Google Attorney Slams ACTA Copyright Treaty

Hugh Pickens writes "CNET reports that Daphne Keller, a senior policy counsel at Google, says ACTA has 'metastasized' from a proposal to address border security and counterfeit goods to a sweeping international legal framework for copyright and the Internet that could increase the liability for Internet intermediaries such as, perhaps, search engines. 'You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages.' One section of ACTA says that Internet providers 'disabling access' to pirated material and adopting a policy dealing with unauthorized 'transmission of materials protected by copyright' would be immune from lawsuits but if they choose not to do so, they could face legal liability. Both the Obama administration and the Bush administration had rejected requests for the text of ACTA, with the White House last year even indicating that disclosure would do 'damage to the national security.'"

Comments

Industrial Last Gasp?

[headkase]

Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"? Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products? So, piracy as the issue: what if the world doesn't play ball with the situation the US has worked themselves into? If the world does not recognize ideas as property, where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case "national security" means the stability and financial success of their supporters and corporate overlords.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[Scrameustache]

Why would ACTA have been vital to "national security"?

Because saying so means they don't have to show it to you.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[Znork]

where does that leave the future revenue source of the US?

Same as if it does; you assume such IPR wouldn't be made and owned by non-US interests as well. In reality there's little reason to expect such production wouldn't follow the pattern of other manufacturing.

Fundamentally, IPR is equivalent to any other taxation form; stronger protection and enforcement for IPR is equivalent to raising taxes. Depending on where the money goes taxes may or may not serve their purpose well, but they rarely make the economy more competitive.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[wiredlogic]

More specifically, the "national security" claim is the only way to get an exemption from the disclosure requirements imposed by FOIA. It is undemocratic and insulting that it is abused so often. It is appalling that the Obama administration is working so hard to best Bush II in the scope of this abuse.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[dcollins]

In some sense it always has. One book I recently enjoyed was "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan. It maps out the key expansionist cycle of the U.S. in its role as the first modern, liberal, mercantile-driven nation: (1) Free U.S. private merchants enter neighboring or foreign nation. (2) Merchants get in some kind of dispute with local business, people, or government. (3) U.S. military steps in to control or annex area in name of protecting U.S. citizens and property. From the earliest days this cycle was explicitly noted by both U.S. and European politicians.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[PopeRatzo]

One book I recently enjoyed was "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan.

Be careful. Kagan is a neo-con kook at heart. His writings assume a US-Israel hegemony and he represents the worst kind of conventional wisdom that posits the world would be better off if we just let smart people like him make the decisions. He's also tends to be an "ends justify the means" kind of guy when it comes to military entanglements, with the ends usually meaning oil or profits for military contractors. He's an excellent writer, but his books tend to be delicious apples with worms at the core. Basically, an apologist for the military-industrial complex, masquerading as a liberal with "everyone's best interest in mind" as long as their "best interest" involves a huge adventurist US military and support for Israel. He and Bill Kristol were co-authors of the "Project for a New American Century" which was the neo-con blueprint for the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11 or even the 2000 election.

Caveat emptor. I suggest digging for some of the critical reviews of his books before accepting any of his conclusions as gospel.

Re:Industrial Last Gasp?

[Shakrai]

It is appalling that the Obama administration is working so hard to best Bush II in the scope of this abuse.

:-| <--- This is my surprised face.

Seriously. Senator Obama went back on his word and voted for a bill that gave the telecom giants legal immunity for breaking the law and spying on American citizens. Anybody who believed he was any better than the 43 who came before him wasn't paying attention.

"Intangible products"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this an admission of sorts that the US no longer makes actual things but instead the majority of its GDP is based on intangible products?

Umm, I think ACTA is bullshit, but if you don't think a movie or TV show is an "actual thing" made in the USA, you're fucking batshit crazy.

Don't believe me? Try writing a screenplay sometime. Done? It sucks. It beyond sucks. It's an unreadable POS that makes no sense to anyone but you. But you think it's awesome, so go ahead and make it. Yeah, you'll need some money and a crew and some actors and some VFX houses. And props, makeup, locations, insurance, transportation, post-production, Foley, sound mixing.

You get the point. They make "actual things" and employ real people.

Same goes for video games, computer software, and those other "intangible products" that believe it or not are also "actual things".

