Slashdot Mirror
News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access To Cablevision
ideonexus writes "Normally when we advocate Net Neutrality, we are talking about preventing ISPs from discriminating against content providers, but in this case, the content provider is discriminating against the ISP. Is this a new dimension in the Net Neutrality fight? From the article: 'Cablevision internet customers lost access to Fox.com and Fox programming on Hulu for a time Saturday afternoon — the result of a misguided effort on News Corp.'s part to cut off online viewing as an alternative in its standoff with the cable operator over retrans fees. Fox stations in NYC, Philadelphia, and New Jersey went dark at midnight Friday when negotiations between the two broke down.'"
And nothing of value was lost...
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
The Fox content at Hulu was restored when they realized they didn't have the capability to block only Cablevision customers in the area. All of the NY/Philly area was blacked out, when their beef is only with one ISP.
I don't know... I think that denying access to Fox's website and Hulu feed could be considered a public service, but that's just my opinion.
This is like two Mexican drug cartels attacking each other. Save the popcorn, one and a half stars.
In this case, the owner of the content are deciding where/how they want it hosted versus net neutrality where ISPs can potentially act as the gate keepers to content and charge a toll for those accessing and those supplying content. The difference is that the latter prevents a neutral ground for competing or simply posting information up.
ESPN already does this, and we have already criticized them for it.
Palm trees and 8
In response to declining Buggy Whip demand, one of the major buggy whip distributors have announced they are withholding shipments of buggy whips, instead of adapting to the market.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Philadelphia is on Comcast, not Cablevision. And as far as I know, Fox is still on. Bummer.
No TV? No Internet? What are we gonna do?
The effect of this will be manifested about nine months later...
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
using the government to force private businesses
use government to force individuals
How many times do we have to go over this? Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals.
Palm trees and 8
I thought the whole "more babies are born 9 months after a blackout" theory was debunked...
Palm trees and 8
I think this is a really stupid move on the part of News Corp, now they're just gonna deprive themselves of the advertising revenue that Cablevision customers brought to Hulu. Meanwhile, torrents still exist, and the downloaded shows tend to have the ads cut out...
Yeah! How dare we force businesses to serve both white and black people! You can give it a fancy name, but it's like all other Progressive measures designed to use government to force individuals to do what you want.
Or maybe, when you run a business, it's okay for the rules to be different?
Corporations are persons. If you don't believe me then ask the Supreme Court.
What happen to freedom of speech? Now they want to remove hulu from people who want to watch other peoples views? I see news corp getting sued by cablevisions customers for this in the near future.
Network neutrality is about the network being neutral w.r.t. the content it carries.
This is about content providers being neutral, not about network neutrality. Please do not try to confuse the network neutrality discussion by mixing it up with other, unrelated debates.
Oh, goody, a lecture this morning. I hate to break it to you, but businesses ARE run by individuals, invested in by individuals, and employ individuals. They are collections of individuals. You are making a nonsensical distinction that happens to fit your concept of politics.
And yet, they're engaged in interstate commerce, unlike most individuals. Puts them in a bit of a different situation.
Yup. Good for the parent that (s)he made the distinction and referred to individuals since it is an important one in matters of law.
The government is also a collection of individuals, so why is OK to restrict what the government is allowed to do to other individuals in ways that individuals are not restricted? You know, like how I can refuse to allow people of a particular skin color or religion enter my home, yet the government cannot do the same with government buildings?
Palm trees and 8
So, you're in favor of powerful unions, then?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's true, that claim is bunkers...However, on average, more vampires are born after a blackout.
When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.
Of course for an ISP to only be able to service a single block and be unable to provide anything beyond that, it would be significantly less useful than the BBSes of old.
If they would just put the ads into high quality HD torrents that go online before show time, it would solve the problem.
the surface is near.
You mean the porn stored on my hard drive can get pregnant? Oh shi--
not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
-- Dennis Potter (source)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
You nerds wish you had a handle on the truth. Sadly, you are sometimes just brainwashed little Republican numbskulls...because you want to be like your parents.
"Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals."
I'm a sole proprietor, you insensitive clod!
