that the various industries that benefit from these get away with blatant misleading and deception of the general public about it, but having the *president* endorse that lie is very disappointing.

Brands...

[arose]

As a rule brands have little to do with innovation, ingenuity or creativity. Trademarks should be backed by quality and expertise, not by fuzzy feelings associated with the brand, otherwise they are of no benefit to customers and not worth protecting.

ehhhh

[unity100]

you still didnt get it it seems.

yea. a market restricted with copyright and patent monopolies is not a free market.

but, it was a free market before those patent and copyright monopolies came into being.

and those patent and copyright monopolies came into being because the first groups to be able to garner more wealth than others used their wealth to corner the market and then to lobby politicians to put out rules in their favor. and now youre in this situation.

its precisely because the market was free in the first place, allowing groups to gather much more wealth than others. for it not to happen, you need to have a controlled market, with rules and regulations to ensure that noone garners huge heaps of wealth to the extent of becoming practical feudal lords. ironic and contradictory it seems, it is not. we use similar regulations and laws in civil life. we need same kinds of limitations in money and wealth too.

never forget this - it never changed at ANY point in history, even when emperors or dictators were about : wealth is power.

Re:ehhhh

[JesseMcDonald]

but, it was a free market before those patent and copyright monopolies came into being.... and those patent and copyright monopolies came into being because the first groups to be able to garner more wealth than others used their wealth to corner the market and then to lobby politicians to put out rules in their favor.

If it were really a free market in the beginning there would have been no politicians to lobby. In a free market there is exactly one immutable law: the Non-Aggression Principle. There are no lawmakers, and no opportunity to lobby that the law be changed in anyone's favor.

The problem isn't any imbalance in wealth, but rather the imbalance in authority: the artificial division of naturally equal human beings into those who make the rules (politicians) and those required to follow them (civilians). You're trying to blame those offering the bribes when the responsibility for assuming this "right" to govern others and altering the law for their own benefit lies squarely with those accepting the bribes, i.e. the politicians. I'm not saying that those lobbying for the application of political power toward their own ends are blameless, of course, only that their influence is minor by comparison. Special-interest laws are the symptom; aggression, especially political aggression, is the disease.

Re:ehhhh

[unity100]

If it were really a free market in the beginning there would have been no politicians to lobby. In a free market there is exactly one immutable law: the Non-Aggression Principle. There are no lawmakers, and no opportunity to lobby that the law be changed in anyone's favor.

irrelevant. at the start of u.s. there were no rules or regulations. this is why your entire country almost ended up being owned by 3 individuals, whom we now name as historic 'tycoons'. from transportation to publishing, your country was at the brink of being totally dominated by 3 individuals. only with theodore roosevelt and antitrust laws you avoided that shit.

it was the right thing to do, and it brought more even distribution of wealth, creating the fleeting american wealth you experienced post ww2.

however you see, it would be stupid to expect the wealthy to stop pursuing their agenda just because some people wisened up and put up some laws and regulations. they lobbied for circumventing, amending, breaching them and now we have innumerable conglomerates holding innumerable corporations which in turn holding innumerable companies. if you follow the trails you end up reaching the same group of people on top of the same conglomerate group in most sectors. 'non aggression' -> there is no such thing in society. in any unrestrained, unregulated area of social life protected by laws, there have always been and always be those who aggressively attack others in whatever means to get on top of them and live off them. back in middle ages this was the force of arms, now it is the force of bigger wealth.

this is an eternal fight in between 'the people' vs 'the elite'. back in earlier centuries it was a fight in between the peasants & burghers and the nobles. when the former won and aristocracy was toppled, it transformed into a fight in between the ordinary people and the rich as we see it today. nothing new.

 

The problem isn't any imbalance in wealth, but rather the imbalance in authority: the artificial division of naturally equal human beings into those who make the rules (politicians) and those required to follow them (civilians). You're trying to blame those offering the bribes when the responsibility for assuming this "right" to govern others and altering the law for their own benefit lies squarely with those accepting the bribes, i.e. the politicians. I'm not saying that those lobbying for the application of political power toward their own ends are blameless, of course, only that their influence is minor by comparison. Special-interest laws are the symptom; aggression, especially political aggression, is the disease.

and what do you think will happen if you remove the governments and go laissez faire. a few individuals will end up owning A LOT of things, including vast tracts of land which hold your water resources ( im talking about a fresh start, they already own your water sources), to your minerals, to your services and your food (your ass belongs to monsanto now, globally).

the owners of any product/service reserve the right to choose how to utilize them.

so ? doesnt this end up being the same as a feudal lord, in which the owner of the land decides what happens with what's there ?

there. we have just gone through another historic process with which feudal aristocracy was created. EXACTLY the same way - in a lawless, governmentless environment, those who had the power or hereditary rights to a tract of land, became de facto rulers of it.

Vote for CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

See European tally of pride

[unity100]

http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=456&lang=en#1

votes by members. surprisingly, the votes are also in line with their national party lines.

Pirate party -

[w00tsauce]

Until we form one, we'll all just continue bitching about it on /. I'll be the first to join.

man

[unity100]

so what difference does it make ? he is not a member, but he helps them to reach their evil agenda. what is the end result ?

To All who can read:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite convenient for the Motion Picture and Music industries to claim their interests are as important if not more-so than the actual protection of IP that matters, technology, medicine, engineering, etc...

As a musician who has "IP" out there, and reserves the right to protect it, it is laughable to think my musical creation, or ANY creative work that is for pure entertainment, is somehow is in the same league or group as the non-entertainment IP mentioned latter.