Again, ACTA sucks donkey balls. I'm just saying that it is related to a "real" industry with "real" products, not some ephemeral, intangible anti-product. If you're going to debate this, you can't just dismiss the concerns (or existence) of the "IP" industry out of hand, because you'll lose on the facts before you've even started. There are plenty of rationals for criticizing ACTA. Saying they don't make actual things isn't one of them. Hope you enjoyed Iron Man 2 this weekend.

Re:"Intangible products"?

[cdrguru]

The scarcity is not the product, but the person/creativity/talent behind the product.

Darwin Reedy is probably the best known example of how far lack of talent can get you. A bit more scarcity would have been good in this case.

The problem is, once the product is made today it is worthless. Just because it cost tens of millions to make Iron Man 2 doesn't mean I can't download it for free now. So why should I pay for it if it is being offered? Respect? Bah, there is no respect outside of the streetcorner thugs.

Until we have a good answer for this there is no possibility of revenue from digital goods. We are training schoolchildren to take whatever is offered without any thought of payment. These children will grow up and utterly destroy whatever revenue model is left for digital stuff.

Personally, I think the end is coming like a freight train.

Re:"Intangible products"?

[__aasqbs9791]

Right, so that's why Iron Man 2 is going to lose money! /s

Re:"Intangible products"?

[cpt kangarooski]

it comes down to a simple equation: If people want to watch movies with major actors / actresses, superb visual and audio effects, etc. there will need to be a business model in which the people producing these movies can make money. The actors, set builders, makeup artists, visual effects people, caterers, property managers, etc. all need to be paid.

If, instead, we want to watch a bunch of home movies on YouTube - we can have that instead by just continuing to eat away at the movie business model by violating copyright.

Doesn't bother me any. In the end, writing, acting, and directing are important. The rest of it is nice, but not essential. For example, I remember seeing 'Driving Miss Daisy' -- the play, not the movie based on it -- back, oh, over 20 years ago, now. IIRC, the whole thing had only three actors, and the props consisted of two stools, a telephone, and a table to put the telephone on. While lower budgets might change what sorts of movies get made, I think that there will continue to be plenty of good ones. And if audiences are called upon to use their imaginations a little more to fill in details, then I don't think that's a problem either.

Re:"Intangible products"?

[FoolishOwl]

Not infinitely. Recording media are physical; pushing bits down a wire takes energy. Strictly speaking, it's not that there's no scarcity, but that scarcity need not be a problem anymore. The costs are not zero, but negligible.

This is an important distinction. Some people will treat information technology as if there were zero costs, and so it's incommensurable with other commodities. But it's not fundamentally different, just the leading edge of abundance. Take, by comparison, food, which is massively and wastefully overproduced, yet people still go hungry.

Re:"Intangible products"?

[jesset77]

Doesn't bother me any. In the end, writing, acting, and directing are important. The rest of it is nice, but not essential.

I couldn't agree more (mod parent up xP), I've been wanting to say precisely this in other copyright related slashdot threads but JS bugs kept gagging me.

I am beginning to think I'm only one in 10% of the population not dazzled by Avatar's popcorn factor. And the only one who willfully hasn't seen it yet. (Yeah, can you imagine? I've downloaded it and everything, but can't be arsed to spend the block of time required to watch it!) I'm not that enthused by another rehash of Pocahontas or The Smurfs. 8I

I've watched 2 movies in "3d" in the theaters. I barely even go to the theaters anymore because the price is so high to begin with, why would I want to pay 50% more for eyestrain and a headache? Is the "future of entertainment" really that objects flying at your head gimmick that was done to death in the 50's with Anaglyph? Does anyone really believe this is the most important improvement to home entertainment since color television? How can a generation of people who couldn't figure out Magic Eye decouple their monocular focus from their binocular so easily without an aneurysm?

And the funny thing is, I wouldn't give a damn if the rest of the world wanted to waste their money on bullshit, except that I'll be dragged into court should I chose to download ineffable information just to keep track of what everyone else is talking about, or if I produce a video of my own that coincidentally contains four bars from some 1963 crooner off of the ice cream truck passing outside.

Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with compensation. I'd like one copyright holder to come forward and tell me when they've ever had to sue someone, and then perhaps illustrate how the court costs actually shielded their bottom line without dipping into the unprovable "lost sales" schtick. "Oh, anyone could have gotten my material for free had I not acted quickly!" Of course, anyone CAN get your material for free right now, so that argument is not admissible.

