Slashdot Mirror
Entertainment Industry's Dystopia of the Future
renek writes "If you think the RIAA/MPAA's tactics have been outlandish, laughable, and disconcerting in the past, you haven't seen anything yet. From government-mandated spyware that deletes infringing content to border searches of media players, this reads like an Orwellian nightmare. Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see how far this goes and how under the radar it stays."
I will gladly run their spyware on my PC once they tell me where to send the invoice.
My current hourly rate to manage their software is $850 per hour.
My current rates for computer time is $245 per hour per processor.
I hope their spyware runs under Ubuntu.
I'll also start to carry about a few dozen old 128Mb-2Gb flash drives whenever I
travel. They are all filled with multiple TrueCrypt volumes full of random data which
is re-encrypted dozens of times. I'll gladly hand over all the decryption keys but
it'll still cost them time and money to check.
You can't possibly protect content without directly affecting the people who play by the rules. Things like the Patriot Act suffer from the same problem.
Living With a Nerd
Sure, congress bends over when it comes to passing favorable copyright laws, but that's a long way from acting as enforcers of private property rights, which the *AAs seem to be indicating here. When it the feds have to pay their own money, you'll see far less bending over going on.
Customs authorities should be encouraged to do more to educate the traveling public and entrants into the United States about these issues. In particular, points of entry into the United States are underused venues for educating the public about the threat to our economy (and to public safety) posed by counterfeit and pirate products.
Customs forms should be amended to require the disclosure of pirate or counterfeit items being brought into the United States.
[x] One eye patch.
[x] One peg leg.
Thought thinks itself.
Sooner or later when things get ridiculous the market with solve the problem. Sites like Jamendo already exist for freely sharing music. There is impulse for distributing games DRM free and is making a profit at it.
These old dinosaurs have a lot of power but it will soon evaporate once the world has moved on without them. There is a long line of new businesses that do "get it" which can replace them.
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I write my Congress Critter for free hookers and blow, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it. It is a standard tactic to ask for pie in the sky stuff just to make your other requests look more credible. In the meantime, there is this thing called the 4th Amendment that can make the RIAA go pound sand.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
If they treat consumers as enemies they will become enemies.
crazy dynamite monkey
Surely this is more a case of haggling. Ask for an infeasible price knowing you then have more scope to haggle down to a still unfair price.
The Right to Read was written 13 years ago, and is still remarkably prescient.
I am officially gone from
Government doesn't care if it has to bend over, as long as YOU bend over, and are reminded that you have to bend over, and that there's never anything they can do about it. People have almost forgotten the difference between the power of the dollar and that of the gun - here's a chance for the government to bend you over, but blame Big Media. THEN, once you're fully trained, they can bend you over for anything else (taxes, mandatory service, forced relcations, rationing, etc).
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If we do indeed fall down this path of digital invasion, where Copyright is seen as a valid 'foot-in-the-door' for scanning every home PC, what is the breaking point to turn off the PC? Or worse, will wide-scale law enforcement be used to enforce Copyright and IP law? Will the cops be busting down the doors to see if you've infringed on a movie, only to be met w/ guns blazing? Is this where we, or they intend for this type of relationship to develop?
It's stories like this that remind me why I support neither modern music, or cinema. And while Microsoft, and Apple are willing accomplices to this behavior, I'll continue to use and push Linux and FOSS at every opportunity I can muster.
Has it come to a "Freedom or Nothing" divide?
Border searches of data storage - sure (a small addition of one stated purpose required)
Spyware that deletes infringing content - game DRM is very close; if it "thinks" something's wrong, it nukes your ability to use the content.
Managing to stay mostly under the radar just fine...
One that hath name thou can not otter
A few times in copyright threads, while alluding to the insanity of the media corporations, I have testified that one of my big paranoid fears is legislation that requires content filtering software on all computers and related devices. Fine and dandy for Windows and Mac, but implementing that for all the Linux distros would be ridiculously hard. The solution? Outlaw Linux. "It's just a hacker's tool anyway."
*shakes head*
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
I thought you could write whomever you wanted onto your ballot?
Or is your objection that voting for third-party candidates is useless because only Republican or Democratic candidates get enough votes to win and so your vote is only useful in helping one of those two to win?
I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them. So it seems your objection amounts to something like: "The majority chooses who wins, and I'm not part of the majority!"
Would a security inspector even know what an LTO or 3592 tape cartridge looks like? I can fit a lot of music/movies on a tape. Come to think about it, most people on this earth or /. don't know what a LTO or a 3592 tape cartridge looks like. I don't even need to use the native encryption built into LTO-4 or the TS1130 drives.
Just hope they don't put me into a little room until they locate something to access the tape..
Just a sample:
There are several technologies and methods that can be used by network administrators and providers...these include [consumer] tools for managing copyright infringement from the home (based on tools used to protect consumers from viruses and malware).
In other words, the entertainment industry thinks consumers should voluntarily install software that constantly scans our computers and identifies (and perhaps deletes) files found to be "infringing." It's hard to believe the industry thinks savvy [sic], security-conscious consumers would voluntarily do so. But those who remember the Sony BMG rootkit debacle know that the entertainment industry is all too willing to sacrifice consumers at the altar of copyright enforcement.
Pervasive copyright filtering
Network administrators and providers should be encouraged to implement those solutions that are available and reasonable to address infringement on their networks.
Right. I have a hard enough time getting my customers to realise the danger of installing pirated software; now I'll have to tell them that they should try and implement stuff that will detected 'illegal' MP3s and AVIs.
Oh, and in order to do so will necessitate rootkitting all their boxen and opening the corporate firewall?
Yeah, that'll work...
this is part of democracy where groups negotiate with each other to get what they want. to negotiate you have to give something up,
Some things are non-negotiable.
xxAA: We want to take away all your rights.
EFF/users: No!
xxAA: Oh, come on. Let's negotiate about this.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Given the US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media...
Wrong metaphor; It is not the government who is getting screwed here. On the contrary, congressmen are collect big checks from media corporations for selling off our rights. I think you mean.
Given the US government's willingness to force citizens to bend over for Big Media
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The only difference between the Reps and Dems are the bones they throw to us little people to get elected and then when in office, they serve their true masters.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
So EFF shouldn't be asking for balanced copyright laws, they should be asking for the complete abolition of all copyright (and willing to settle for a rational policy).
PS: Your shift key broken or something?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I met a devil media, they took my music away
They said I had it comin' to me, but I wanted it that way
I think that any music is good music
And so I took what I could get, mmm
Oooh, oooh, they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something that you never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
And now I'm feelin' better, 'cause I found out for sure
They took me to their lawyer and he told me of a cure
He said that only their music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
Oooh, and they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something that you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
You need educated
Any music is good music
So I took what I could get, yes, I took what I could get
And then, and then, and then they looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something,
here's something, mama, you're never gonna forget
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nu-nu-nu-nothin' yet
You ain't been around
You ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, Baby, Baby
You ain't seen nothin' yet
Orwell was an optimist.
The US used to be a technological super power. Now the US is all about suing everyone into submission. I have friends from abroad that won't travel to the US because of the draconian process they have to go through to enter the country. TSA agents taking high tech electronics. Invasive searches and questioning. All for what? A false sense of security. The TSA rent-a-cops didn't stop the guy over Christmas 2009. The passengers of the flight did. And having government officials police copyright is laughable. How can they tell what is legit and what is not? This will just make air travel that much more irrelevant. I will be taking a train when travelling from now on. I don't travel outside the US, so that will work for me. Yeah it takes more time. Oh well.
Nothing is impossible. It just hasn't been figured out yet.
Look, the reality is that the U.S. economy currently depends almost exclusively on culturally created content/entertainment. Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc. So it's not a surprise that it's becoming more and more draconian in trying to defend those assets.
It's like if one country controlled all the oil. They'd jack up prices, but they'd also do everything they could to stifle the creation of oil alternatives. They'd start to insist changes in engine designs that used their oil, or else they wouldn't sell you the oil. They'd limit anyone trying to purchase the oil then refine it on their own, because they'd want to do all the refining themselves.
Every indicator I see says that this is going to get much worse in the future.
Entertainment wants to be free!
“Now, the latest stats show a sharp rise in grey-market electronics importing and other tariff-breaking crimes, mostly occurring in open-air market stalls and from sidewalk blankets. I know that many in law enforcement treat this kind of thing as mere hand-to-hand piracy, not worth troubling with, but I want to assure you, gentlemen and lady, that Social Harmony takes these crimes very seriously indeed.”
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot.
Or Kang and Kodos! (Simpsons did it!)
Bow-ties are cool.
I thought you could write whomever you wanted onto your ballot?
Nope. They have to be pre-approved (pdf in Google Docs) or they just plain won't be counted.
"The majority chooses who wins, and I'm not part of the majority!"
No, my objection is that the minority choses who the majority gets to pick. The US version of an "election" is a joke relative to modern systems.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I always say that choosing between democrat and republican is like deciding between Mephistopheles and Cthulhu. Its pretty damn hard to determine the lesser of two evils when both cause a buffer overflow error on the evil register.
The Economist
Best Slashdot Co
While this suggestions shouldn't see the light of day, one of the problems I have with the EFF is that they never propose a way to deal with piracy. This is because they are piracy-friendly. Here's an example from their own article:
EFF's words: Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies
From the RIAA proposal: Targeting such companies and websites in the Special 301 report would put the countries involved on notice that dealing with such hotbeds of copyright theft will be an important topic of bilateral engagement with the U.S. in the year to come.