Music and movies are a social commentary, and have attributes to the cultural arts. You can't physically cure diseases, purify water, or put a man on the moon with a movie or a song. To suggest that entertainment IP is detrimental to the survival of the US and world economies is heinous and utterly absurd. It is exactly this type of IP legislation, and selfishness by the multimedia arts industry, that is preventing real world solutions from being distributed to those who need it most.

Ex. Can't distribute cheap malaria vaccines to those is Africa or 3 world countries since the patent holders prefer to keep supply at deflated levels while maintaining inflationary profit margins.

Like most things in life, this is about money. Pure and simple.

Next time you go see a movie, or buy that new Blu-Ray or DVD, or purchase a song online, take into consideration that you are feeding the very machine that is willing to stifle every expression of liberty, purely to maintain their market. Congratulate yourself in knowing you play your part.

Re:To All who can read:

[OrangeCatholic]

Yeah but I can't figure out how the MPAA/RIAA have hurt me (yet). From where I'm sitting, TV and Hollywood have been booming in creativity lately. The ways to watch just keep exploding - FIOS rivals cable, Netflix rivals TV and Hulu is yet another option. And I haven't bought a CD in 10 years, so fuck all that.

Granted, maybe I don't know what I don't know, but I tend to think these IP laws are protecting stuff that isn't worth protecting anyway. When all is said and done, and you have to fork over $1.50 for every single mp3 of Miley Cyrus in the universe...you know what? This is just Disney crap you're talking about.

um yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

*He* would.

Well of course he does

[nurb432]

Any politician will support the entity that contributes the most.

Well DUH.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

They're trade representatives of their respective industries. No shit that Obama's going to back them.

As much as we like to shit on the MPAA and RIAA, they make IP. subsequently, and often foolishly, they try to protect their IP. Which is their right.

I can't get riled up over IP violation law anymore. There's just so much more to life than ripping DVDs to put on my PSP, Phone or for backup purposes. I'm not saying that the cause is lost, just, not worth burning calories on on slashdot.

Re:Well DUH.

[Joce640k]

You think corporations should be allowed to drag people through the legal system and fine them millions for sharing half a dozen mp3s? To drag 8-year-olds out of school for questioning about their parents? Are you happy with laws such as the DMCA which was rushed, ill-worded and is now being used far beyond it's intended scope (to nobody's surprise). ...all in the name of preserving an obsolete business model?

Re:Well DUH.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Because those are really first world, middle and upper class problems.

I don't think it's right but I don't think it's such a problem that we burn as many calories as we do on this problem.

Passing of ACTA isn't a huge problem.

The not passing of say, ENDA however, is. Given that ENDA, the end of DADT, even *talking* about reforming healthcare and others are on the table, it's just not fair to compare Obama to Bush. There's more to a president than what he thinks about bittorrent or what chinese pirates do with multi million dollar blockbusters.

Rampant Piracy

[nurb432]

Sounds better in the media then ' we bilked you people out of lots of money last year.. and we want more this year"

Re:Dang Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Dey derp a-der!

Loser

[pubwvj]

I'm losing respect for Obama, fast. I voted for him. The alternative was horrid. I didn't really feel like I had a choice. I hoped he would accomplish good things. It has been over a year and not only has he gotten nothing done but he has gone back on campaign promises. Once again we have a loser for a President. How many administrations do we have to put up with this before we've been punished enough here in Heck?

Lets have someone like Dean or Perot, with vision and just a tinge of insanity. It would make things more interesting.

Re:Loser

[hierofalcon]

There were, among the alternatives, good candidates that you could have voted for. As long as you continue to vote for the repdem party, you will have similar results in legislation.

Just to be clear, most of the problem is not with the Executive branch of government. The president is largely constrained to approve or veto legislation that the Congress passes. Treaties can cause occasional troubles, but even these need approval by 2/3 of the Senate to have effect. Rid Congress of the repdem party or at least the majority of its incumbents and put in place candidates who will actually do what the members of Congress swear to do...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Of course it might help if they actually read it as well and had several junior high civics teachers explain what it means if the pretty basic language escapes them.

Open Source

[chucklebutte]

is the only cure for this. If enough software/games/movies/music is licensed under the GPL then there would be no need to waste money on crappy closed source options. All of what I mentioned are just promotion, give me office for free charge me for support, or give me more incentive to buy like lower prices or include extra scarce products with my software/music/movies/games etc. Sell me the experience not the imaginary 1's and 0's on a piece of plastic that cost less than what one of my toe nail clippings are worth!

I have a cute new nickname for the US president

[celibate for life]

OBAMAA

Re:Anyone remember RIAA/MPAA's stance on Open Sour

[rts008]

Am I the only one who is beginning to get worried?

Probably.

Glad you finally woke up.
The writing has been on the wall for quite a few years now, and the rest of us have been worried all along.

I am not a 'media consumer', but a potential customer for their services.
I consume food and drink, not movies or music. When i am done consuming my dinner, it is gone...unavailable for re-use.
When I watch a move, listen to music, or read a book...all are still there after I'm done, not consumed.

If you think of yourself as a 'consumer' of IP, then you have already been subjugated, and the brainwashing almost complete.
Get them thinking like cattle, then they will act like cattle and be as easy to control.

Today's news, yet it reached 122,000 results

[unity100]

on google :

http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+backs+acta&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

How's that hopey-changy thing working out for ya?

[Anonymous Coward]

You voted for a lightly-regarded senator with a minimal track record.

You ignored the fact that Big Media heavily pushed his candidacy.

It's entirely too late to complain now.

Re:Anyone remember RIAA/MPAA's stance on Open Sour

[rts008]

Am I the only one who is beginning to get worried?