No. Copyright is only used in today's society — and only by very wealthy interests with the resources to invoke it indiscriminately — for the sole purpose of laying land rights over every permutation of thoughts individuals are allowed to think so that they can charge a toll. Our natural evolution as a society is driving us to communicate in memes. Name dropping, movie quoting, television show referencing, and textbook citing have become the new parable. Today's copyright industry exists solely to force us to pay to participate in this new language.

So I back kangarooski in saying, bring on the copyright free world where "no content will ever be created again". Seriously, I'm calling your bluff. Because if none of y'all will create anything without charging per view, then I will and I don't mind being the only one at the mic. There is value in creating beyond tithing your audience. Anyone who doesn't see that can go without and leave more room for people with vision.

Re:"Intangible products"?

[jesset77]

Well, you may have gone a little far.

I was afraid you might have felt that way. Among the greater challenges to reform or political change is when folk have a hard time agreeing on what destination to approach while changing, and when in-fighting undermines solidarity. As an abolitionist I end up in a fair number of arguments against the 7-14'ers, but it sure would be nice if we could somehow pool our efforts so as not to Life-Of-Brian each other.

Among 7-14'ers, you sound pretty open minded so I'm happy to let you know my position a little better.

While I think it's possible that circumstances could result in it being impossible for there to be any possible copyright law that is better than no copyright law at all, in terms of the benefit to the public, which is the only valid metric, I don't think that we're currently in that situation. I'm happy to listen to arguments otherwise, though.

I thank you for being able to comprehend such a possibility, and formally submit that we are there now.

There have been few times in history when the effects of Copyright law could really be compared empirically with the creative output of areas with zero copyright. One such time is the late 1700s, when Brittian had copyright and the rest of the world did not. Thomas Jefferson wrote his opinion on the subject, while the ink on the constitution was still dry, and clarified that he detected no less or greater creative output from countries lacking copyright law than from Great Brittian. It appears as though we chose to side with copyright from the beginning merely because it was a novel idea, and it might lead to greater creativity. I submit that whatever great creativity we have output cannot be reliably credited to the presence of Copyright.

Little data can be gathered beyond that point, as the Berne convention and others has forced the entire globe to honor our fragile IP system or risk rendering it meaningless. Since certain entities such as The Pirate Bay have had success flouting the Berne Convention, the balloon has effectively been punctured. Right now, today, any person on the internet can obtain high fidelity digital copies of every popular, copyright protected work for free, instantly, and conveniently. This may not be legal, but legal consequences are less likely to befall you than when you drive 5mph over the speed limit so that is of little consequence.

In spite of the fact that the availability and knowledge of Piracy has met a saturation point, the profits of multi-million dollar films remains secure. People will continue to pay for media they can get for free, so long as the price is fair to provide convenience and guaranteed quality with a little extra to express their patronage. So long as they are not forced into uncomfortable formats or hassling DRM.

Example. We discussed Avatar before, right? My wife wanted to watch it. I did not simply tell her it could be downloaded for free, she knows I'm a pirate and watches TV shows and many movies I download, even asks me to get things for her. I did not simply tell her I can download it, I told her I had already downloaded it. I pointed to the media center and told her she was two clicks away from watching it, and she still bought the DVD while she was out.

She's not a videophile, we've got a miserable video pipeline anyway (composite video through an analogue switch to a 27" 4:3 CRT) she even hates widescreen letterboxing because everything is made too small. No, she was just out and had to wonder if the copy I downloaded had hardsubs baked in it, so she conveniently grabbed the copy at Wal-Mart.

Then of course she got it home and it wouldn't play at all.

It is healthier for producers to accept that customers want media in whatever format is convenient, and after th

Re:"Intangible products"?

[cpt kangarooski]

I was afraid you might have felt that way. Among the greater challenges to reform or political change is when folk have a hard time agreeing on what destination to approach while changing, and when in-fighting undermines solidarity.

Well, we at least are agreed on the need for reform, and as I suspect that most if not all of those reforms will involve either reducing the length and scope of copyright, or at least not enlarging it, surely we can at least work together on those parts of our agendas that are compatible. I see no need for in-fighting until at least something has been accomplished, letting the members of coalitions fall away naturally as they become satisfied. This may mean that there aren't enough people on board to go the whole way to copyright abolition, but at least the abolitionists get closer to their goal, too. Plus, working together gives each group an extended period of close contact with the other, and the chance to share ideas and perhaps even convince people to jump from one to another.