It's obvious from their language that they want to prevent anyone from putting pressure on Sweden or the PirateBay to stop piracy. Personally, I don't see what the problem is here. The EFF clearly wants piracy to continue, and they want to shut-down any attempts to put pressure on anyone involved in piracy -- even if it's a globally famous website like the PirateBay. By using language like "bullying" they're using intentionally inflammatory language. In other contexts (like, say, trade in chemical weapons, slavery, etc), I have no doubt that the EFF wouldn't have a problem with the US "bullying" other nations into doing the right thing - of course, they wouldn't use the word "bullying" because they actually agree with enforcement in those cases. So, by labeling any enforcement as "bullying" they're attempting to steer the discussion.
The EFF should really do itself a favor and stop siding with the pirates. If they hate the suggestions that the RIAA makes for dealing with piracy, then they should make some decent suggestions of their own. Instead, the EFF constantly drags its feet on any enforcement of any kind of copyright issue. Based on their pattern of behavior, it's clear that the EFF won't be happy until piracy is 100% legal.
doublefacepalm.jpg
I don't know what the entertainment industry has been smoking, but it must be some powerful shit if they think crap like this is going to fly. Read my lips: Over my dead body.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
this article is also on eff's site who have their own narrow minded goals
Freedom is not a narrow minded goal.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.
Yes, that is unnecessarily extreme. Why is everything in politics like this these days? Aren't there shades of wrongness? I mean really, we have a choice between politicians who have authorized the killing of millions of people? How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.
Rational politics requires rational citizens. Throwing around names like Hitler and Pol Pot does nothing to increase the rationality of voters. It does not motivate people to go out and vote or work for change. After all, what can one guy do against Hitler? Comparing our politicians to Hitler or Pol Pot is more than unnecessarily extreme. It is divisive and encourage irrationality, fear, and hopelessness. It also lumps all politicians in all races together into the 'utter monster' category, thus blurring the real distinctions that do exist. I mean, you can choose between the corporatist that wants to give you health care, or the corporatist that wants to regulate who you fuck. That's actually a pretty big distinction.
Not all politicians are evil monsters. And amongst the evil monsters, there are levels of evil. It is possible to pick the lesser of two evils if you don't lump all politicians together into the same evil madman stew.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Entertainment wants? How could entertainment possibly want anything. "I" want entertainment to be free and I want a lot of other things for free but none of them want or yearn to free themselves from the bondage of cost.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
I've seen this objection before. I'm pretty sure what makes it that Republican or Democratic candidates are the ones that get enough votes is because so many people choose to vote for them
The Republican and Democrat candidates are the only ones who really get presented to the public. Every election I can remember that got covered on major media is always red vs. blue, every single one. Some early debates might include several candidates, but once things start getting close to election day the debates are also red vs. blue.
In the most recent presidential election there were five parties with ballot access in enough states to win the required 270 electoral votes. So how come the televised debates only show two of those parties to the public? Who has the authority to decide which parties get to debate and which don't? Why aren't the Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian parties allowed to debate in prime time on major networks? The reason most people vote for red or blue is because those are the only choices they think they have, they never even have a chance to hear the other voices to decide if those fit their views better than The Two Who Are More Alike Than They Are Different. How come Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Bob Barr weren't allowed to debate in prime time with the others? Even with no coverage those 4 candidates together got over 1.6 million votes. Imagine how many they would have got if every debate included all 6 candidates.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sounds like the submitter is concerned that people won't pay attention to this issue and/or take it seriously.
Here's an idea: If you want to encourage people to pay attention, lay off the trite cliches about Orwell and just stick to a factual discussion of what's going on.
You know who's really to blame for the health care bill passing? That would be the highly vocal conservatives yelling about "death panels" when they should've been sending a message people would listen to.
Don't you just hate it when you're not even finished with your great American dystopian Sci-Fi novel and it suddenly morphs into a friggin' documentary?
So, in your world view, corporate special interests and 'narrow minded' groups like the EFF, which works to protect the rights of citizens, are lumped into the same group, and we, the citizens, will be best served by a compromise between those who would remove all our rights for a buck, and those who would protect them without asking for anything from us?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Citizens won't fight very hard for freedom to use shit pop-culture content.
If their rights over crap are restricted, they will find some other way to be amused.
THAT is why there isn't more momentum against media industry associations. So what if content producers make it difficult to exercise fair use of their shit? It's still shit, and even those who crave shit don't crave it enough to spend the effort to fight for it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Okay, sure, you're right, they have to be pre-approved (I'm Canadian so I feel alright being ignorant of the subtleties of the US electoral college). But, what barriers are there for someone being pre-approved? Has anyone who has filled out that form (or its equivalent in other contexts) with the correct information ever been denied pre-approval? It doesn't seem like a requirement to fill-out a form with basic contact information places much of a limit on whom you can vote for.
the corporatist that wants to give you health care
Speaking of encouraging irrationality...
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
The problem is that you choose not to participate in the election process during the times where the parties are selecting the candidates. Both parties hold primary elections of some sort in each County and State to determine who their candidate for office is. Depending on how many people of your preferred party wish to participate in this process, you can participate, at least at the precinct level.
I decided to participate this year (for the first time ever), and changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican (I'm still independent of thought, but I really want to vote against O). I've participated in a Precinct and County meeting, and because of the low member turnout, expect to even go to the State primary, which happens to be within easy driving distance from home. I am certain I won't go beyond this... first because I'd have to travel some inordinate distance to participate, and second because there are LOT of people involved at the State level.
Is this a lot of fun? I'd say it was at least interesting... although I'm 52 now, and I'm certain that 20 years ago I would have lost interest quickly. I must admin that I made it to the site of the State Republican convention last year (although only as a vender at the Fair Tax table), but from what I saw and heard, a State convention can be fun, tedious, and frustrating. The County level convention that I attended this year was interesting, although the only voting involved were Straw Poles for State and local candidates. I did get to see Roberts Rules of Order in action.
All this aside, I encourage everyone to at least learn something about the system, even if you don't want to jump in and participate. If you do get involved, then you will at least have been involved in choosing one of the candidates... even if you don't like the result. If you don't take part, then you don't have room to complain.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Giving up mod abilities to respond to this...
Yes, of course you can write in whomever you want to on the ballot. However, are you going to spend the millions to billions of dollars it takes to market your write-in candidate so that others will know to write him/her in too? What happens if they even misspell the name while writing it in? What if they can't write?
Or, as another option, are you going to go to your state legislature and register your own candidate so that his/her name gets printed on the ballot? Look at what happened to Colbert when he tried to run in South Carolina. He was shot down because "he could never win," which was more or less the truth, but it prevented him from running in the first place.
Elections are all about marketing yourself to the general public, regardless of how stupid or idiotic the public is. I'll use the 1896 presidential election as an example. William Jennings Bryan, part of the populist party, tried to market himself without spending too much money (he didn't have that much to spend) by going around the country giving stump speeches and parading through towns. McKinley, his opponent, who had much more money than Bryan did, spent that money on newspaper advertisements and also paid people to spread the word about voting for McKinley. Guess who won?
All I'm really saying is that you're being overly idealistic, and you're only likely to keep punching your fist into a brick wall with that attitude in regard to politics.
Trusted Computing makes a comeback.
This is the new War on Drugs. Think of all the freedom we lost fighting the war on drugs. If you're within 100 miles of a border, you can be stopped and search for any reason without a warrant. It's a common occurrence to piss in a cup in front of a stranger as a condition of employment. Anyone carrying moderate to large amounts of cash can have it confiscated by the police, with no trial of any sort. And so on.
But the war on drugs is old and busted, we need a new enemy. As the U.S. loses its economic dominance of the world, anything that threatens (whether in theory or fact) the cultural dominance we've had is going to be attacked vigorously. It will be a scorched earth policy. We can expect to lose as many, if not more of our right under this new War on Copyright Infringement. It's just ramping up now, but we'll be seeing people who speak out against the new laws branded as anti-American. Copyright infringement will become a jailable offense.
Sure, it sounds preposterous now. But once upon a time jailing someone for Cannabis would have been preposterous. The American propaganda system is the best in the world. If they can sell a 70 year war on a substance that's factually safer than aspirin, if they can manipulate us into an optional war in Iraq for absolutely no reason at all, they'll have no problem turning copyright infringement into the next witch hunt.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The Libertarians occasionally get in on debates. They pulled down 3-4% in the last Presidential elections, and are the only 3rd party with a presence in all 50 States. The problem is, they (and the other 3rd parties) have never garnered enough of the vote in anything be (very) local elections to be take seriously.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
You seem to be confusing "upset with big media controlling the law" with "pirate everything under the sun". Personally, I believe in financially supporting my entertainment, but I'm still sick of the US government bending over backwards for big media by creating more and more over-restrictive IP laws. Copyright law was originally created to give authors a TEMPORARY monopoly on the rights to their works, in exchange for their works eventually entering the public domain. The fact that copyright law has, at the behest of big media, been extended from the original maximum of 28 years (assuming the author was alive to renew it after the first 14 years) to author's life plus 70 years means that once the work DOES enter public domain, it's completely irrelevant and forgotten by modern society.
Bottom line: copyright law was created to benefit SOCIETY, not big media, and we have every right to be upset with them removing any value we receive from it.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Entertainment is no different than software.
It's all highly derivative and easy to "share". The new stuff is dependent on the old stuff being freely copyable.
We've got recent blockbusters based on stories older than Sophocles.