Only those of you just noticing the writing on the wall that's been there for several decades now.

The rest of saw this coming years ago.

I am not a 'consumer' of media, I am a potential customer for the works of media.
When I consume dinner or a beer, it's gone...consumed.
When I listen to music, read a book, or watch a film...they are still there after I'm done...not consumed.

If you accept the label of 'consumer', or use it in this context...you have already been subjugated. Your brainwashing is almost complete.
Get them thinking like cattle, and they behave like cattle.

WRONG

[LOLYouAreWrong]

Obama YOU ARE WRONG

I lol'd

[nataflux]

"innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people" except the average american doesn't produce original content, in fact the average american listens to copyrighted mainstream garbage every day just finalizing proof that our administration only cares about the mega companies

Wasting Time With the Dinosaur?

[MarkvW]

The music industry's big problems are not going to be solved by ACTA/DMCA, or whatever.

(1) The Internet has provided the revolution in marketing. If a musician sells a song on the internet for a dime, then he's making more money off his music with that CD than he would if he was bound by a music industry contract. The "big music contract" is a pyramid scheme.
(2) People can find diverse music on the internet.
(3) You can buy an awesome digital recorder for well under a thousand dollars.
(4) Sound processing software is now beyond awesome. You can get awesome sampled instruments and can fully produce them (think VSTs and Ableton, Melodyne, Cubase, etc.). This stuff is not that expensive and it is really revolutionary.

Two things keeping the music industry from collapsing are the love that the young fogies have for hit music and the inertia of the musicians.

It's so much easier for people to be told what music to like than it is for them to discover music for themselves. The broadcast media have had about sixty years of dictating mass taste. Trendsetting has spawned from a very centralized location for the past few decades. Now, trends can be spawned globally. One cool thing from a group of kids in Argentina can become all the rage in Winnipeg or Singapore. Trends will become more like the weather and less like an idea spawned by some really "cool" people. William Gibson talks about similar themes in his books. People still really want to be a part of the herd, though. The success of "People", "US", "Star", the National Enquirer and fools like Perez Hilton are proof enough of that. The shape, form, and number of those herds will not be as predictable or easy to follow as they have been in the past. That's a bitch for the music industry, because the music industry has so many unnecessary middlemen.

Musicians are really beginning to market themselves now. That's the way for them to make money. The odds of hitting it big with a label are absurd. Even if you get a contract, the advance is the most money the musicians usually see. You don't have to be "cross-collateralized" when you sell your own music.

So, it's just a matter of time. Raving against the music industry is stupid. You're only raving against a soon-to-be-extinct dinosaur that doesn't even know you exist. If you really want to fight the music industry, develop shrink-wrapped ready-to-go open source music promotion & sales websites for bands! You'll help accelerate the death of big music much faster that way than by stupidly moaning for your Britney Spears albums. Facilitate an easy, cheap, and visible internet presence for independent musicians!

Thats about what to expect

[cheezegeezer]

That is just about what one would expect from Barrak Bin'Laden Obama

lalala

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha, get fucked murika

Big F*cking Suprise There

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's a big fucking surprise that Obama and the Democrats suck Hollywood's, the recording industry's, and Big Content's cocks. And then all the Slashdot lefties try to justify it with "but...but...the Republicans would have done it too!". Yeah, right.

Obama is a hypocritical lying piece of crap politician JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fucking moron.

And we weren't the most prosperous nation in 1910

[Anonymous Coward]

England was. Or maybe Germany. Or whatever. The US became a world power basically as a consequence of WW1, not before it.

just think

[Anonymous Coward]

mpaa copyright on that lug nut you put on the car
PROFIT
everytime someone uses that tire YOUR RICH

and if your on a engine part OMG years of love in wealth

Jefferson

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

[No wonder the texas board of education wants jefferson written the fuck out of american history]

Could be an honest move?

[bussdriver]

Makes sense that our politicians on both sides would sick up for our successful industries. Don't hear about those two needing bailouts...
The USA doesn't EXPORT much of anything anymore:
Military and related products
Movies & Music & TV(?)
IP lawsuits
MSonopoly software
Gambling (aka Banking "products")

It makes sense these "industries" are largely untouchable; even when they screw over their own country.

Mod parent Insightful +5

[unity100]

there could be made no better quotation at this time and point.

fool

[unity100]

read the comments. no 'leftie' is justifying it. this is not something that can be justified.

Peace is the balance of arms

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed but if you become a nation whose economy is solely based on IP and little else, those with more resources/Infrastructure/agriculture will just relieve you of the fruits of your labor.. and there is nothing you can do about it.

No I have not been playing starcraft 2 ;-)

Thanks a lot, President O

[Khan]

Well, its obvious that your true colors (the color of $$) have been reveled....just like your predecessor that pushed the DMCA into our lives. All I have to say is FU, Mr. Obama!. And FU Bill Clinton you c0cksuck3r! I am truly ashamed to have voted for either of you. Change is coming alright....it's just not what we were lead to believe. Don't worry, change is going to come during the next elections when I help vote your sorry ass out of office.

Right... Sure... and you do it in secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean *OUR* IP, right? WTF gives you the right to dictate how I wish to protect my IP. Enforce the laws you have now, you jackass.

No Hope, No Change

[KermodeBear]

I hope that nobody is surprised by this.

Well Don't Blame Me...

[flyneye]

I have the clean conscience of being able to say I didn't vote Democrat in the election that put the sock puppet in Oval Orifice.
'n' "I told you so!"
        nya, nya...
              "Won't Get Fooled Again" eh boys?