Among 7-14'ers, you sound pretty open minded so I'm happy to let you know my position a little better.

I can only guess that what you mean by that are people who support the 14+14 year term of the 1790 act, though I'm not sure where the '7' comes from. In any case, I don't support that, except at most by coincidence.

Rather, I'm interested in maximizing the public benefit. The 14+14 year term that people sometimes want to resurrect is simply a traditional term, but not one founded on anything relevant. IIRC, it's vaguely related to the length of an apprenticeship in 16th century England. I'd like to see some proper studies done to determine what the optimal length of copyright is for various types of works (e.g. books, software, movies, etc.), that are scientific, and not just revivals of past term lengths, or outright guesses. I saw a paper a few years ago that came up with a maximum of 15 years; I'd like to see more such studies, by more economists.

I submit that whatever great creativity we have output cannot be reliably credited to the presence of Copyright.

Well, I'd agree with you for some things anyway. Copyrights on architectural works could be abolished outright and no one would ever notice. And for the same reason, the recent noises about copyrights on clothing designs need to be challenged. The US has managed to prove its point v. Europe as to databases.

The fine arts mostly could get by without copyright; an original Picasso is worth a lot (a fact which he was known to exploit), but a poster of a Picasso is not. Counterfeiting a work of art and passing it off as an original is merely fraud, and we don't need copyright to handle that. Some level of copyright might be appropriate for more commercially minded fine artists (Thomas Kinkade is technically a fine artist), but at least let's have rigorous formalities requirements so that they have to register in order to get a copyright, and have to renew the copyright frequently up to the maximum term length (which is actually something that ought to be required across the board for copyright).

Then of course she got it home and it wouldn't play at all.

Minor nit: that was an article about DRM preventing a movie theater from screening the film, not about DRM preventing someone from watching the DVD at home. But I've heard the stories about that, so let's move on.

It is healthier for producers to accept that customers want media in whatever format is convenient, and after they get that media it is conceivable that it will be format shifted, shared with friends, and shared with strangers. Producers should accept that some people will experience their media without paying for it.

I agree. But I think that we can have this in practice -- well, except for the part where we can convince producers to accept it -- with well-crafted exceptions to copyright. For example, I've long supported the idea of making otherwise infringing activity engaged in by natural persons

Please, for the kids...

[thestudio_bob]

I really, really hope that everyone remembers everything that BOTH the republicans AND democrats have done to take steps to gradually make our country into a police state in the name of "National Security" over the past few years. In reality, personal freedoms are being controlled and restricted by corporate interest and they have little interest in anything other than making a buck.

Please, come election time, research independent alternatives for public office. The offerings may be slim, but can you really say that it would be any worse than what's been going on?

Re:Please, for the kids...

[thestudio_bob]

I started looking for some "independent" websites to help people become more informed. I'm not even sure there is an #1 source for this information, but if you have some independent websites, please list em.

All I know of are these two:

• http://www.newamericanindependent.com/
• http://www.gp.org/

On a side note, we need a catchy slogan. How about "Vote to Revolt"?

Re:Please, for the kids...

[Kjella]

Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins. You can substitute the last two with "lesser evil" and "greater evil" if you want but it still holds true. The US will have either the Democrats or Republicans in office until a armed revolt introduces proportional representation. I assume I don't need to tell you why the incumbents won't help...

Re:Please, for the kids...

[Artifakt]

Things like ACTA, DMCA, PATRIOT, etc are what you get with a government that's big enough and powerful enough for five permanent standing armed forces, seventeen different armed civilian agencies. the highest percentage of its citizens in prison of anywhere, ever, and a permanent state of war against a non-political entity (drugs) being fought on over two dozen fronts. You can close down every single one of the programs you listed and there will be exactly as many government employees bearing arms as now.
      Your post is like the case of a man running past with a pack of rabid weasels clinging to his form and his shoelaces untied, and you saying "I know how to fix the whole problem, let's just tie his left shoe!".

Re:Please, for the kids...

[thestudio_bob]

Unfortunately the US system is rigged so that if you vote for the party you like a lot instead of the party you like a little, the party you don't like at all wins.

But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this. It's sounds cliche, but in all reality if you don't stop thinking this way, then it will never change... ever. The best thing you can do is vote neither of these parties and start making some change. Start locally, grow nationally.