An environment where Eastwood would need to worry about lawsuits from Kurosawa kind of undermines things.
Fox has tried to sue Universal with lot less going for it (derivativeness wise).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The PP will probably never win an election, it's just there to show them how many votes they lose when they support the RIAA.
(OTOH I'd bet the PP could get quite a few votes in today's America...)
No sig today...
You think as if they are NOT already treating customers as enemies.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
When I was a child our house was heated by oil, a tank car came by every now and then and fueled up a tank in the back.
That no longer happened. The guy who drove the tanker, has lost THAT job.
Coal was used earlier, and a lot of people made their money mining the coal in Holland and shipping it to homeowners. The mines have closed. The miners are gone.
In Amsterdam and many an old city you can still see evidence of horse stables in the center of the city. Evidence that once horses were the only method to power transport and the industry that made it happen.
Gas lighters once went around, turning on each street light individually, a job typically given as a charitable cause for people who could not earn their money in another way.
Countless jobs are gone as companies claimed that putting them in other countries was best for society, for the world, for the future.
And now, it is the time of the artist to loose their job, to see their means of earning a living turned upside down.
Does that matter? Is it worth halting progress to keep some people earning money the same way they are used to?
We could have stopped the car from ever going faster and thereby saved the horse industry. But at what cost to our society?
But art is different. Why? Great art has been created LONG before copyright was added (the current copyright is a recent invention and was fought tooth and nail by the record industry) and that art will remain.
Will people stop performing Opera because the composer is no longer being paid... oh wait, the composer died centuries ago.
Then perhaps people will stop making new art... except unpaid art is produced all the time. Go to flickr.com for just a tiny sample. Nobody there expects to be paid, yet they are producing art.
Yes, some artists will perhaps die of starvation. Just as lost of coal miners lost their job and countless stable boys before them.
THOUGH LUCK. The MPAA/RIAA/Brein/Bumastemra all love to claim that our society will collapse when no more "play for cash only" bands will exist. No more spice-girls, no more backstreet boys. The end of civilization as we know it. I could just cry.
But does it matter? I am not going to argue that pirates buy more CD's because I am trying to make a far bigger point. If indeed the end of copyright means NO more music is produced. Will that matter? Or is it just another development of our society? Imagine a world without movies. Ain't that hard, movie tech is not all that old. One thing often miss about Star Trek is that it is a fictional world without money (ToS and TNG at least) but ALSO without art. Think about it, there are no paid for artists and content in the series itself. We watch on TV a TV-less world. They make their own content, for their own consumption and art is "merely" something that each does for the fun of it, not for profit.
The RIAA and the likes hate such a future. They want us to believe that the artist who works for profit, a Michael Jackson or Madonna IS the ONLY part of our modern civilization that is worth anything. Everything else is secondary to them. The Spice girls are the 20th century, and everything else just plays second role to it. If content is not paid for, it does not exist, it is not worth it and if it is content it must be paid for.
This goes to such extremes that copyright mafia's collect royalties for music for that isn't even subject to royalties. If I produce a piece of music and put it in the public domain and it is played on the radio (in Holland at least) then Bumastemra collects a fee for it. A fee I, the person who created the music can't collect, nor can anyone. They have a legal right to collect money for something they don't own and which they never have to pay out to anyone. It would be like giving Shell the right to collect a fee from anyone on the road, no matter if they drive a car or not.
And the Internet, personal liberties, common sense, artisic license, law, they all got to bend or be broken s
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
But what protects that same guy from the RIAA/MPAA/**AA bankrupting him and ruining his life for (maybe) sharing a few songs?
That's more important to you than your civil liberties?
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
...evil madman stew.
We like to call it a "melting pot." =]
As someone else brought up, Kang and Kodos may have been a better example. You're absolutely right, this does fairly well exemplify the extreme voter apathy viewpoint. Who knew us apathetic folks were such extremists?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Works better if your audience at least have heard the names you're using before.
I weep for our country. History, doomed to repeat it, and so forth. Fuck. You don't know who Francisco Franco was? Really? Seriously? You've never heard of Juan or Eva Peron? They made a Broadway musical about her. Madonna was in it, fer chrissake.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...of the summary is incoherent, but it is a Slashdot summary. Why bother.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Would a security inspector even know what an LTO or 3592 tape cartridge looks like?
You're of course, absolutely right; those minimum wage thugs don't know. But YOU ARE EXPECTED TO COOPERATE by supplying the hardware that can read these "obscure" formats on demand, or they will be confiscate all the same, AND you will be detained. Remember ports of entry these days are constitution-free-zone.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Nobody is saying this is close to legislation - what we are saying is 'look what these fuckers think, and remember they have very deep pockets for lobbying'. Of course the EFF has their own agenda - but that agenda involves me keeping control over my own computer and my own data, whereas that of the content cartels does not. This is a moral no-brainer.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
give?
tanstaafl
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
How so? Obama is a corporatist, sorry if that's the part that offends you, but he does want to give you health care. He kinda made a big deal about it, you may have heard it in the news recently.
Personally, I think he sold out to Big Medicine, and what we ended up getting will require a lot of fixing. We need a single payer system that guarantees free health care to all, like every other civilized country on Earth. It's a moral issue: we're Americans and we shouldn't let Americans die like rabid dogs in the street. That's third world bananna republic bullshit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Only people that are selfish with personal greed are ambitious enough to do well in politics. Thus anyone capable of becoming elected as president of USA is the wrong man for the job.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Then this isn't a democracy. No one representing my interests was part of the "negotiations" for the DMCA and PRO-IP laws, or for ACTA.
"Nothing gets made in the U.S. and exported anymore BUT movies, music, etc." [citation needed]
Try this for starters.
Please note, I'm not picking on you in particular. You, like a lot of intelligent people, have come down with a nasty case of memes wrt to the composition of output in the US economy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
the article notes that what is being talked about is a wish list submitted and isn't even as close as proposed legislation.
Step 1. Write a wish list
Step 2. Get industry think tanks & lobbying organizations to turn those wish lists into model legislation
Step 3. Push the model legislation using lobbyists till it reaches a critical mass or until you can attach it to a must-pass bill.
If you look at how (for example) the Patriot Act was passed, it was collection of wish list legislation that had been lying dormant until the right opportunity.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To do the typical Slashdot thing and completely ignore the meaningful part of your extremely interesting and well-organized post while focusing on seemingly inane details:
If you don't take part, then you don't have room to complain.
I have to disagree. By this argument, those living under totalitarian dictatorships have no right to complain unless they are actively inciting rebellion. Just because it's a heck of a lot easier for me to actually do something about my complaints doesn't mean I in any way have a necessary responsibility to do it.
Then again, there is that oft-quoted:
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...
But applying it here is something of a stretch...
Besides, I've never really cared about who wins elections. They're just not that important. Legislation and government and such are just distractions from the things in life that actually matter. In 1000 years, where will the debate about free (ha, like we have anything like that at all) health care have gotten us? Probably to the same place either way.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Music will be interrupted every few seconds by a blast of digital noise to close the "analog hole".
Squads of media police will raid underground speakeasies featuring live music. Humming or singing will be considered an unauthorized live performance punishable by heavy fines and imprisonment. A "must listen, must pay" business model will shore up falling profits by insuring that everyone participates in an equitable manner. People crossing the border will be required to pay a "music tax" to cover the profits lost by listening to non-sanctioned media.
Personal devices will still exist but will only play the same content available on the officially sanctioned feed. There will be a brief underground economy in MP3 players, but that will pretty much end when the national guard crushes the last stronghold of black market pre-DRM iPods.
With profits assured, media companies will tout their products as "the best in history" but in actual practice will abandon any remaining commitment to quality and diversity. Selena Gomez and the Jonas Brothers will be named national heroes by the President.
The great majority of the public will just accept this.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The problem isn't access or non-access to their stuff. The problem is the measures they use to prevent it. Those measures affect everyone, even people who are not the least interested in Hollywood stuff, be it purchased of copied. There are no illegal movies on my computer. But there's also no Hollywood spyware on my computer. And I don't want any to be there. First, how can I be sure that it will not destroy completely legitimate data? After all, it's not unheared about that an antivirus program mis-detects a harmless file as virus-infected since it happens to accidentally match a virus signature. Now, if that happens with AV, you can simply ignore that false warning. But I'm sure the option to ignore would not be given by MPAA malware. Not to mention that I'd surely get trouble for that "illegal copy" the malware "detected." Even if I can ultimately prove that it was not an illegal copy (which isn't a given, even if it happens to be so), there will be enough trouble until then.
Moreover, who tells me what else the malware submits from my computer? After all, why should I trust an association which obviously doesn't care about my privacy?
And that's just about the first point mentioned in the article.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I also meant to point out that the words "tech-friendly" in the phrase "Bully countries that have tech-friendly policies" is really a euphemism for "piracy friendly". Obviously, they aren't going after "tech-friendly" countries - which includes basically the entire Western world, if not the entire world. This also shows the bias that the EFF is bringing to the table. No doubt, if the EFF agreed with international trade in chemical weapons, they'd describe it as "trade-friendly nations". Or, if they agreed with the drug-trade, they'd describe nations involved in the creation/trafficing of drugs as "freedom-friendly".
You know what's entertaining?
Watching people argue for rights they don't have against people enforcing rights they don't have.
So grammar Hitler issues aside, if they would alter their pricing to make it less worthwhile to pirate they could still make buckets of money and make people happy. The CD market went this way right near the end, they finally gave in and lowered prices and offered some great deals... I had never bought so many CD's as I did then. They will fight this too until it is too late.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
No, my objection is that the minority choses who the majority gets to pick.