I work in the satellite dish industry. We are dealing with and fairly informed on the News Corp/Dish Network dispute. On the CableVision side, News Corp is trying to raise their rates from $70 mil to $150 mil, over a 100% increase. With Dish Network, they are trying to force Dish to include the Fox Sports regional networks into the lowest package, which would raise that package $5/month ($40 to $45). News Corp is trying to tell Dish how to run their business. There are plenty of people that don't care about sports and don't want to pay the extra money for it. The reason News Corp wants their Sports channels in the lowest package is to increase (the perceived) viewership numbers so they can raise their advertising rates.
A lot of the Dish Net/Cablevision customer won't see beyond "my channels are gone" and switch to a different provider. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Dish Net/Cablevision are fighting to keep our rates down, but they can't do it if everybody jumps ship. Dish won the recent battle against Fisher Communications, they were trying to raise their rates 78% for over the air, tax payer subsidized "free" channels. Fisher Communications was already the highest paid among their piers, and wanted to nearly double their rates.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
So Fox is obligated to provide service to anybody, no matter how much the compensation is?
How about slashdot runs my ads for free? Please don't discriminate me just because I don't want to pay your price.
Being a private business does not give you a blank check to ignore laws and regulations set by the government.
Don't like it? GTFO.
No, what the researchers actually said was "We'll be in our bunks".
So when these individuals break laws, do they go to jail? When they kill people, are they sent to prison? When do these people get sick? When do they die?
Also according to a judge's ruling a corporation has almost all the rights of an individual, oh AND they can't be sued for more than they are worth.
According to Supreme Court rulings, pretty much everything an individual does is considered interstate commerce. Products do not have to cross state lines or even be sold to the public to be considered "interstate commerce".
Because of equality under the law. Because of this thing called the 14th amendment. Because we, through our elected representatives, have had the government restrict itself to prevent tyranny by the government.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
using the government to force private businesses
use government to force individuals
How many times do we have to go over this? Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals.
Are you insane? Do you realize that one man corporations are extremely common? Nothing is ever black and white...
Yet another type (aside of being cut off completely) of damage we are supposed to be able to circumvent.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Yes but the original point that I was replying to was that businesses should have the same rights as individuals, since they are collections of individuals. Since the government is a collection of individuals, why is it acceptable to restrict the government, when it is not acceptable to restrict businesses?
Personally, I think that the government should be restricted, and that businesses should also be restricted, and that individuals should enjoy more freedom than any government agency or business.
Palm trees and 8
My solution:
1) Cancel my Cablevision TV service (their rates are way too high anyway). I've been thinking about it for a while, and I think this latest dispute is the last straw.
2) Connect antenna to TV.
3) Watch FOX.
4) No profit for either of them.
I can buy all of the shows that I want to watch from iTunes or Amazon and still come out way cheaper than my current cable TV bill. And that's ignoring the "torrent" option that many people will choice to use instead...
zzzz
My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals? When I hire my first full-time employee? My tenth? My twentieth?
As a disregarded entity (the technical term for 'I pay personal income tax on everything rather than corporate taxes') there is a lot of co-mingling between my personal funds and my business, mostly because I can wave my hand and decide to pay myself whenever I want, since I have to pay income tax on all of it anyway. Should I be restricted from spending some or all of that money on political contributions or PACs?
Obviously, the larger my business gets, the more likely its interests will start diverging (or at least running parallel as a separate entity) to my personal interests, but that's perfectly normal. I still have to earn money, and once I've earned that money, why should anyone other than me decide what causes I can support with it?
Right, because the only reason we're not having sex is because we're on the internet too much.
It doesn't sound like Dish is the good guys here either.
As far as I'm concerned, paying for TV is a rip-off - there are no decent providers.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Governments are also collections of individuals.
When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.
No it wouldn't. Name one business that is immune from federal regulations. Through broad Supreme Court decisions it is almost impossible for any type of business to avoid using a public right of way. It is also almost impossible to engage in any sort of transaction that does not fall under the category of "Interstate Commerce"
This is what I have believed is the path this matter will take, and I (and probably many others) have been arguing exactly this. The following is the rational path:
Big ISP threatens big content. Big content counter-threatens big ISP. Big ISP and big content reach an agreement to shut out small competition. General public does not know about or care about small competition. Small competition dies, oligarchs win.