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for voting for this guy

The lack of due process in ACTA is bad but can we

[Joe The Dragon]

The lack of due process in ACTA is bad but can we use it on the RIAA just send them a few copyright notes or use some open wifi. Any ways what will mass banning get us a lot of small business shut down and maybe few big ones as well.

Hows that hope and change?

[night_flyer]

Sides with the RIAA.
Wants DNA collected with all arrests.
Shuts Down Federal ACORN Probe into Corruption & Voter Registration Fraud.
Kills further moon projects.
Raise gas prices to $7.00 a gallon to "protect the environment".

He is either evil or stupid.

Re:Hows that hope and change?

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't it.

Extends patriot act
Furthers warrantless spying of americans
Steps up every war, and tries to start new ones
Steamrolls over free speech
Wipes his ass with the constitution in ways that even Dark Overlord Bush hadn't thought of
Defends torture and assassinations of American citizens

What's next in his bag of tricks, a swift kick in the junk to every American Citizen?

Re:Hows that hope and change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope and Change....was a marketing slogan cooked up to get the sheeple to vote for him.
Enjoy your electrolytes.

Nothing changes as long as you vote GOP or Dem.

[aristotle-dude]

As you long as voters in the US continue to support the two main parties and uphold the two party system, nothing will ever change.

You would be better off with a benevolent dictator because at least you could then exert the right to a violent revolution to overthrow the government should they turn into a tyrant.

Here are some apt quotes from Thomas Jefferson:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

Notice how you supposedly have a democracy and yet you fear your government and you no sense of liberty? Democracy does not guarantee liberty.

Notice how you now have large cities and how corrupt they are? Notice how some of your own people are trying to remove the right to bare arms? Notice how your government wastes money on all sorts of welfare including corporate welfare (bailouts and grants)?

Single Greatest Asset

[gink1]

We're going to aggressively protect BIG MEDIA,' Obama said in his speech, 'Our single greatest asset is THEIR MONEY! [...] It is essential to our prosperity AS POLITICIANS AND BENEFACTORS and it will only become more so in this century.

ACTA will hurt America.

[Weezul]

American benefits enormously from our content flowing around the world. We lose considerable soft power when you lock down content.

Any convenient enough delivery like the iTunes store will moves product abroad, even in China. If otoh you totally block the people who cannot afford the product, then they'll just listen to European music instead. ACTA will never apply to China either, btw.

America's soft power has been evaporating on every front. In education, Bush tightening student visas was extremely bad, but the costs were already driving foreigners away. Do you realize how Europe has been reversing the Monroe Doctrine by educating upper middle class kids from Central and South America?

ACTA's three-strikes provisions are a fundamental violation of human rights and simply won't help. ACTA's insane seizure requirements are clearly designed to keep drugs prices high in poor countries, which kills people. Obama's support for ACTA has just cost him my campaign contributions next time. I'll surely still vote for him, but I'll never donate money.

Re:If true, only because of artificial constraints

[dakameleon]

For all of the above points, not necessarily. The reason it's stable despite job losses could be due entirely to productivity gains, as show in this post from FiveThirtyEight. Note that the source of data is from the Fed. Productivity gains could have been brought about from all manner of things, but particularly relevant would be increased automation, for which "us" nerds are at least partially to blame.

That said, the mil-ind complex certainly has a hand, and had Chrysler/GM gone down hard it would be a very different chart, I suspect.

Obama Is Better

[b4upoo]

Obama is better than that posting indicates. Clearly the key to that message is that he wants to stop foreign entities from pirating works on a commercial scale. His views about American individuals file sharing are probably a horse of anothe color.

Manufacturing Consent

[novae_res]

Government is run by lobbyists/special interests and runs counter to the wishes of the majority of the population. No change there then. Wasn't Obama the guy who denounced special interests in the presidential debates? Nothing to see here, merely another puppet president controlled by the new world order elites.

Heinlein said it best

[Joce640k]

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
of history be stopped, or turned back."

- Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Re:Heinlein said it best

[frank_adrian314159]

You know, in every discussion about IP, some dork posts this quote. Not that it's a bad quote, but for God's sake, anyone who hasn't seen this by now must (a) be unable to read, (b) has been in a coma for the past ten years, or (c) has Alzheimer's, so they don't remember it. In any case, it is no longer interesting, informative, funny, or any other of the positive moderation accolades it has been given. Please everyone, when you see this quote posted for the billionth time, mark it down, not because it's inherently bad, but because it's getting dreadfully boring. I tend to think "-1 Redundant" would be appropriate.

Re:Heinlein said it best

[symbolset]

Hey! I love that quote. I can't see it enough.

Here's the meme I could live without ever seeing again: "If OS-X and Linux were popular they would have malware too." Those idiots make me want to hurl.

Re:Heinlein said it best

[Vectormatic]

It is the first time i saw it, and i am not (A) unable to read, have not (B)been in a coma for ten years (unless it's secretely 2020, and everyone is playing along with me in one huge reality show...) and i sure i hope i dont have uh... erm... what was i talking about? WHO ARE YOU? Get off my lawn!

productivity != production

[advertisehere]

That's why.

Re:productivity != production

[CharlyFoxtrot]

That's why.

If there is 1 super-productive farm in the country (say double the yield per acre) is farming doing "very well" despite the fact every one is starving (or importing food) ? The trade balance shows too little is produced to satisfy US domestic demand and too little is exported to pay for the imports. That's not "doing very well."

Hey hey hey

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that HOPE AND CHANGE workin' for ya?

Had to say it, folks.

obama + mpaa + riaa = fascisim

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing he is doing is securing more capital for his reelection campaign, by backing people who think it is OK to fine someone 100,000+ for one illegal download, were-as a stolen CD would normally only demand 100.