If by minority you mean those of us who choose to get involved in the selection process (such as vote in the primaries) then you are right. But the reason for it is that most people are uninterested in it, not that they don't have the opportunity.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
...that's how democracy is supposed to work.
And that's would be my point.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
There's always another choice...
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
I do think movies like Star Trek and The Dark Knight will become a thing of the past - As "free" digital distribution moves more mainstream, the revenue streams that fund these $100M 'blockbusters' will disappear. Ditto TV - As digital distribution and timeshifting ends the 15 minutes of commercials per hour program I think shows like Lost and Battlestar Galactica will fade away. There may be a last gasp where content providers try to get people to pay $2 for an episode of Glee, but once content is free no one will pay it. Not saying it's a bad thing - There will always be creative people and there will always be content to consume - I just think it will be more like "Clerks" on YouTube and less like "Casino Royale" or "Avatar" at the Multiplex.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=about-cpd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
To oh-so-subtly quote you out of context:
Remember - the marginal cost of distributing software is also free, and yet we expect everyone to pay for a copy.
I'm glad there's no such thing as F/OSS to completely undermine that argument. Well, at least no one on a website like this would be familiar with that kind of thing...
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
0->Godwin in 7 posts... that's impressive.
Who would have thought that the extreme police state under Hitler would come up in a discussion about a dystopian future?
Godwin's Law is just an observation that the longer the online discussion the greater the chances for someone to bring up the Nazi's.
It doesn't necessarily invalidate anyones comment or analogy, especially in this case where we're dealing with corporate interests above the interests of the people. Mussolini once defined Fascism as Corporatism, which is the fusion of corporate and state interests.
You can't get a much more apt comparison than 20th century fascism and the entertainment industry's wet dream for copyright legislation.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Which reminds me of a story I've heard somewhere:
Two children quarrel about a cake: One thinks it should be divided in a fair way, the other wants the whole cake. Then an adult comes by and suggests a compromise: One child gets a quarter of the cake, the other one three quarters.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Nope, doesn't work that way either. Sorry. Your brethren to the south have one farce of a "democracy."
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Or Kang and Kodos! (Simpsons did it!)
If you don't like choices you are offered form your own party (this is how the "Pirate Party" got started in Europe)or stand as an independent, that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Pah... Like anyone would waste their vote on a third party candidate!
Bow-ties are cool.
Sure, but you can definitely influence policy. Look at these teabag people or whatever the hell they're called (I'm Canadian too). They appear to be directly influencing Republican policy by getting out there and protesting with their poorly-worded signs. No reason some coffeegrounds group or whatever couldn't get out there and do something similar with issues that they deem as important and in turn influence policy.
Yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch. Sure, technically, someone has to pay for it. But it's free to the guy who doesn't have to pay for it. Right now, that guy is the insurance industry. They are eating the lunch you and I paid for. I'd rather eat it myself, and maybe share some with the less fortunate, than give it to some wealthy fat cat.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The War on Drugs has worked out remarkably well so far, I think we can all agree. I am sure that aggressive steps to locate and prosecute copyright infringement will have the same amount of success and public support.
Or, not.
Put together enough "War On X" programs and eventually, it's just "War on You."
You are exactly right. There is a reason corporations don't get to vote. However much they like to call themselves "corporate citizens", they are not citizens. They are not human beings. They are machines we create in order to create wealth for us. (At least that's the theory.)
The idea of a level democratic playing-field between citizens and non-citizens is nonsense. If I own 10 corporations should I have greater representation? This is as ridiculous as the three-fifths compromise by which slave-holdings states got additional government representation based on the number of slaves they owned. Needless to say, this representation did not reflect the interests of the slaves: just as corporate representation may not represent the interests of the human beings who make up the corporation. In both cases, institutions created by human beings (slavery, corporations) are used as an excuse to allocate undemocratic power to a few people who control them.
(This should be obvious from what I have said, but I want to be sure no-one puts words in my mouth: I am not suggesting that abuses of copyright are comparable to the horrors of slavery are comparable, no matter how illegitimate the former may be.)
So if it was unnecessarily extreme, why write it? Anyways, it doesn't matter because the VAST majority of the people that care about these issues 1) do not vote, or 2) if they do, would probably approve or be ignorant of such Draconian technological measures. I'm not an ageist, just speaking the truth. The biggest voting bloc in America (oldsters) may be less monolithic and more diverse than they get credit for, but I also think it's safe to say that as a whole they care more about how candidates deal with the AArp than the riAA.
Side note: Even if you could write-in candidates or change the voting system used in the US, millions of people every election -- perhaps including you, perhaps not -- would still be complaining. So your beef is noteworthy and well-principled, but still might be classified as whining because it would make no change in who actually gets elected, especially at the federal level. That's just my opinion, but it's not completely crazy.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
That's the best explanation I've seen so far. Apparently George H. W. Bush and Dukakis are the reason why the League of Women Voters stopped organizing debates. It makes sense that only Ds and Rs get to debate when it's the Ds and Rs who figure out who gets to debate.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
this mythical "citizen" you talk about doesn't have time to run through the resumes of every registered candidate on the ballot, it'd take time from work, leisure family. so they rely on the same sources of information they rely for other purchase decisions: advertising, news coverage and word of mouth.
the result is that better funded products (for the sake of this post, let's consider politicians a product) get a lot more exposure and bigger mind share, which results in larger sales (or more votes). so, unless the politician is already a billionaire like ross perot, they need funding to pay for campaigns. the funding comes from big corporations, that make sure only to invest in "products" that will bring return.
some countries like brasil and portugal have mandatory "political time" (brasil) or "antena rights" (portugal) that gives political parties free time on over-the-air TV and radio so they can get exposure without spending through the nose. this helps a great deal to promote _real_ change on the political landscape. in US, where those right don't exist, change doesn't happen that easy, no matter which party is in power.
in other times, justice could be relied to bring some change, but not anymore for what i know. even justice is being corrupted by bribery in the form of "campaign contributions".
What ? Me, worry ?
That's how it's supposed to work, but it doesn't work at all in America, and hasn't for well over a century.
What we have in America doesn't even resemble "democracy". It's a lot more like Saddam's Iraq, where there's one candidate and you better vote for him or else. The only difference here is that we're presented with two candidates that have been selected for us by the powers-that-be.
Look at what happened to Colbert when he tried to run in South Carolina. He was shot down because "he could never win,"
I'd argue that he was shot down because "there is a real possibility he could win, and/or garner enough votes that we would have to take him seriously"
DOH... instead of bringing my 7-iron, I should have brought my big iron.
Yes, that is unnecessarily extreme. Why is everything in politics like this these days? Aren't there shades of wrongness? I mean really, we have a choice between politicians who have authorized the killing of millions of people? How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.
If you haven't noticed, America's politicians have killed countless people through all the unjust wars they've waged: Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
There really isn't much difference between, say, Lyndon B. Johnson and Pol Pot, just that one killed a few more people than the other. Both of them were responsible for the deaths of many. LBJ is responsible for probably around a million deaths, PP for several million.
guarantees free health care
There is no such thing as free healthcare, the only question is who pays for it. If you think that you have a moral duty to pay for my healthcare if I can't afford it (which is what universla healthcare amounts to) then I disagree. If that is the morality you adopt, then just about everything that you spend your money on is immoral. How can you be so immoral to own a car, or a cell phone, or go on vacation, while there are hungry people in the world? What you are talking about is charity. There is nothing wrong with charity but don't confuse it with duty.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
America's slow internet backbone is party the result of Big Brother wanting to be able to see everything we do. Big Media, along with Big Brother, wants to keep it slow otherwise they will get swamped by the volume of traffic and won't be able to snoop on our activities. Other countries have better and cheaper internet access, but Big Brother, with Big Media's help, is choking us off.
Unfortunately, choking the internets and the googles is adversely affecting the progress of technology in the country that is do dependent upon technology to keep its economic world domination. (BTW, China will also self-limit their growth this way just to be able to keep its population under control.)
Best regards.
But that is talking about ColberT running as a Democratic party candidate, not running altogether.
Citing the number of cases the RIAA have lost etc I would hardly describe it as "US government's willingness to bend over for Big Media"... Not to mention that under current law what most people are doing with media online is illegal ... regardless of the culprit's opinion.
One of the main problems around here is exaggeration.
That's more important to you than your civil liberties?
Congratulations. You just found an example for the case that when presented with the choice between food on the table and civil liberties, the vast majority of people will choose food on the table. The misleading part is that the choice is rarely that stark. I choose not to work in an industry that forces me to support stupid copyright laws. I could perhaps make more money there, but I don't need it that badly.
Civil liberties become important only when people realize that there is more than one way to get food on the table.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Fruit used to be scarce and hand-picked from trees, but Man invented agriculture to control and infinitely replicate it!!!
Meat used to be scarce and chased all day long with bows and arrows but Man overcame Beast and herded it!
Nothing should be scarce. We are here to raise the bar of what Life consists of, and modern life consists of hanging out on youtube and being able to play on a whim whatever comes to mind.
It just needs to be taken one step further. There should be an official RIAA-backed repository of all music ever created, easy to use, with all lyrics, videos, whatever!
Or the RIAA should die.
Personally, I think he sold out to Big Medicine, and what we ended up getting will require a lot of fixing. We need a single payer system that guarantees free health care to all, like every other civilized country on Earth. It's a moral issue: we're Americans and we shouldn't let Americans die like rabid dogs in the street. That's third world bananna republic bullshit.