Oligarchy or net neutrality. Those are the only two outcomes. Net neutrality depends on an altruistic and long-term focused government. While it has happened before (telcos went through exactly this way back in the day, resulted in common carrier), I do not believe our current government or lackluster activism are capable of making it happen again. In short; oligarchy will win.
I've been trying to think of solutions, not much so far, a few thoughts:
1. Diaspora (or similar) farms that are big enough to buy a seat at the table.
2. Oligarchs sufficiently overstep to incite popular revolution. (unlikely, they're not that stupid -- they know how bread and circuses works -- it is a cookbook to them)
3. Diaspora (or similar) running over surreptitious channels.
4. Indie mesh networks similar to ham operations.
5. Geek revolt (ie: we realize we have all the power here, decide that our paychecks are not worth the price, and shut down the oligarchs before they gain unstoppable power)
None of these seem particularly likely to succeed, to me. One thing seems obvious: The further we get down the road, the more extreme the solution will have to be. Well, make that two things: The short term gains to the oligarchs will be enormously outweighed by the friction, and hence loss, to our GDP growth rate -- punishing us all, including them, in the long run.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This has been the fault line in the Hulu business model since Day 1 - there is no way Hulu wanted to do this (block Internet users based on who they are affiliated with?), but they are a creature of their owners, who basically don't want Internet TV to succeed. It is a little surprising to see Rupert Murdoch do this so nakedly over such a comparatively trivial dispute.
If you think you are going to "Cut the Cord" with Hulu, think again.
All it really boils down to is whether or not a particular activity was done in the course of running your business. In theory, a political contribution is your activity as an individual, not as a business (if you were a larger corporation, and the money was coming out of your corporate funds, things would be different). There are some edge cases; in theory, we have a system of courts and judges that can help decide what the intent of the law was in cases where it might not be clear (e.g. if you run a business out of your home).
Now, if you are running a chartered corporation, I think things are a little more clear: you were chartered by the state to do something, presumably for the benefit of the people, and you enjoy certain benefits (limited liability, for example) that you would not otherwise enjoy. Corporations should be held to an entirely different standard than individuals, with an entirely different set of rights -- presumably fewer rights than individuals.
Palm trees and 8
Businesses are already in legal terms, persons.
They have more rights then people.
When a business murders someone, does it get the death penalty? No. Does it get life in prison, with ceasing of all former operations? No.
The bigger the business, the more super human it's rights become.
The people of the corporation are all replaceable.
Businesses used to have no human like rights. The owner or owners were the head. If the business did something horrible, you round up all the owners and you imprison them or execute them.
CEOs and board members and every other construct have had all the fear and responsibility of being in their positions removed or mitigated. Now the business is a separate entity, and if it does wrong, the people at the top are 99% immune from criminal prosecution.
As the content of cable and satellite providers becomes more and more laden with commercials and narrowed down content more people are going to flee them for alternate feeds of content and news. They are in a panic to re-secure the advertising revenue streams as well as open up new ones. They control both the content and in some cases the delivery making for the inevitable happening. Control of the content that transits their networks "for the good of the customers". In our area, upstate New York, they provide a small pipe to the internet to limit bandwidth. We pay for 10Mbps and get on average 2Mbps. Stand by, it's gonna get worse. This is not just about Fox, this is happening on a whole lot of fronts and will continue to be played out again and again until the media corporations find a model that provides them with total control of our viewing experience and a large, ongoing revenue stream. Remember that a captive viewer is an appealing thing to an advertiser and will further the financial goals of the media corporations. The cost of even basic basic cable is getting out of hand. Cable and satellite providers are not even giving you all the locals in the area now that ATSC digital terrestrial is in place. For that we were paying $10.00 a month on top of the $30 we pay for their poor internet service. We now pull the locals via an antenna and get far better quality and more channels for free. Add in the internet based sources and we have a well rounded source of entertainment for the cost of the internet. The $10.00 we save a month goes to Netflix and further expands the content we have at our fingers. We use HD homerun dual tuner from SiliconDust and a media player and we record all the programs we want to watch and just skip past the commercials. Personally I don't mind one or two commercials but when I am literally stepping through 5 minutes of them to watch 6-7 minutes of content, I start to look for alternatives. They can try and narrow those but there are always ways around their road blocks.