Yes, it won't happen over night, but if we start electing some independent congressman and senators and get rid of the status quo or at least throw a monkey wrench into the existing system, then I'm afraid of what this country will become in 20-50 years. We're slowing turning into what we fear, a police state nation. Our freedoms are being stripped in the name of liberty and corporate profit.

It's sad really, but looking back in history you see all these government controlled "police" agencies, like the KGB, SS, etc, things we were brought up to fear so much all got their start the same way. To protect the people in the name of national security. Look at what's happening with the TSA and Border Police. I'm not saying they're that evil yet, but we are just seeing the tip of what happens when someone gets to much "power". We have to make a change.

Re:Please, for the kids...

[DarkTempes]

Coming to a voting booth near you on November 6th, 2012: Independents' Day.

Re:Please, for the kids...

[Kjella]

But that's the problem, I no longer like either party and I'm not alone in this.

I haven't yet run into an American who really likes any of them, actually. But if you start making change it'll get much, much worse before it'll get better. A good example is the UK, which has the same lame system and recently held an election - you can find the results here but I'll quote the most important bits:

Conservative - 306 seats - 10,706,647 votes - 47.1% of the seats - 36.1% of the votes
Labour - 258 seats - 8,604,358 votes - 39.7% of the seats - 29.0% of the votes
Liberal Democrat - 57 seats - 6,827,938 votes - 8.8% of the seats - 23.0& of the votes

Now the liberals are a huge third party with 23% of the votes - numbers a US third party can only dream of. What do they get for that? Next to nothing. 9% of the seats while a party only 6% larger gets 40%. Everything is rigged against a third party rising, you can see that even if labour and the liberals joined forced they would barely be larger than the conservaties despite having 52% of the votes between them. The conservatives could form an alliancewith some of the smaller parties and rule with less than 40% popular support. Democracy in action.

Re:Please, for the kids...

[sznupi]

The countries which, as a group, dominate all the "nice things" stats show you to be quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, those occupying top of that group, the Nordic countries...have way more social mobility than the US (which is at the bottom of "highly developed" countries, together with the UK). Canada is equally good.

So much for "American dream"; it's just that, a dream that has been sold to you. With "nanny states", as you surely like to call them, actually having more freedom.

PS. Student loans? Trashing good cars? Ridiculous stimulus packages? What's that?

PPS. Governments are a reflection of theor society. Don't kid yourself that isn't the case.

Re:Please, for the kids...

[FranticPedantic]

This is just 'free market as a panacea' nonsense, and I say this as a registered libertarian. A good public education system propelled America into the 20th century. The money you invest in teaching your children is reaped when they become skilled workers. Health care can have the same benefits - you take care of people, and they get back to work.

Saying that you can't have health care and freedom is just as absurd as arguing you can't have education and freedom. I'm curious how furious you are at our entitled 8 year olds.

The free market is usually a good idea. It does not solve every problem. Get over it.

Re:Keep in Mind

[Phrogman]

Just how right-wing the US is generally. Even your left-wing politicians are more rightwing in a lot of cases than the most rightwing politicians in some other countries. Our "Conservative" government up here in Canada gets along just fine with Obama's administration, and the association - like that with previous administrations in the States - continues to move Canadian politics to the right.

You folks have no idea what a normal political spectrum is I am afraid, the influence of the Republicans over the past 100 years or so seems to have skewed things greatly to me.

Perhaps I'm dense, but...

[opus_magnum]

...how can you abide to a secret law?

Blatant corruption

[syousef]

Secret laws and laws passed out of the public eye for the sake of corporate interests are nothing but simple corruption. Call it what it is.

Lawsuit Lotteries

[quantaman]

"You don't want to play Russian roulette with very high statutory damages."

I've always preferred to refer to things like the RIAA lawsuits as lawsuit lotteries. It bears a lot in common with lotteries, although millions are eligible to be selected only a handful ever are, however in the unlikely event you are one of the few the amount of money involved is extreme.

ACTA and the Overblown Threat of Piracy

[Presto Vivace]

Pruning Shears has an excellent analysis of ACTA.

What's the difference again?