What we got is not a system that guarantees health care to all, it's a system that basically hands money from taxpayers directly to insurance companies. In case you didn't know, insurance companies do NOT provide healthcare. They shuffle paperwork and money, and keep a lot of the money for themselves. They don't provide anything of value.
If you want to give the people healthcare, then you need a system where money is transferred from the taxpayer directly to those who provide healthcare: doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. Sticking a middleman in there who takes a giant cut and only complicates the provision of care doesn't help any.
Obama didn't "sell out" to Big Medicine. He and the rest of the Democrats were already bought and paid for by Big Insurance.
Mark my words, what we ended up with is going to be even worse than the mess we had before, and cost an enormous amount of money that will bankrupt the country. The insurance companies and their CEOs are going to get filthy rich, but there will still be Americans dying like rabid dogs in the streets, because there won't be enough healthcare providers to provide care for them, as doctors will leave the country or go into other professions (as they're already doing, because of the insane cost of malpractice insurance).
No, my objection is that the minority choses who the majority gets to pick. The US version of an "election" is a joke relative to modern systems.
This is the problem with term limits. the people that pre-screen the candidates only need select a new stooge, not a new ideology or policy. Plus you forever lose the slim chance of a politician ever growing string enough to ignore his evil overlords and do "good".
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Imagine the RIAA stamping on a customer's face. Forever.
Thank The Flying Spaghetti Monster I do not live in the "Land of the Free" ;-)
The real election in America is the primary. If you don't bother to participate in the real election, don't blame the system. The general election is nothing but a sanity check on the primaries - if e.g. David Duke wins the primary though clever coalition building, he gets tossed out in the general. HEck, in some states they don't even use the Slashdot-reviled first-past-the-post voting system, and use somehting complicated instead in the primary.
We may end up getting a different 2 parties here soon, as well (as has happened once before). 24% of Americans self-idenfity as "Tea Party supporters", and while they may go on to take over control of the Republican apparatus, if the movement keeps growing it may replace the GOP as one of the two parties.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Suggesting that corporate profits are more important than individual liberties is itself an extreme position.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither... I understand that these companies are trying to protect their IP and that it has a real impact on the economy, but they really need to come up with a better policy than there current draconian policies. Same thing with the Patriot Act, which someone mentioned earlier.
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
As a democracy, we get to define what we mean by freedom. We vote on which freedoms we will protect and which we won't. It's pretty difficult to have liberty and pursue happiness without life.
I, for instance, don't think anyone should have the freedom to oppress others, by any means including economic. If I came to you and said, "your money or your life," that would obviously be oppression. But when an insurance company says to a poor person, "your money or your life," that is oppression too.
Nobody should have power over others. That is tyranny, not freedom. In some places freedom of speech is not upheld. In some places it is. In some places, the freedom to live a healthy life is protected. In other places, like America, it isn't really. But we just voted to protect the right to health care, and so it is a right, created as we create any right: by agreeing as a society to protect it.
I can't help everyone everywhere in the world. But I can help people here in America. I'm not concerned by my meager consumerism. I can own a car, a cell phone, and go on vacation without feeling guilty. You do not get to define my morality in black and white terms and say, 'You can't stand up for universal health care without hypocrisy unless you are an ascetic.' That is patently ridiculous.
This isn't charity, either. It's an externality, a public good. Universal health care is good for everyone, even those who do not need it personally. An unhealthy population is a less productive population. Our current health care system eats up a huge percentage of our economic output, it is hugely less efficient than states that have universal care. We pay twice as much, per capita, for our health care as the next most expensive country. And we get health outcomes that are only marginally better than most third world countries outcomes.
So, we will all benefit from a more efficient public health care system. Which means we should all pay for it, with our taxes. Just like we do for roads (even if we don't drive) and fire departments (even if we aren't on fire) and schools (even if we have are adults with no children) Some types of goods and services simply can not be provided efficiently by the free market, while other types can not be efficiently provided by a command economy. We should be smart enough, and free enough of economic dogma, to recognize which are which and use the system that is most efficient.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, but also don't forget that we citizens were gifted the right to bare arms for specific reasons
Yes, it does get hot in Florida. Although those old ladies with the big rolls of wrinkly arm fat hanging down can be very disconcerting.
I think dictionary.com probably has an entry for "bear" also.
Oh how I wish I had mod points right now.
Truer words may have never been spoken on the internet.
there should be a +1 just plain right mod.
-- Sig under construction...
free over the air signals was going to destroy the movie house. then it was the vcr, now its the internet
and all along, hollywood just keeps packing them in the cinema house
sure, the dvd market will disappear, but there's something about going to a movie house that is so much more appealing than watching iron man 2 on your 17 inch monitor by yourself in your basement. people like the social aspect. yes, i said social aspect: despite the crying babies and the cell phones, people laughing when you laugh, gasping when you gasp reinforces your primal homo sapien brain circuits and heightens your enjoyment. if you say you can do that with your 5.1 surround sound 60" lcd hd theatre system with your friends, i'm amazed you have such loyal friends that they drop everything, come rushing to your house and agree to see the movie you want to see at that moment in time
in other words, the cinema will always make money, lots of it, for hollywood, for a long time to come. even if they give all their content away on the same day as cinema releases, for free, people will still flock to the cinema, because it offers something you simply can't replicate at home. its almost the same psychological space as going to church: shared communal experience, heightening enjoyment
there's gotta be a sociological study somewhere, but i am in no fear of the cinema house dying
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've heard this argument before and the counter argument to it as well: this flawed first step is necessary in order to get the ball rolling. And, you know, it does do a few good things. Not everything in the HCR bill is a corporate giveaway. Some things are quite necessary, like requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, this is not the universal coverage the majority of Americans wanted. Hopefully, the bad parts can be fixed while the good parts are retained.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ya, make up your own birthday song!
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
We may end up getting a different 2 parties here soon, as well (as has happened once before). 24% of Americans self-idenfity as "Tea Party supporters", and while they may go on to take over control of the Republican apparatus, if the movement keeps growing it may replace the GOP as one of the two parties.
I don't see how that's really possible, since Tea Party == GOP. There's nothing different between them from what I can see; after all, they had Sarah Palin do a keynote speech for them. Basically, these people seem to be a bunch of morons who want lower taxes and lower spending, and will vote for anyone (including current GOP politicians who have been responsible for all kinds of pork spending) who claims to support this goal, and who will then turn around and continue the same pork spending and taxation. Nothing's going to change.
I see you are not an American then. See, The united States of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and in this country the Constitution outlines what freedom is; the constitution does not grant us rights. What the Constitution does is prevent the government from encroaching upon our rights, and if something is not enumerated in the Constitution as a government power, in theory, the government is not permitted to enact upon that something. I see nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to require me to pay for health care for illegal aliens or for legal residents who want a free ride and not work for a living.
I'm looking forward to the day that Obamascare is taken before SCOTUS, and I am also looking forward to this coming November.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Mark my words, what we ended up with is going to be even worse than the mess we had before, [...]
What's interesting is it's basically identical to the system in Switzerland (compulsory health insurance from private companies, subsidies for the poor), and there it seems to work quite well (base on my few years living there).
(Not that I think it will work in the US - way too much corruption here from what I've seen so far.)
Blah blah blah, what utter bullshit. Commerce clause, look it up.
Obamacare is not going before the SCOTUS. It is entirely constitutional. Some attorney generals are even refusing to press forward with their governor's bullshit lawsuits because they know they will lose. And the polls show that the Republicans will not pick up a majority next election. People are sick and tired of the party of 'no.' The Republicans are a sad, tired regional party of deep south racists who just don't want medical care for brown skinned people. "Government hands off my medicare!" Fucking morons.
See you at the polls, loser!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The cost of most movies could be cut a lot by lowering payroll. Would $5 million upfront instead of $10 million have been too little for Bale? Could you not choose 1 out of 10000 competent actors 100k + 1/100 Bale's percentage?
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
There's a lot of places in the country where it's really hard to find an OBGYN because they've left states where the malpractice insurance was too expensive. I've also heard of doctors quitting general practice because of malpractice insurance premiums costing more than their entire revenue.
The problem is the RIAA wants to redefine copyright infringement to exclude all fair use; their position is that if you rip your CD collection to MP3 or AAC, you are stealing from them. Oh sure, you paid between $13.98 and $24.98 for each of your 300 CDs, but what have you paid lately? The RIAA members have a right to perpetual income from your purchase, you know.
Ditto for MPAA and Films|TV series|etc.
You do have a lot to object to and even fear from the suggestion of legislation allowing this bullshit to occur.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The planned release of a blockbuster motion picture should be acknowledged as an event that attracts the focused efforts of copyright thieves, who will seek to obtain and distribute pre-release versions and/or to undermine legitimate release by unauthorized distribution through other channels.
I find this interesting. The last time I checked, a good enough DA could probably talk a cherry picked jury into believing that someone taping a movie was attempting to circumvent protections (water marks on the screen) and have them tried as terrorist. Suddenly we would have reports of terrorists in America's theaters. The industry gets rid of people recording in theaters and the news gets rid of ticket sales. Win-win in my book.
If you want to give the people healthcare, then you need a system where money is transferred from the taxpayer directly to those who provide healthcare: doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. Sticking a middleman in there who takes a giant cut and only complicates the provision of care doesn't help any.
The problem is that quite often in taxpayer funded systems, the government takes the role of the bloated ineffecient middleman.