Government can legally shoot somebody to force them to comply. That's why.
The government is a special case because it's allowed to use force and violence to enforce its mandates. Disobey the government, and sooner or later men with guns will come to your house and throw your ass in jail. Individuals don't get to do that, and neither do businesses.
The problem with net neutrality is that it would use the government's "monopoly on violence" to force one group of people to do what another group tells them to. It may seem like a good idea, but you're not on the receiving end, yet.
I'm not against net neutrality, but at the same time, in the end, when companies don't do the right thing for their customers, they do create an opportunity for someone else to start competition - basically, any company which enacts policies and procedures which alienate their customer base, they create a big opening in the market for a new competitor to step in and take business away from them. No monopoly or oligarchy can last forever with unhappy customers.
In the case of Hulu, nobody has to watch Hulu. I used to be a pretty big user of Hulu, but they've changed a lot in the last year, for the worse. I've decided I really am not all that interested in their content or their service anymore. Case in point - I was flirting with the idea of subscribing to their Hulu Plus service (to get access to back-catalogue material mostly), but I recently went back to Hulu.com after not using the site for months, just to catch a couple episodes from the new season of Stargate Universe. Well, they've apparently decided that on the 'free' Hulu, they won't give you access to any higher than 360p resolution. I can see not offering 720p or 1080 resolution on the free service, but 360 just looks like absolute crap. That's their right, but I've decided it's my right not to do business with them. I'm not interested in subscribing now, because of the way they they decided to run their business.
In which case your question is the same as to why we have decided it is not acceptable to restrict individuals. The question is then to ask why is it acceptable to restrict the government but not individuals? Well, lets see. Because the government is made up of the people. The people being you, me and every citizen in the country. You, in your home, have the liberty to choose to restrict yourself with regards to your own property or not. The people who own the corporation, which likely includes you if you own any stock, have decided to place no restrictions upon the company you own. The simple reason is, because we have decided to place some restrictions upon ourselves, but not others.
If you want to know why that is, I suspect we all have our own reasons for this. But let me ask you this, since you believe businesses should be restricted. Do you believe you should be restricted in the same reason as the government? Do you believe you getting together with a couple of people for some reason means you should be restricted in the same reason as the government? Do you believe you opening a store means you should be restricted in the same reason as the government? Do you believe you opening a store with a couple people means you should be restricted in the same reason as the government?
A business has no rights that its owner(s) do not. To remove rights from a business is to remove those same rights from the owner(s). So just because someone decides to open a business, alone or with other people, is no reason to deny them rights that those who do not open a business have.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Firefly topped at like, 98th in the ratings. Dollhouse? Didn't do much better and it stayed put for two seasons.
Serenity's boxoffice draw sucked.
Besides, Firefly wasn't that good to begin with.
Give me good character dramas, lousy SciFi shows about ships that are less reliable than my Hyundai Sonata just aren't interesting.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Also according to a judge's ruling a corporation has almost all the rights of an individual, oh AND they can't be sued for more than they are worth.
Name the judge. I'll then explain why you are wrong. The key is simply that corporate personhood is a legal fiction used to represent the individual rights of the people who own a corporation and the people who work for the corporation. No judge has changed that.
And as a practical manner one cannot sue a business or for that matter an individual for more than they are worth.
who happens to use Cablevision as an ISP you get screwed. As News Corp. has been pushing DirecTV as an alternative to Cablevision for Fox programming, that's probably not a can of worms they really wanted to open. Most of the DirecTV customers I know in the northern NJ area are using Cablevision as an ISP.
The really lame part of this is how much of an increase News Corp is asking for - they currently get $22 per subscriber per year, they're looking for $44. The FCC really, really should be able to take this sort of thing into account when local affiliate broadcasting licenses come up for renewal.