[codecore]

I no longer see any distinction between the Republicrats and Democans. Under this political cartel, we've seen our social security go broke, our government bankroll the financial industry, and juice the mortgage market. Foreign policy is a disaster, supporting evil regimes, and standing by while NK gets nukes. There is no more debate on the idea of limited government. Political dissent may now get you tracked and arrested. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011780363_spysettle05m.html

All proof to the contrary

[jvillain]

Just a few stories down from here on /. is a story that they just charged a bunch of people with selling counterfeit Cisco gear. They even confiscated it. Yet the powers that be (big buisness) would have us believe that is completely impossible with the current laws. It is just like when the US came up to Canada and threatened a trade war if we didn't put in an anti cam-cordering law. Well we did. And some one was convicted of recording a movie in a movie theater. Only they didn't use the spanky new law that was put in just for that purpose, they didn't need it. So what was the point of the US interfering in the laws of a sovereign country again?

If the US wants to make themselves completely incapable of competing in the global economy because they give only a few companies the right to produce any thing, and those companies no longer feel a need to compete then fine. That is their business. But leave us the hell alone!!!

actually the usa is left of center

[circletimessquare]

sure, places like canada and the netherlands are to our left, but far more are to our right: the entire muslim world, for example, plenty of third world countries. we even have better freedom of speech protection than up in canuckistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#North_America

i consider myself left leaning and greatly admire canada, there's plenty about your country that the usa would be wise to emulate

but its pretty silly to see you castigate the usa for being so right leaning from a GLOBAL standpoint when you can't even keep track of how far left canada itself is on the world stage

go ahead and castigate the usa from a canda-centric point of view, that's perfectly in your right. but when it comes to wordliness, you have a ways to go, as you don't have a good grasp of the true international range of ideologies. unfortunately, its quite right wing out there. really

i am against corporate cash in our government

[circletimessquare]

however i am far more against armed revolt. plus, it won't happen unless people are hungry

the point is: don't romanticize revolution. it is ugly and brutal and full of more suffering and cruelty than the worst corporatistic abuses of our democracy. peaceful change is the way to change things. armed revolt is for idiots who don't even understand the problem and will only make things far worse

finally, you have no control over the outcome, when you write about "an armed revolt introduces proportional representation" is just a fucking joke: NO ONE controls a revolution, and no one controls the outcome. you don't throw a revolution to get {xyz}, you throw a revolution... and anything is possilbe. in fact, the range of choices about what comes on the other end of a revolution are far, far worse than our current problems

so please stop romanticizing revolution, it is far, far worse than our problems with corporations, really. romanticizing revolution is for true idiots only

Re:Google

[Runaway1956]

I agree, and I disagree.

The real problem is, there aren't nearly enough voices protesting ACTA. Google will be listened to, but there are to many other big money voices clamoring in favor of ACTA. Google will be bullied and whipped into conformance. Understand that ACTA seems to have the backing of some of the deepest pockets in the United States, and around the world - not to mention the United States government.

Google may have enough clout to temper some of the most vile clauses of ACTA, but IMHO, ACTA is going through, and it's going to suck galaxies of money through garden hoses.

Re:iron man 2 will be seen IN THE CINEMA HOUSE

[Aqualung812]

this is how you make money in movies, and always WILL make money in movies: the cinema house

Only because the release of the movie in the cinema house is before the release on download/disc. I know many people that can fit more than enough close friends for a sociological experience in their home theater, myself included. The great part is that I don't have to listen to some idiot chomping popcorn while his son sends another text message with the light of his phone killing everyone's view of the screen.

Participate in the primaries... maximize choice?

[zQuo]

Yes, the voting system in the US only works fairly if there are only two opposing parties. A vote for one is effectively a vote against the other. The moment you introduce a third party, the whole vote gets out of whack. An underhanded way to win is to generously fund a new "grassroots" party that is very close to your opposition's position. It will siphon off some of the voters from the opposition party making it easier to win the election.

People have very little choice in an election; just a choice of two party candidates, and most voting districts have been gerrymandered to the hilt. One solution for the voter is to participate earlier... in the primaries. This is where actual choices are. The candidates have to run the gauntlet of very few people in the party to get selected to run. The election itself is too late. Most states are gerrymandered anyways, so just forget about the election and participate in the primaries of the likely winning party in your district. Only Iowa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering ) has little to no gerrymandering.

Don't worry about party affiliation in the US, just register R or D and vote in the primary of the most likely party to win that will have a choice of candidates. Will this work? I'm not sure, but it doesn't require election reform or redistricting to implement. You may have to register a party affiliation you don't like if you in the minority in the district, but at least there may be a chance of having a moderating voice in the selection process.