Government healthcare isn't a panacea, and private healthcare isn't either. Unfortunately things are far more complicated than that.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
There are almost to many things wrong with your post to reply to them all but I'll have a go.
As a democracy, we get to define what we mean by freedom. We vote on which freedoms we will protect and which we won't. It's pretty difficult to have liberty and pursue happiness without life.
Umm, no we are a constitutional republic where individual rights and freedoms are written in constitution, and not subject to the popular vote, specifically to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Of course there is a process to amend the constitution so technically you are right, we can vote to eliminate for example the right of free speech, but that is deliberately made a very difficult process that requires 2/3 of both houses just to propose, and then 3/4 of all states to agree.
I, for instance, don't think anyone should have the freedom to oppress others, by any means including economic. If I came to you and said, "your money or your life," that would obviously be oppression. But when an insurance company says to a poor person, "your money or your life," that is oppression too.
Of course I agree that nobody should have the right to say "your money or your life" but that is a red herring because the insurance companies don't in fact say that.
the freedom to live a healthy life is protected. In other places, like America, it isn't really. But we just voted to protect the right to health care, and so it is a right, created as we create any right: by agreeing as a society to protect it.
I don't really understand that, of course you have freedom to live a healthy life in America. If what you are saying is that if you can't afford something, then you don't have the freedom to enjoy it then fine, but I think that's a misuse of the word freedom. You can work hard, earn some money and then you can afford it, so you do have freedom to obtain healthcare.
This isn't charity, either. It's an externality, a public good. Universal health care is good for everyone, even those who do not need it personally. An unhealthy population is a less productive population. Our current health care system eats up a huge percentage of our economic output, it is hugely less efficient than states that have universal care. We pay twice as much, per capita, for our health care as the next most expensive country. And we get health outcomes that are only marginally better than most third world countries outcomes.
This assumes that a government run healthcare is going to provide a healthy population and the free market isn't. The evidence is actually very different. Our healthcare is better than in vast majority of countries with government run health care systems have, including countries such as UK and Canada. I used to live in UK and I am having a far higher quality helthcare in the USA than I did in UK. Access to the latest treatments and latest medical technology is a lot more available, waiting lists are non-existent, hospitals are much better equipped, emergency services are more efficient etc etc. Survival odds for most major diseases are much better in the USA than in those countries. I pay around $130/month for my private health insurance which isn't terrible. Yes there are about 15% of the population who are uninsured (about half of them by choice) except for emergency treatments (which are free for everybody). While that is a problem that something should be done about, I don't see any evidence that something as drastic as Obama bill (especially considering the sleazy way it was passed) or universal care is justified.
So, we will all benefit from a more efficient public health care system.
Again, you are assuming that a government run system it will be more efficient. Do you mean this in the same way that the bankrupt postal service is efficient? Or bankrupt madicare? Or bankrupt social security? Or bankrupt and awful public education system? There is no evid
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
http://www.pirate-party.us/
The fact is the Republican and Democratic candidates are consensus candidates. While there are those who would vastly prefer Nader or Barr or McKinney or whoever, there are many more who would be terrified of that possibility. Consensus is as it is.
That said, we should move to approval voting or instant runoff.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
There's a lot of places in the country where it's really hard to find an OBGYN because they've left states where the malpractice insurance was too expensive. I've also heard of doctors quitting general practice because of malpractice insurance premiums costing more than their entire revenue.
Not to be a wikidick, but [citation needed]. Even in states with restrictive requirements, there are physicians mutuals that are physician run and much cheaper than commercial insurance providers. Have been since the 70s.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
and how backed will customs get by doing pc checks.
You wait time is 2-3 Hours be check and the takes about 30min per 100g
And the polls show that the Republicans will not pick up a majority next election.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127319/Republicans-Lead-Congressional-Ballot.aspx hence, you are uninformed. Considering that Republicans in an average election get 4-5% more vote than the polls show because their voters show up to vote more, and the fact that their base and independents (majority of whom are right leaning now) are particularly energized for the next election by Obama's policies, I think November is going to be a historic bloodbath for the Democrats. That will lead to Congress defunding Obama's health care bill until the next Republican president can repeal it. Don't worry though, it's good for the country.
The Republicans are a sad, tired regional party of deep south racists
Considering that a county breakdown map in a typical election in the USA looks something like this, I think it is fair to say that you are spectacularly wrong:
http://www.culture-war.info/voting2004map-g.jpg
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Just google for "obgyn leaving state malpractice".
Here's some links from that search:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_19_36/ai_81006732/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20030328/ai_n10166472/
http://www.miwww.acog.org/acog_sections/pa/Pdf/ACOGPatientEdMedMalFinal.pdf
http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_divide/2006/09/saving_the_obgy.html
You right wingers love to point out that we are a constitutional republic, but that does not negate anything I said. Technically, I am right, hehehe, you even admit it. But look up the commerce clause.
Yes, the insurance companies do say that. If hold the only source of food, and I say, "suck my dick or starve to death," what will you do? Enter into a dick-sucking-for-food contract? If I hold medicine that will cure you, and I demand an outrageous price for it, what will you do? Economic coercion is real, especially when property rights are backed up with government guns.
You call my use of the word freedom 'misuse?' I'd say, protecting the rights of the wealthy to oppress the poor is even more of a misuse of the word.
The record shows that the free market is incapable of providing good reasonably priced health care solutions. Sorry that the facts have such a liberal bias, but the rest of the first world has awesome socialized health care that works, for less per capita than ours.
Your lies about the UK are, in fact, lies. My mom just died over there this Christmas. Because she couldn't get good health care here. Sarah Palin admitted to sneaking into Canada for health care.
Uh, none of the services you mentioned are actually bankrupt. And medicare, for instance, puts most of the money into actual health care instead of the pockets of paper pushing time wasting insurance leaches.
I'm sorry, but the imbalance of information and power inherent in any doctor patient relationship means the free market can not arrive at an equitable price for the service. You can't 'shop around' for health care. If you were seriously il;l, what would 'shopping around' mean? And how would you even know when you'd gotten a good deal.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You are entirely correct. biryokumaru is being deliberately obtuse.
In the first reply he provided the document to be an elector for a candidate in California. Since the voters are not choosing the President directly, it follows that a candidate needs electors- a process as simple as filling out that form. If someone can't find 55 people in the most populous state to be electors then I doubt they are getting enough write-in votes to win.
Oh, kind of like how the existence of free software turned paid software into a thing of the past?
Your analogy doesn't really hold up, though. It's mostly businesses that pay for software. Very few consumers do - Most paid for their OS with their computer, and it might have included an OEM version of MS-Office or something, but after that...? As a consumer, the only software I've paid for in the past two years is a $40 toddler-typing program for my kid. Image editing software, video editing software, ripping software, anti-malware software, browsing software and on and on - It's all 'free.' Almost all the games we pay in our house are fun puzzle-type 'popcap' games - All free.
Movies and TV shows are targeted at consumers, and once all content is free people won't pay any more...
We'll see, won't we? I think you're going to be surprised by how badly the Republicans fail in the next election. Americans are sick of them. Heck, bookmark this post so you can come back with an "I told you so" if you are right. I won't be holding my breath.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Cool, thanks for the cites. So, is that an argument for regulation at the Federal level? Or should we just let the states that refuse to regulate get sick and die?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Nothing's a panacea. But at least government doesn't have profit as its primary role and motivator, unlike private companies who exist solely to make a profit. Additionally, the government, while frequently bloated and inefficient, is still answerable to the voters. Private companies are answerable to no one but their boards of directors.
Finally, the choice seems to be between two systems:
1) taxpayer -> government -> insurance companies -> healthcare providers
2) taxpayer -> government -> healthcare providers
Either way, you're going to have government involved. It should be pretty obvious that with fewer entities between the patients (taxpayers) and the healthcare providers, things will be more efficient and cost less.
Of course, things are rarely so simple, and there are plenty of cases where government-regulated private companies word fairly well (such as with public utilities in many places). However, the key here is regulation, which is something that American government (and in particular, the Federal government), is REALLY bad at. After all, it was lack of regulation that caused the bubble and Mortgage Meltdown. So I don't have any faith that they're going to do a good job here either, especially since they still haven't bothered to fix the problems that caused the Mortgage Meltdown.
The cost of most movies could be cut a lot by lowering payroll
Sure, and you wind up with movies like "Clerks." Nothing wrong with "Clerks" - It's a great movie - But it's a different movie-going experience.
That blame would lie with the two parties and the media covering/hosting the debate. If the big media outlets said they'd only televise a debate that includes the two most likely third-party candidates, then guess what would happen?
A major factor In Jesse Ventura's win in Minnesota was that the Democratic candidate indicated that he would not participate in any debates that did not include Ventura. This was out of self-interest, of course. The Democrats thought Ventura's fiscal conservatism would steal votes from the Republicans. The strategy backfired, as the Democratic candidate wound up with the least votes overall.
As long as you pay your royalties for your funeral music, the music industry would be happy to comply.
"Or else"? I didn't vote in the 2008 election and no one from the Republican Party came to my house and threatened me or worse. Nor did Obama win like this...
"There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council."
"You can't have free elections when the electorate goes to the polls in the knowledge that they have only one candidate, that candidate routinely murders and tortures opponents of the regime and the penalty for slandering that sole candidate is to have one's tongue cut out."
Even the Iraqi in charge of the elections, Izzat Ibrahim said - Iraq's elections should not be compared to elections in Europe or America. Iraq was in a situation comparable to the early history of Arab states, he said - in Iraq there is one destiny for the whole country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2331951.stm
"these people seem to be a bunch of morons.."