Dead on accurate. The only troll is the person who flagged the above post as such.
If there's a show from Fox you want to watch, do it via bittorrent. eztv is a good source. So you wait a day to see the latest episode. If "talking about last night's episode around the water cooler" is important to you, find a way to not be such a loser.
If you see a company that advertises on Fox, support their competition. Hell, even the creator of Family Guy, which is a Fox program, encourages his fans to watch it from some other source besides on Fox.
See? No down side.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Joy. Another AC Troll. A business has no rights its owners do not. When a 'business' murders someone, some individual(s) at the company murdered that someone. Those individual(s) are punished.
Would you blame the car used in a hit and run or would you blame the driver? Your analogies are trying to blame the car and leave the driver blameless.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I think we have have to resort to something simpler here.
businesses individuals
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
And that's what the world, right and wrong, and life itself are all about, right? Lawsuits. And the amount you can sue for.
It you can sue for one amount, all is right with the world. If you can't sue for that amount, it justifies all manner of hatred for people who work and invest to provide a service, and who want to be paid for their efforts if you benefit from them.
That happens in situations in which some website (like southparkstudios.com) has acquired rights to broadcast content online... But only in USA. So, they have to block all IPs from other countries or the copyright holders can sue. It is pretty common for us europeans to not get to watch online content that americans do (Especially everything by Comedy Central). Of course, a proper VPN takes care of that problem and doesn't cost much.
I am an independent contractor and most of my work is with Cablevision. I am also a consumer of some of Cablevision's services.
During the last Oscars and the series finale of Lost, ABC and Cablevision were in the midst of a dispute, which resulted in ABC cutting their feed to Cablevision. Cablevision hired some interactive TV developers to connect a block of channels to stream loops of popular ABC shows from Hulu, advertisements and all.
Sounds like some kind of interference of interstate trade.
I've thought about this some lately, and I think my response is: When your company has publicly traded shares, or a significant foreign interest.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
...and yet you are outraged when your access to Fox content is cut off. WTF?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of a corporation as 'chartered by the state.' If, in fact, your business is in service to the state, or depends wholly on the state for revenue, then I see your point. But I am not in business because the state asked me to be. My business has nothing to do with the state, doesn't do any work for the state, and while we benefit 'the people' we do so directly and not in the form of government service.
That we have limited liability (as we do) is not some magical benefit given to us by the state, but simply a form of legal organization under the law to encourage investment and business exactly like mine. To suggest that we in some way owe something back to the state beyond the same taxes everybody else pays such that we deserve a muzzle on our speech is quite a logical jump.
The other reply mentioned 'when your company has publicly traded shares, or a significant foreign interest.' The foreign interest part is certainly a no-brainer, but foreign interests are already permitted from making contributions to political campaigns (despite Obama's rhetoric that the GOP is doing this -- it has been illegal for a very long time).
A publicly traded company is definitely more of a gray area. I'm not sure I want to argue that they should enjoy the same freedoms that a privately owned company does, but that's more out of ignorance than any conviction that this sentiment is correct. If I invest my money in a publicly traded company, I'm essentially saying 'here, take my money and do what you want with it, and I will enjoy the benefit of any growth you enjoy proportionate to my contribution.' I can also vote on several things as a shareholder, so if the company starts doing things I don't like, I can exercise that power or simply sell my stock -- just like I can stop patronizing a company that supports politics or policies I don't agree with if I know that they're contributing to them (as I should, since mandatory disclosure is definitely a good idea).
My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals?
:)
You could be on your own, and you and your business would already be separate. The business is a separate legal entity, a "legal person" if you will. You are an agent of the business. If you don't understand that dichotomy, then you are doomed to be frustrated and/or bewildered rather often in the course of your work. Either that or you're a sociopath who actually enjoys telling people what to do
yes, we have no bananas
Ah, but have you ever considered the possibility that individuals could be battered on both sides, by an ostensibly democratic government on one side, and and unabashedly authoritarian corporation on the other?