"ill keep my guns money and freedom, you keep the change!"

why is he President even talking about this?

[Dan667]

A failed business model is certainly not a priority of the US Government and Obama needs to be forcefully reminded of this. People are dying in foreign wars and in our own hospitals. There are certainly lots more important issues that need to be addressed

Just as they moved with Edison, so will others...

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]

Many independent filmmakers, who controlled from one-quarter to one-third of the domestic marketplace, responded to the creation of the MPPC by moving their operations to Hollywood, whose distance from Edison’s home base of New Jersey made it more difficult for the MPPC to enforce its patents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is headquartered in San Francisco, California, and covers the area, was averse to enforcing patent claims."

Exactly, others will move on elsewhere and exclude the U.S. and other jurisdictions. It is a gross failure to look at history and all aspects to these issues and the debate going on. This is exactly what politicians are doing everywhere when they stand by content with the very biased views of lobbyists only.

Guhyuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job all you geniuses who voted for him.

Was there anyone else better? Sure.

Was there anyone else who was perfect? Of course not.

Regardless, epic lulz @ the losers who bought into this guy's bullshit. Idiots!

Reform the system

[cbope]

As long as big-business and the media companies control the politicians of both parties through lobbyists and "campaign contributions" (graft, anyone?), nothing is likely to change. Reform the system so politicians cannot benefit directly these organizations, and the system will likely repair itself. As long as graft and bribery are permitted, the politicians will continue to tow the line. Entities should not be allowed to influence politics directly.

Censorship vs. Slander.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is censorship for real and on a massive scale. Not that fake blog about Chavez a couple of posts back and the legitimate prosecution of slander. God, people really do freak and think only with their unmentionable hole when oil is on the line.

From an outside perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

It looked like both sets of supporters were doing a pretty thorough job of fooling themselves.

But hey, an unregulated market with just 2 suppliers will never degenenerate into a cartel, right? FREEDOM! No, CHANGE! Fuck you, we need FREEDOM! Shut it, we want CHANGE!

And yet the only change you have is less freedom. Nice.

How does it makes Obama evil?

[Pecisk]

Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen, but I follow US matters very closely.

Personally I never liked this all intellectual property obsession (and who does?) and I think it will destroy America in the end. But how exactly this makes Obama evil? So he fully doesn't fit in your worldview how president should act (hint: abolish wars, copyrights and make socialism real. Ok, last part was joke, laugh. Let's say - "make people's lives better"). Yes, no politican is black/white on issues. Yes, politics are maneuvering and there are little room for clear shots. I know geeks doesn't like that. But I thought that geeks are somehow realistic when talking about expectations. Guess not.

He was kinda pro IP before elections (yes, I read actual program) and this doesn't sound like backpedaling or something. What shall be done to show that ACTA can be very harmful and MPAA/RIAA overstepping their territory to pushing DMCA everywhere. And it should be done in civil manner (for example, some prominent IP opponent first asking for making ACTA process more open). So far there have been serious lack of good sounding "proIP" opponents. Mostly it is us, geeks, and we don't make very good party to cheer for. There should be much bigger campaign of explaining copyright stuff and how it affects your everyday tasks.

In the end, Obama or not Obama, this IP stuff will stay (and no, there is no escape for that with electing right leader) and if we really want something to change, we will have to deal with it.

attack a country where M$-SW is copied?

[kubitus]

the US thinks they can sell 2 cent plastic discs for 500US$ apiece and continue to live on tribute of the rest of the world?

I think that this will not work in the long run!

the only other export article worth to speak of is military equipment and its application!

As an unamerican...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that we face two problems here: The fact that US media companies want to saturate our culture and our media with mediocre trash, and the fact that they want us to pay for it...

Wait, make that zero problems.

Time to start making our own shit and putting it straight in the public domain.

Seals the deal.

[Anonymous Coward]

'We're going to aggressively protect our intellectual property,'
'But it's only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can't just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.'

Here comes the war with China!

hm, president?

[Tom]

More and more I get the impression this isn't the same Obama that was voted into office. Do people get their brains exchanged or something when they become president? Would explain the 2nd Bush (no brain available at that time).

Reality

[jandersen]

To be realistic - and fair - we are never going to see an American president coming out clearly and strongly against the interests of major industries; at least not until American society and its constitution are fundamentally altered - as in a violent revolution. I can't quite see how that is going to happen, but of course, you never know.

Much as I like Obama for his intelligence and what still looks a lot like sincerity, idealism and honesty, when I heard him talk about changing things, I could see that he had set himself up for a major challenge. Like it or not, America is not governed "by the people, for the people", and the president only has the power allowed him by the noble classes that everybody in America assures me don't exist (the fact that you can enter "nobility" in America by becoming immensely rich is not an argument against this - that has always been the way throughout history). Change will only occur as and when they want it.

Taxation without representation

[PMBjornerud]

Don't forget the military!

If all you have is imaginary intellectual property, the only way you can really protect it is by force. Well, and trade sanctions, but those won't mean much soon...

Too true, and too tragic considering the birth of the USA as a nation if they should dictate taxes for others to pay and force military action if they refuse.

Though I'm not sure how easy it is to be the #1 military power when more and more manufacturing capability is outsourced.

Jesus H. Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

Pop music is neither innovative or ingenius. Let's burn this mother to the ground and start over... kidding, FBI...

Re:Anyone remember RIAA/MPAA's stance on Open Sour

[OrangeCatholic]

Yeah but where can you go where people don't consider themselves consumers? I live in suburbia, it's like living on a people farm. People just stand around waiting for the food truck to show up and then they complain about their taxes. Moo!