Interesting phrasing there. Why do they "seem to be" as opposed to "are"?
Personally, I find that morons, idiots, and imbeciles are not restricted to any particluar political persuasion, rather they become affiliated with a political movement from exposure to a persuasive person with a desire to convince them. Given that morons, idiots, and imbeciles by definition are not very bright, they may not need much convincing.
"who want lower taxes and lower spending"
That is not quite an accurate statement of the Tea Party goals. But from it,I assume that you are in favor of higher taxes and higher spending. If so, do you have an example of a country that has higher taxes and spending that you would consider a good role model? I'm not going to suggest that you move there, just fix that country in your mind and ask yourself what would be necessary to do the same sort of thing in the US.
Does your model country have better social services?
If so, what are the requirements for receiving them?
Does your model country spend a significantly lower percentage of their GDP on their military?
If so, are they dependent upon another nation for any portion of their own defense?
Does your model country have a democratically elected government?
If so, how many political parties and how do candidates get on the ballot?
And one other question:
Assuming no changes to your model country, would you want to live there?
If not, why do you want to change the US to be more like that country?
If so, why change the US - shouldn't there be room for diversity among nations?.
And no, the Tea Party is not the same as the GOP. What the Tea party is, is a "good government" movement. Whether it will last long enough to be effective in attaining its goals is yet to be determined.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Personally, I think the Federal government is broken, and should be abolished. The states should break apart, and form new, smaller unions with their regional neighbors, and if anything, the US should have a loose union more like the EU, where they only share currency and defense. States need to go back to governing themselves, and funding their own projects, instead of crying to the Federal government to do everything for them. Eventually, states that can't govern themselves well and turn into 3rd-world countries (I'm looking at Louisiana and Mississippi, among others) will lose their smarter residents to other states that have a higher standard of living.
Large-scale government just doesn't work very well in practice. Countries that grow too large are destined for failure due to internal tensions and corruption. Europe is doing much better in this regard, because they've gotten over all their warmongering, but are still separate and mostly sovereign and their countries are small, yet they do work together on some projects (like currency and free trade) without developing a big, centralized government that tries to control everything.
The Reps and Dems don't need to physically threaten you; they've figured out a brilliant way around that by simply controlling the process so that you can only choose one of them, and no one else. If you're an independent or in a third party, you simply don't get any media coverage, you're not allowed to debate, and the voting system ensures that only Rs and Ds are able to get elected.
In the end, while it's not overtly oppressive and not at all violent, we still have only one more party than Communism, and the two parties are virtually identical on all issues except the hot-button ones which they conveniently use to keep the public riled up and distracted from what's really going on.
They were letting me know that they had released a several sci-fi movies that I have not paid to see in the theaters. Since my past history shows that I like sci-fi and have bought sci-fi DVD's from Amazon and seen other sci-fi movies, that I should have seen Avatar by now, since everyone has talked about it. They were nice enough to send me a SASE so I could send them back the cost of admission to a theater, or they would sue me for thousands.
The RIAA noticed me in my car singing along to a song on the radio and were shocked that I did not go out and buy the CD. They pointed to my youth and how most of my disposable income was spent on cassette's and CD's. The letter quite explicitly explained that bands I have supported and bough their stuff in the 80's have released 3 compilation "best of" albums in the past 15 years and that I have not bought any of them, or any of the 3 re-releases of the original albums which have been digitally remastered for me at their cost. They kindly let me know that I need to do my share in helping them fund their struggling artists. Did I know that in 2008 alone, there were more failed artists than successful, even though they followed the same formula. Without my rebuying some of my older cassettes on CD, they would not be able to have their expensive premieres and afford to sue random people.
Yah know...just got done reading Overclocked by Cory Doctorow and these don't sound that far fetched after some of the stuff in that book.
Signing off now - they just re-released Better off Dead with an extra 20 seconds of interviews and a slightly contrast adjusted cover - like Pokemon - gotta get them all!
Interesting phrasing there. Why do they "seem to be" as opposed to "are"?
I haven't exactly gone to any Tea Party meetings, met any highly active Tea Partiers, etc., so "are" is far too strong a word for me to use from here on the sidelines. I can only judge using what little I've seen about them in the media. At first, it looked interesting, but as soon as they hooked up with Sarah Palin, I completely lost all interest and dismissed them as morons.
"who want lower taxes and lower spending"
That is not quite an accurate statement of the Tea Party goals. But from it,I assume that you are in favor of higher taxes and higher spending.
Huh? Where'd you get that idea?
Lower taxes and lower spending is definitely something I can agree with. However, it's not part of the GOP's playbook; just look at the way they governed the country from 2000-2006. Since the Tea Partiers have latched onto typical GOP politicians, why should I assume they actually support these goals any more than any other typical Republican?
And no, the Tea Party is not the same as the GOP. What the Tea party is, is a "good government" movement. Whether it will last long enough to be effective in attaining its goals is yet to be determined.
If they're not the same as the GOP, then why do they have corrupt GOP politicians like Sarah Palin and JD Hayworth speaking for them?
If they were composed of truly independent politicians, and completely shunned any GOP politicians, then I might buy it. But now, forget it. It's just a radical arm of the GOP, nothing more, and when they elect the corrupt GOP politicians that pander to them, they're going to have the same GOP-style neo-con government we had in 2000-2006.
What we got is not a system that guarantees health care to all, it's a system that basically hands money from taxpayers directly to insurance companies.
wait. why do you even need insurance companies in the loop ? if you have taxpayer money funding the healthcare (which on overall is beneficial to "the people"), why would you put in another layer, which would essentially be a parasitic grabber (remember, insurance companies operate for profit).
hint : you can have such a system without insurance companies whatsoever inside the system.
Rich
But unlike Communism, we don't get killed for voting for someone else.
Perot was a viable third party candidate in '92 and '96. Nader was a spoiler in '00, Ventura became governor of Minnesota as a third party.
We have independent party Senators.
Yes, as a moderate Republican (they call me a RINO now) I have alot in common with the Blue Dog Democrats, but someone like Ron Paul is not virtually identical to President Obama. McCain and Obama were similar in 2008, but had McCain stuck to his stances he ran on in 2000 they would have been alot different.
Palin or Paul in 2012 will not be virtually identical to President Obama.
Overall, I agree with you. The real question is: how do we get there from here without ending up dominated by wealthy interests that thrive by playing one small power against another? No political seems to have a workable answer to that question.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Exactly my point.
The ever increasing use of the US Constitution's Commerce clause to justify the federal government taking on more and more powers is a disingenuous ploy that will eventually (when taken to its logical conclusion) produce a result that makes a mockery of the Constitution. The federal government is granted a limited set of powers by the Constitution. The Commerce clause was not intended to be the "sudo" for the federal government. At some point the system administrators/system owners are going to have to step in and slap the fingers of the power users who are abusing it.
The Tea Party movement is built around the frustration that there is currently no fiscally conservative party. As of a recent survey, they are about 15% democrat, 25% independent, and 60% republican. The movement is a bit more White and less Black than America as a whole, and is somewhat better educated (but I think that's true of all political activist movements), but otherwise has no unusual demographics.
The best description of the Tea Party goals comes from a frequent sign:
Taxed
Enough
Already
So, while "lower taxes" may just not be practical given the fantastic amount of debt we've just taken on, perhaps "no higher taxes, spend far less" would be a more realistic statement. No more bailouts, no new government programs, over time perhaps replace social security and medicare with something sustainable (a safety net, not programs-for-everyone), and in general just stop spending so much.
Also, it's interesting that you should describe Sarah Palin as a "corrupt GOP politician". I get it that a lot of people hate her - she's outspoken about her views, and that always engenders hate - but in her term as AL governor she did a lot to combat local corruption including getting rid of local corrupt Republicans. A spirit of "even if they're in the same party, get rid of the corrupt ones" is sorely lacking in American politics right now.
You might also note that "neo-con" specifically refers to a group that drove a foreign policy embracing support for Israel, and isn't some generic term for "those people I hate". The Tea Party doesn't have any position on Israel, as far as I know.
Personally, I'm not sure the Tea Party has enough concrete objectives that I know whether I support them yet, but I'm deeply worried that we're about to reach the point in a democracy where a majority get the majority of their income from the government, and only a minority pay a significant amount of taxes. Clearly that will lead to self-destruction.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Err, that's Alaska governor, obviously.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Everybody loves the commerce clause when it is used in a cause they like, and hate it when it is used otherwise, but the fact is, for good or for bad, the question of its constitutionality was decided generations ago. It's not 'ever increasing.' If you want to make an assertion like that, it should be easy to back it up with cold hard facts.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Communism" is too vague. There is Stalinism, Maoism, etc. But the roots were Marxism. This is what Marx believed in:
Also, in a pure communist phase, there should be no government whatsoever.
Of course, we know the pigs will always win.
Dilbert RSS feed
Imagine how many fewer the red/blues would get if "None of the above" were a choice.
It's humorous that you seem to think government run health care wont benefit some "wealthy fat cat".
And don't get me wrong, I'm not happy at all with the current health care system in the U.S. Before and after the current 'reform'.
But talking about 'free' health care is the worst kind of fiction. I don't think that kind of misinformation helps anyone.
And I disagree that there is some "guy who doesn't have to pay for it". Everybody pays one way or another, tanstaafl.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Methinks you've been sipping the water the entertainment industry execs drink from.