I really don't know why affiliates are hard nosed on this. They should view sat, cable and IPTV as ways of getting their signal to viewers with MINIMAL COST, compared to a broadcast tower.
If I were an affiliate, instead of demanding fees I'd insist that the cable, sat and IPTV guys provide to signal to EVERY home that was hooked up or has a sat box, regardless of service or not, or over service tier. For the sats it would be TRIVIAL to do this, just some programming and then push out the authorizations. Cable would take more time, they'd have to put in the filter as the techs went around to every pole on other jobs.
But imagine being the only affiliate around that EVERYONE on sat, cable and IPTV could access for free? The ad sales would offset any lost fees.
I've never really liked this argument. If you run a small business, and you haven't formed an S-Corp, don't complain about the taxes. Its your own fault for not doing it right.
When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.
When you live a life that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If you don't like it, you could always stop using the public streets and eating food transported across state lines.
Barring that, prepare to accept arbitrary intrusions and minute-by-minute micro-management of everything you do.
When a 'business' murders someone, some individual(s) at the company murdered that someone. Those individual(s) are punished.
Huh? I don't know about murder, but corporations certainly commit what amounts to homicide all the time, and seldom if ever do their executards pay any sort of legal price.
Just look at all the bogus drug testing results big pharma used to have dangerous drugs approved for sale. Celebrex , Bextra, Vioxx - all approved for use on the back of fraudulent research. Assuming the crooks running Pfizer and Merck didn't know all along the research was a fraud, they certainly had the money to validate the results of said research before foisting the drug onto an unsuspecting public (it's not like big pharma is going around begging for money). Vioxx alone is thought to have killed around 60,000 people, which makes Osama Bin Laden look like something of an amateur in comparison.
You kill 60,000 people and see if you get away with it.
Well, maybe you would if you spent the estimated $2 billion on lawyers that Merck spent . . .
And this is the reason why no corporation should be allowed to become so large it can't be drowned in a bathtub. Hundreds of corporations are now literally beyond the reach of the law. Which means they can - and will - do whatever they please. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people running these huge corporations are on the whole no different from the power crazed psychopaths who ran the Soviet Union (into the ground, I might add, which is where our country is headed with these lunatics in charge).
I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of a corporation as 'chartered by the state.'
Why not? Corporations receive their corporate charter from the government (these days, at the state level, not the federal level) to be in some particular business. The corporate system is intended to encourage businesses that might not otherwise be able to form -- as you noted, limited liability is part of this -- which is undeniably for the benefit of the people (at least in theory; the idea is that some businesses ultimately make our society better, and that the system of incorporation encourages those businesses to be formed).
This, of course, means that a corporation is in a position to become far more powerful, and take far greater risks, than a business whose owners do not have limited liability. That is why in the early years of America, corporate charters expired after a certain amount of time. Corporations couldn't become as large and powerful as they are today, because there was not enough time for that to happen. Eventually some clever lawyers managed to convince a judge that corporations should be protected by the 14th amendment, just like people are, and so corporate charters could not have expiration dates; thus we wound up with the situation we have now, where corporations can become so large and powerful that they can influence the law itself.
Why shouldn't the people decide what corporations can or cannot do? As you correctly stated, a corporation is a legal construct, and in America, laws are supposed to be passed by representatives of the people. There are no natural rights for corporations; corporations are not natural, they are legal constructs, and they have whatever rights we the people give them.
Or at least that is the theory behind corporations. In practice, we now have a government that works for the benefit of corporations, frequently putting corporate interests before the interests of the people...
Palm trees and 8
Well, when they act irresponsibly, their parent (the government) gives them an increased allowance.
I'd say their individuals, but only in the sense of a spoiled brat raised with a sense of entitlement.
All this anger and venting towards Fox and Rupert Murdoch - but no one's brought the Nazi meme to the party yet. Won't you think of poor Mike Godwin?
#DeleteChrome
will be manifested about nine months later
Ah yes, the great nerdling babyboom of 2010.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Artificial person with the same legal rights. The case was an 1886 Supreme Court decision based on the 14th amendment, they never ruled on it but the precedent was set... "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Even though it was presented as fact by the court reporter, still doesn't exclude that such statements were made.