And God forbid you should give them any scary ideas like, "Why don't you shop at that supermarket where everything costs 1/2 as much?" They get this glazed look in their eye, like you just told them there's a hole in the fence, and they don't know whether the farmer is going to come after them with a rifle.

Worst thing about human beings...give them a good idea, and they hate you for making them feel stupid, rather than empowered. Makes you want to start a giant corporation and rob them blind.

"Our"?

[elucido]

IT's funny how when Presidents like Obama talk about profits, productivity, and prosperity it's "ours" but when the actual distribution of the money and American dream takes place suddenly it's all "theirs" and theres nothing left for "us" or "our" children. It's a scam.

Unless you are directly profiting from ACTA, there is no logical reason to support it. Lets make them buy our support just like they make us buy everything we produce.

If it doesn't help your prosperity, don't support.

[elucido]

I make a political calculation. Does it help me increase my prosperity or does it keep me down?

ACTA it's a CARTEL move. It's that simple. People in control want to secure control of the entertainment industry. It has nothing to do with artists, musicians, talent, or prosperity for the people who actually come up with new ideas. This is about securing profits for corporate royalty.

It's as simple as that. There is no moral argument because there is no right to profits and if the government is going to secure the rights of profit for one industry over another, that means these music corps are now state owned organizations. It's no different than what goes on in China with their state run industries.

In a free market there would be no need for ACTA. Sure you would need to protect physical property and intellectual property against actual piracy. If we are talking about individuals who mass produce Windows 7 and sell it in China then by all means we should confront that problem. But if we are going to declare another war on American citizens, and charge them with possession of virtual property, I'm absolutely against it. It's already illegal to SELL Windows 7 if it's not genuine.

And honestly I don't see anyone doing that in this country. And if it does happen it's not happening on a massive scale.The only reason this happens is because the music industry kingpins are smart enough to use the government to secure their profits. Maybe you should do the same for your industry, get some reps elected and then have them write laws to secure your job and guarantee your profits.

It's fair game because if one industry can do it, why not all industries?

The only way to win is with corp sponsorship

[elucido]

It's vital that any election you run that you run with industry support. If you want to take out the copyright cartel then you'd have to get many big companies organized behind you to take them on, and these companies must know that their profits are at stake.

Think of the ISP's, the Googles, the Napsters, the Tubes, and if the profit loss is great enough then you can go to these companies and tell them that if this ACTA passes that their profit potential will diminish x1000, you can email their employees a newsletter which alerts them to the dangers of allowing ACTA to pass and how it will influence their salaries and lead to massive layoffs.

If you want to stop ACTA, you have to do it in the corporate boardrooms, not on Slashdot.

Productivity is unimportant to workers.

[elucido]

The only thing workers care about is keeping their high salaries, or getting a raise. Have salaries been rising? No absolutely not. So who gives a damn about productivity?

If they are going to work you into the grave to raise productivity, why bother?

production != quality

[elucido]

Just because we do a lot of useless shit at work, and make a lot of useless junk, it does not mean there is any point to what we are doing besides making our bosses richer. The productivity is not the point. Quality is the point, whether it be quality of life, of service, or of the product produced.

Answer a question about javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer this question: Does javascript run on MacOS X or Linux in HTML within web browsers or email programs on those Operating Systems? If so, what exactly stops it from wreaking havoc anymore than it does on Windows??

Re:Answer a question about javascript

[atomic-penguin]

If so, what exactly stops it from wreaking havoc anymore than it does on Windows??

Design of OSX, Linux, or Unix. The user is separated from full system privileges.

Only if you owned yourself.

[elucido]

You can't copyright your job if you don't own it. You can't own anything if you don't own yourself.

Face it, most individuals in this country are owned by corporations to the point that they'll rat out anybody who tries to do their own thing or get ahead. It's your co-worker who tells your bosses all your plans and ideas which keep you from ever being able to compete with your boss.

Re:Dang Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

HERRRDURRKAADRRRRRR

Reading comprehension much?

[danaris]

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy

Your naivette is refreshing, but I would not like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Could you maybe read what he actually said (and if you want to use the word, learn to spell "naïveté", good grief!)?

Can you in any way deny that President Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior? Do you think Bush II was more tech-savvy than Obama? Clinton? Bush I? I very much doubt it.

Dan Aris

Re:Reading comprehension much?

[IndustrialComplex]

Can you in any way deny that President Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior? Do you think Bush II was more tech-savvy than Obama? Clinton? Bush I? I very much doubt it.

We have had Presidents who held engineering degrees and Carter joined the damned Navy Nuclear program when it was just starting.

Does 'tech' to you only mean hiring a staff-member to manage your twitter and Facebook feeds? I could hire a world class pathologist to advise me, but that doesn't make me 'medical-savvy'. Obama hired a good PR firm. They might be tech-savvy, but he certainly has not shown us any signs that he holds any particular insight.

Re:Reading comprehension much?

[danaris]

Can you in any way deny that President Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior? Do you think Bush II was more tech-savvy than Obama? Clinton? Bush I? I very much doubt it.

We have had Presidents who held engineering degrees and Carter joined the damned Navy Nuclear program when it was just starting.

"Tech-savvy" isn't generally held to have anything to do with engineering or nuclear physics. I know some nuclear physicists who are not at all tech-savvy. No one asked if previous Presidents were smarter than Obama.

Dan Aris

Re:Reading comprehension much?

[IndustrialComplex]

Fair enough, I do know a few presidents (1) who would sit down on the floor of Air Force 1 with a CSO to discuss issues though.

I never got the chance to meet with Obama though, so I can't comment on that. However, none of the staff members have been particularly tech savvy. Almost no one in government is.