Most people want to contribute. Going to see a spectacular event in rooted deep in the human psyche..
Think your date would enjoy being taken to a cheap burger joint, or a classy restaurant? When you just want something to sate the pangs of hunger, then the cheap burger joint is likely where you'll head.
Everything has its place... Having the free content won't break the paid for model. All it means is that the paid for stuff better have a good story, and better be spectacular..
Worst case? You have channels you pay for. That's where you'll find the high cost series.. Paid for by subscriber funds, by people who think it's worth the cash.
It's really only in the minds of the greedy that everyone else is out to stiff them. Most people want to get by reasonably honourably, and actually contribute to the whole; that's what got us through the times before money was even invented, and it'll get us through times after money is deprecated in favour of something more advanced.
Also, "Couldn't find package dystopian-copyright-protection"
Hidden file system entries. You need to be in group "mafiaa" to access those.
That's "sudo apt-get install dystopian-copyright-protection" dumbass.
Not if you're Sony. Sony always runs as root.
I tend to vote Libertarian myself when there is a Libertarian candidate. Here in AZ they have a pretty strong standing, I was hoping the Libertarian candidate would take the governor's spot when Napalitano was first running, the Libertarian candidate did extremely well in the debates.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
It seems almost impossible to overestimate the raw, feral greed of US Entertainment Corporations.
These Corporations aren't pushing for a way to charge internet users for viewing or hearing their content.
Rather, they seem intent on prosecuting any internet user for any access to their content.
If these Pinnacles of Greed have their way and you or I stumble onto some youtube video that contains
a Brittany Spears song, we won't get charged a few bucks - we will get sued and probably will get hit
with one of our 3 strikes before our lifetime internet ban! All so they get the outrageous fine.
Any alternatives to ISP driven internet here in the US? Let me know because when these sharks are
done carving the internet into ribbons it won't be worth accessing, let alone paying $70 / month for.
No, it is not. You are comparing "selling medical insurance" with "mugging someone." They are not the same, conceptually, legally, or morally. While I can't disagree that a "moral" society should look out for its less-fortunate members, I do have strong reservations with and concerns about the government's ability to deliver on that promise. It doesn't mean nobody should try, and I'm hopeful that this will not turn into another program where politicians raid the coffers and stuff it full of IOU's, but let's be honest - past precedent doesn't give us much cause for hope there.
But let's restrict this to your comparison, shall we? What is insurance? It is, at its core, the pooling of risk and the sharing of the costs of that risk with other people who belong to the pool. For the purposes of this discussion, let's look at the incidence of prostate cancer, which the CDC reported in 2005 was occurring at roughly 142 new cases per 100,000 men per year. For the sake of round numbers, let's say that prostate cancer costs $100,000 per year to treat. That means the cost of treating prostate cancer in a population of 100,000 men averages out to about $14.2 million per year. We'll oversimplify and stipulate that treatment is always successful, and takes exactly one year.
Now, obviously, for the 142 men who get prostate cancer, $100,000 is a LOT of money. But not every man gets prostate cancer. So some smart person (an actuarial mathematician) comes along and says, "If each one out of the 100,000 guys in the population gives me $142 a year, then we can pay the costs for prostate cancer treatment for all of them!" This is known as a risk pool, and is essentially how health insurance works. Obviously there are deductibles, and caps, and other conditions and everything else to worry about, but at it's core, health insurance is based on the premise that not everybody gets sick at the same rates or with the same conditions, and that if everybody pays a small amount, the people in the insurance plan who DO get sick will be able to get treatment.
This equivalency you're drawing is shockingly simple-minded and plain wrong. The insurance company does not tell you, "If you don't give us money, we're going to give you prostate cancer and you'll die," that is known as extortion, and is quite illegal, and no insurance company engages in it.
What is happening instead, is that the government will tell us "your money or that guy's life," setting up an institutionalized system of hostage taking, where I am made to pay for health insurance not just for myself, but also to cover the share of risk of a significant number of people who are presently uninsured because they don't buy insurance for themselves. And I'm told that those people "will die" if I don't give a bunch of money to the government. As I said earlier, the government has a track record of shockingly inefficient management of entitlement programs; if they can demonstrate that it can be done more effectively and efficiently by the government, I'm willing to listen. But drawing the equivalency you have simply demonstrates that you don't grasp the issues at hand.
No, our governing documents specifically affirm that some (many) rights are inalienable "natural" rights, and are not created by "society's agreement," but are granted to us as corollaries of our very existence, and which may not properly be denied to us by government or other men. Some other rights are granted by law ("civil" or "social" rights), but not all. And here's the rub: health care costs something. That money comes from someone. What the granting of this civi
And with arguments like these, it's a wonder that liberals aren't more widely loved and admired.
I presume that you are a JD with deep knowledge of constitutional law to state with such certainty that the proposed health care plan is "entirely constitutional"?
It isn't that the entertainment industry is trying to stop piracy - they just want to totally control the access to content.
After that it will just be a pricing game between the various entertainment giants and their paysites.
And since they have already priced themselves out of my market, I will just have to be content with the alternatives
(until the new laws make them illegal too).
The Emperor Astley is not as... forgiving... as I am.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
It's about to get the point where we take it all to the streets. Also, get some contact and personal info on these executives and lawyers and post it on /b/ for kicks. A few paper bags of dog poop set aflame might get some attention.
Most people want to get by reasonably honourably, and actually contribute to the whole
That would be a very interesting social experiment... Imagine if a season of Lost was aired commercial free, and made available for free download, unencumbered by DRM and allowing free distribution. Also imagine that there was a web page where people could contribute financially for the free season of Lost. I wonder if the contributions would equal the ad revenue from the airings, the repeat airings & the syndication airings, as well as from the reduced DVD sales for that season? (I'm sure some people would still buy the DVDs, but likely not as many...)
We wouldn't even be having this discussion if a whole lot of people hadn't gone hog-wild and used Napster to literally STEAL music back in the day.
I'm sure what you meant to say was:
"We wouldn't even be having this discussion if, in the 90's the utter morons in the music industry had recognized the huge demand for music in a portable digital format at a reasonable price with minimal restrictions as a huge opportunity and moved swiftly to supplying product to meet that demand by and allowing us to literally BUY music back in the day."
Instead they acted like total fuckwads whose very belief system would be destroyed by such a move and they did everything in their power to try to push back the huge waves of the digital revolution that simply washed over them, leaving them mere flotsam and jetsam on the seas of progress.
For years, while others downloaded with abandon, I (a hard core music lover who had bought over 6,000 vinyl lp's and and 500 CD's) held back for many years waiting for them to provide me with this highly deisreable option. I even used to chastise downloaders in these very forums for 'piracy'. And I waited and waited for the industry to deliver.
After over half a decade of waiting, I gave up. Can you guess what my next move was?
If you want to improve border security, glue pictures of netbooks onto illegal boarder crossers.
Table-ized A.I.
Except for the fact that another party, in some places in Europe, can get a seat at the table with a small number of votes. In the US, you need a majority in a district, rather than a percentage in the country as a whole.
I just re-read your comment, and thought I should provide you with an answer, since you sound like you're probably not an American citizen.
why do you even need insurance companies in the loop ?
Simple: because the politicians who wrote this legislation were given large bribes, err, campaign contributions, by these insurance companies, so they were required by their employers (the lobbyists) to write the legislation to benefit them.
I think a lot of people don't realize that America's government is just as corrupt as, if not more than, Mexico's.
or the corporatist that wants to regulate who you fuck
What's that?
Blanket reply here at the end of the thread, because I don't feel like hanging around for the "slow down cowboy" thing.
Thanks for pointing out that the data were stale, and for providing data that were less stale.
As for how the meme got started, I actually think the *AAs are late comers. We did see a shift from the rust belt to the non-union South in auto manufacturing. Unions probably preferred to blame international competition, as opposed to interstate competition.
Among geekdom, the phrase "music movies and microcode" dropped out of fiction (the name of the author escapes me, was that Stephenson?) and people seemed to forget that it was fiction. Political parties that are out of power also seem to find the meme useful. Lately, the Tea Party movement seems to be using it, but others have too.
It serves a lot of purposes, for a lot of people, so it survives.
That said, the more recent chart with multiple years does indeed show China on the move. That change can have a strong psychological impact, since it puts us behind if present trends continue.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Great, what would the Pirate Party have to say about loose nukes or healthcare reform?
Nothing. It would not have to. Read the post you are replying to.
Long before a Pirate Party could get a majority, other parties would start to include their policies. That would probably accomplish their primary goal.
I lost my sig.
Obligatory H2G2 reference: http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html
How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.
That's a bit like saying of Hitler, "at least he had table manners"...
Murdering tens (to hundreds) of thousands of people isn't really that much better, except maybe in a purely statistical sense.
If some day that's the choice that has to be made, some thing's very wrong and it's probably time to either get the hell out or to use all of the weapons the US people insist on stockpiling.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
It's like a video game, but you play it with wome... Okay, let's start over.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
As it happens, the contents of my iPod are all my own purchases. No illegal downloads to see here, officer.
But I rather suspect that the 600 slabs of vinyl and 1500 CDs it all came from would just slightly put my suitcase over the luggage limit. How the merry hell do they expect that to work?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
No, I mean, who is that other candidate? McCain? Are you referring to anything specific?
And here I was thinking you were making a self effacing 'nerds don't get laid' joke. "The corporatist who wants to regulate who you fuck" was just a place holder for whatever right wing anti-gay-marriage social conservative happens to be running.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ah.