You can sue an individual for more than they are worth, it happens all the time, most of the time though the person merely files for bankruptcy.
Right because you can understand my entire world view from one statement on Slashdot. Do me a favor and go troll someone else.
perfect reason this is so dammed important. net neutrality would have prevented the network from blocking the internet stream. they can pull them from the tv all they like but not the internet. this is why corps fear it they lose control of the content on the net.
The idea is, or at least was supposed to be, in exchange for limiting the liability of a large number of stock holders that do not directly control the corporation, that corporation agrees to a number of conditions. Those conditions should be judiciously set so that the privilege of limited liability is offset by restrictions, which may include free speech, right of free association, privacy, and so on. If the owners don't want to forgo those rights then they just operate as a fully liable partnership.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
Artificial person with the same legal rights. The case was an 1886 Supreme Court decision based on the 14th amendment, they never ruled on it but the precedent was set... "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Even though it was presented as fact by the court reporter, still doesn't exclude that such statements were made.
And as I foretold, this doesn't back your claim. Individuals have many more rights than just those granted by the 14th Amendment. Further, the case in question could not have been judged some other way and still protect the rights of the owners and employees of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company (and others) from unlawful taxation by California.
The peculiarity of the interpretation by the court reporter seems mostly irrelevant to the case since it wasn't legally binding.
I was born a little early, should I have been born on time it would have been nine months after a blizzard in the north-east long ago. There was also an increase in babies born that September.
It also depends on if the parents don't have children yet. I'm the first born. So any studies into that needs to look at childless couples: no power so do you think people will let their kids(in non hick situations) here them boinking?
Murder requires an "evil intent" that a corporation does not have the capacity for (only its board members or employees). Very seldom can corporate wrongdoing legitimately use the Sideshow Bob "Five Corners" defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door#Plot) where no individual act is illegal.
Yes but the original point that I was replying to was that businesses should have the same rights as individuals, since they are collections of individuals. Since the government is a collection of individuals, why is it acceptable to restrict the government, when it is not acceptable to restrict businesses?
Because governments wield the police power of the state - businesses and individuals (technically) do not.
Rampant corruption can result in the government serving as a de facto private police force, but wealthy & influential individuals can do this far easier than corporations can.
He's not complaining about the taxes, he's saying his personal and company funds are indistinguishable, which means you're correct that the business isn't a corporation or LLC or he's doing it wrong. He's either a partnership or a sole proprietorship, which, for tax purposes, is pretty much identical to an S Corp. In some circumstances it would be beneficial to run as a C corp, but only if you retain profits inside the company. If you're taking most of the profit out as dividends, the taxes are worse with a C corp (you pay as the corporation, then you pay as an individual when you take the dividend).
This kind of dispute is as old as cable. The only new dimension is also cutting off the Internet stream.
The idea is, or at least was supposed to be, in exchange for limiting the liability of a large number of stock holders that do not directly control the corporation, that corporation agrees to a number of conditions.
This is simply wrong. Companies are not 'chartered' by the state at all. To form an LLC, you don't even need a charter or, in many states, an operating agreement. You just need to file as an LLC. This is a one or two-page document and a filing fee. That the state handles this is practical matter of paperwork for legal and tax purposes. They don't ask what you're doing and they certainly don't put any conditions on you to do it.
The 'idea' of a limited liability company was (and is) that you can start up a company (presumably with assets that come from either your personal wealth or another company) and that the maximum you can be liable for is the assets of the LLC. This is how corporations work as well, but being an LLC simplifies your legal and tax requirements quite a lot (note 'simplifies' and not necessarily 'lessens').
Before my company was an LLC, I was a sole proprietorship, which is certainly the most straightforward of the many types of businesses. The biggest problem with being a sole proprietor is that, instead of an arbitrary distinction between your assets and your company's assets, there is no distinction whatsoever (even if you make one in your books). If you get sued or go bankrupt, you can lose your life savings, your house, your car, anything that's in your name.