Re:Reading comprehension much?

[RightwingNutjob]

(and if you want to use the word, learn to spell "naïveté", good grief!)?

I'll give you the extraneous 't', but you can pry the lack of funny marks over the vowels from my cold, dead hands.

Hoping for Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess all of that hope and change translated into a big boost for the common individual, and a giant finger to the corporate conglomerates. Oh wait.... what's that.... it was all just hype for the election? No wonder the youth were so taken in by it, they'd never seen that before. Folks, if you really want change you can believe in, you'd better be willing to fight for it because that's the only way it's going to happen.

Intellectual Property has ZERO value

[mangu]

But without any protection, one of the current major assets of the US - media and entertainment - will be in serious jeopardy

Which is one way of asserting that simple Economics 101 principle: the value of things is inversely proportional to their relative scarcity. The only way one has to get any payback from intellectual property is by imposing limits on their reproduction. Good luck on enforcing that.

There was a time once, decades ago, when the US could control any country by controlling trade. Other countries had to sell coffee and bananas to buy American cars, airplanes, radios, etc,

These days, the US goes like this: if you won't buy our movies and software we will not sell you movies and software. The rest of the world has become more or less independent of the US for all practical purposes. Are the American politicians and investors so naive they think they can let manufacturing move overseas while keeping control of the intellectual "property"?

I think Linux is a very good example of how the IP economy works. It was only by strong arm tactics plus a 97% price cut that Microsoft managed to keep their OS on netbooks. Unless American companies completely rethink their pricing tactics for IP the rest of the world is perfectly capable of reinventing everything. That old saying that "ideas are a dime a dozen" has never been more true.

Re:Intellectual Property has ZERO value

[Dahamma]

Let's show how little sense that actually makes...

Cash has ZERO value

Which is one way of asserting that simple Economics 101 principle: the value of things is inversely proportional to their relative scarcity. The only way one has to get any payback from cash is by imposing limits on their reproduction. Good luck on enforcing that.

Re:Intellectual Property has ZERO value

[mangu]

The only way one has to get any payback from cash is by imposing limits on their reproduction. Good luck on enforcing that.

It seems that you have learned the lesson.

I carry in my wallet a Cr$500000 note to remind me of that.

Re:Intellectual Property has ZERO value

[Dahamma]

Heh. Good point. But on the flip side it does show that artificial scarcity and regulation are pretty key to the modern world economy.

As terrifying as the prospect is, makes me wonder what would happen if the government enforced the same penalties for copying a $20 DVD as a $20 bill...

And to your original post - ideas may be a dime a dozen, but execution can cost millions (or billions!) of dollars and millions of (aggregate) hours of work.

Re:Intellectual Property has ZERO value

[mangu]

As terrifying as the prospect is, makes me wonder what would happen if the government enforced the same penalties for copying a $20 DVD as a $20 bill...

Which government? The main problem Obama and the MAFIAA are complaining about is that the Chinese government doesn't seem to care too much about DVD copying. At this point China has too many US$ to just let their value tumble, but when they lose faith in the greenback futures they'll just dump whatever they have.

As for other volatile properties, Linux is around, as I already mentioned. Films, you say? Chinese actors can also make action films, you know...

No, I don't think so. You cannot rely on purely immaterial worth. If you want a future you need something tangible. Bits can be copied, gold, aluminum, steel, energy cannot.

Germany?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

BRIC countries:

Brazil
Russia
India
China

Those are the emerging forces in the world, FYI. Germany has strong sectors, but they are not stealing America's manufacturing.

But that's not what my DVD said...

[BetterSense]

Surely you wouldn't steal a car?

The US does not enforce other countries IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Ebay doesn't even pull illegal copies of foreign movies.

You could pull illegal "Night Watch" / "Day Watch" copies off Ebay without a problem, same for bootleg Kung-Fu movies. If you e-mail E-bay the auctions are bootleg copies, they only take them down for the copyright holder, and only if the copyright holder has enforcement in the US. So no, the US does not protect foreign copyrights, only materials that have copyrights in the U.S. or are enforceable in the U.S.

How is this free market?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is .. precisely what you term as 'free market'.

Let me get this straight: a president (of a country, not a company) is suggesting using government force, with the cooperation of multiple other governments, to enforce government-granted monopolies (copyright), and enforce DRM (DMCA) despite the fact that the market always rejects DRM whenever non-DRM is available, and you're calling this "free market?" I call that a planned economy, Lenin-style, implemented for the purpose of making sure that the kinds of things that happen in a free market, don't happen.

If you want to make a case for it being a Good Idea, fine, but let's not get silly and call it a free market.

wealth is power.

Yes, and government guns are power too. Under a free market, copyright holders would be competing by lowering prices and increasing value (e.g. removing DRM) in order to maximize revenue (wealth, power). Since their customers would be able to timeshift and space shift the content, the wealth -- i.e. power -- would spread out. That's just what happens when people voluntarily transact: everyone comes out ahead. By using government force to prevent a free market from happening, you can concentrate the wealth (i.e. power) and keep the power increase unilateral.

The phenomenon that has you upset, isn't free market capitalism. It's corruption. Our leaders are being paid to work against our country's interests. That this happens to benefit some large campaign contributing companies, doesn't mean companies in general are your enemy; it means those companies are your enemy, as well as your leaders and the people who look the other way ad vote for those leaders.

put in layman's terms, your 'free market' can exist and be free only in the early times. like in the initial times of united states

It can also happen if people ever decide to vote for it. And if you'd like that to happen, maybe the first thing to do is stop misrepresenting what a free market is, planting the idea that free markets are somehow all about governments implementing policies to concentrate power. What you're talking about is fascism, mercantilism, etc: the free market's foes within the ideosphere.

Re:How is this free market?

[unity100]

first, in the 'free' market you define, there should be no copyright holders. because as soon as you have them, you will need government and its guns to protect and enforce them.

second, there has never been such a rosy case of 'providers cutting their prices down' when a market is settled in earth history. not even when your country was near full free market status. you ended up being owned by 3 people and they set the prices. when there is a 'free' market, copyright holders would go on to patent and copyright anything they can (just like how they are trying to patent even e-shitting in hopes that acta would succeed, since they knew they were preparing it 2-3 years ago), and end up being feudal lords over the domain of thought.

you need to get this straight - 'free market' and 'invisible hand', are all fairy talk, reminiscent of 18th century. when adams hypothesized these, the only power known to monopolize things was the king and its granted monopoly. they thought, if they were removed, then the market should be 'free'. they didnt think at all that, given enough time, private individuals could reach a level of wealth that would rival kings and be de facto kings. it was 18th century after all, all the stuff was untested.

and yet we know. it is basically no more than wishful thinking. a religion. it never worked, just like communism - for both to work, people participating have to be ideal people, abusing and exploiting nothing. there is no such thing on this planet.

Protection from whom?

[Anonymous Coward]

IP protection in the US only protects entrepreneurs, products, and companies inside the US. IPP law only applies in other countries if those countries agree to pursue legal action as directed by the US. Why do you think there are so many pirates in China? because China won't back our IPP law. So, bolstering our IPP law really only protects US companies from other US companies. Beyond that, it's just a nice thought.

Call for unity

[Ykant]

Why don't all of the like-minded Slashdotters gather their friends, everyone pitch in a few bucks, and collectively buy off a congressman or a senator?

It works for everyone else...

"green" doesn't mean what you think it does...

[Thud457]

better dead than purple!

Article from 03/15/2010 & a quote from it vs.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/1740214/The-Coming-Botnet-Stock-Exchange

"'He's not the type to hack randomly, he's only interested in targeted attacks with big payouts."

What Operating System has a 95%++ (or better) market-share out there? Windows... that quote from Robert Hansen's only SECONDING THE MOTION You, symbolset, "rail against".

(Guess who? By the way - IF you see Foredecker? Tell him I'll be getting into touch w/ he about the HOSTS file too...)

The original idea of copyright in the US

[Quila]

Monopolies are antithetical to an effective economy and thus will not be a foundation, but a burden.

The Founders understood this. But they decided in the end that a light burden such as this would in the balance spur more creation than the burden would have hindered. Madison figured this monopoly power could be reigned in by the will of the people should it be abused. Sadly, Madison was a bit naive. Maybe he should have listened to Jefferson more and either abolished this clause or made it much more limited.

Same with VISTA, Windows 7, and Windows Server2k8

[Anonymous Coward]

"Design of OSX, Linux, or Unix. The user is separated from full system privileges." - by atomic-penguin (100835) on Monday March 15, @08:10PM (#31490520) Homepage

See subject-line above. Same deal on Windows VISTA, Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008.

Movie & Music = Intellectual Property?

[LostMyBeaver]

Seriously, I'm a huge fan of protecting intellectual property... FAIRLY. It also needs to be intellectual property. I have no arguments that movie makers and musicians MUST be rewarded for their work. In fact, I personally own 1000 DVDs, 1-2,000 books, about 500 audiobooks and who knows what else. But I DO NOT consider them intellectual property. They are art. There needs to be a difference.

The technology used to produce the movie IS intellectual property. The design of a guitar IS intellectual property. The music and films produced with these tools IS ART.

Artists SHOULD be rewarded for their efforts and what they have produced. But it is not the art they're producing which makes a country like America great. People everywhere make art. If you're to give some form of intellectual property for making the U.S. great, it's tangible items designed by Americans that do. Everything from the battery powered nail gun to the fan assisted finger nail drier. It's their creativity when designing solutions to problems that makes them great.

Intellectual Property rights that reward people for coming up with solutions to problems should exist. They should not stop competitors from riding their coat tails, but instead should require the competitor to pay for the rights to make use of the ideas.

It's about time that the government stops considering art and solutions to problems to be the same thing. I highly respect artists and movie makes, but the fact is, I'm offended as a creator of solutions to be mushed into the same group with someone else like this!

Obama's obtained most of his wealth from his books

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Is it so hard to believe that he'd frown upon piracy?
Just because freeloading is part of the "open source" ethic doesn't mean that all other creators must live by that ethic.

Re:Same with VISTA, Windows 7, and Windows Server2

[atomic-penguin]

So they've made a step in the right direction for the newest version of Windows (version 6). That doesn't affect the majority of the Windows install base which is still XP.

Re:Same with VISTA, Windows 7, and Windows Server2

[Anonymous Coward]

"And, this too, shall pass..." - it always does (I'm living proof - Or, am I still running Windows NT 3.51 regularly here?)

APK

P.S.=> The point is that even though you have OS' today running by the principal, @ least in part, of "least privilege" per user process by default (vs. root/administrator/superuser rights instead by default)? They can still always be attacked, & I wager that javascript is just as utilizable in that capacity via webbrowsers, even on *NIX variants like Linux &/or MacOS X by default, for attacking they just as its still used on all varieties of Windows to date, even the "latest/greatest", UAC & all (DEP & ASRL are good ideas too, but, even those can be circumvented)... apk

best explained through humor :

[unity100]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

this daily show bit, VERY well summarizes corporations vs people issue you have in your country. and what they did. in the latter half.