If you are a large LLC with many stockholders then even your 'limited' liability is still very large, because the company's assets are never exempt from liability. It just means that you can't personally destroy the members of an LLC via suit or bankruptcy -- you can only destroy the LLC.
The business is a separate legal entity, a "legal person" if you will.
It is, but only because I've filed as an LLC. When I was a sole proprietor, there was no separate entity, no legal person. And in many respects, as a 'disregarded entity' (a specific sort of LLC), the only circumstances under which there is a separate, legal person is for the purpose of liability or suit -- financially, there is no separate entity.
This is why comcast can not buy NBC! If you think NO CSN Philly on dish and Directv is bad just wait for it be the rest of the comcast channels, THE CSN RSN's and NBC channels + golf and VS.
Ii's good comcast only has 20% of CSN Chicago and the teams have 80%
You thing no VS on Directv was bad no FSN / NETGEO / FX on DISH is much bigger. Just think of the power NBC / Comcast will have with
NBC
NBC Universal Television Group
USA Network
Syfy
CNBC
MSNBC,
Bravo
qubo
Telemundo Television Studios
The Weather Channel
Hulu
A&E Television Networks (15%)
E!
Style Network
Golf Channel
Versus
G4
MountainWest Sports Network (50%)
and there RSN's
Bay Area (45%)
California
Chicago (20%)
New England
SportsNet New York (part owner)
Northwest
Philadelphia
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast (50%)
Southwest
This is why A la carte cable / sat television is needed bad.
the RSN's and Disney are the high cost ones.
Most other channels are like $0.20 /M or less per SUB.
Right because you can understand my entire world view from one statement on Slashdot.
I can guess at it. Anti-corporate people all have the same talking points. You're the ones who keep bringing up liability, as if lawsuits are what keeps the world spinning.
If you don't think lawsuits are really important, then you don't really have much of a point, do you?
Your guess was far from the mark, my anger with corporations doesn't stop me from voting libertarian. My main problems generally involve corporations that exist merely to litigate, i.e. RIAA. Then again many of the problems involving corporations are directly due to government involvement. Although I am anti-corporation, that doesn't mean I want to tear down the companies that run them, I just wish they weren't so propped up by the government, and I wish the government wasn't so propped up by them. Understandable so as corporations generally have only profit on the mind and shouldn't have a hand in political affairs in the grand scheme of things. I don't think lawsuits keep the world spinning, but they are a tool one wielded much more successfully by those with money than those without, and you are a fool if you don't think court cases don't create laws. So yes, lawsuits are very pertinent to me and anyone else who lives in the US.
It could be the case that the government is elected by the people for the people, including the ones that didn't vote for them. Government is also funded by taxation to provide services to its citizens all of them.
Yes your free to restrict access to your home under most circumstances, however you can't restrict a black Police officer from enforcing a warrant to search your home. Even if you don't like the colour of his skin.
So no you don't have complete control.
Just to get back on topic, it isn't that unusual for a network to impose a blackout on a cable company when renegotiating contracts. Sky did it to Virgin media in the UK. a few years back. Some people will blame the cable company others realise that if the cable company is forced to pay more then they will too. The unusual thing was blocking hula and other innocent bystanders.
Fox isn't the only content provider and it may be that you might get a new channel featuring content originally provided via Fox.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
ISP's in favor of preferential access all seem to think they'll be able to charge providers big fees to allow their content to flow to the ISP's customers. For reasons this story should make clear, they're far more likely to end up making payments TO the content providers. There's a reason that every other medium in existance works that way.
Then, as a libertarian, you should be able to see that lawsuits, and action in the courts in general, have grown to the point where liberty is in jeopardy. Courts rule over far too many activities that should be up to individuals to decide. And the systems' processes are setup to benefit lawyers at the expense of the rest of society, leaving justice a forgotten relic of the distant past.
Liberty requires fewer lawsuits, not more. And court awards should compensate, not punish. Nor should they provide a financial incentive for lawyers or legal action. Legal action is government force. A libertarian should consider such force a necessary evil at best. And he should require it to be limited, not expanded.
Corporations didn't make government force or government corruption a problem. Limit the government's power and you limit the incentive for corporate involvement in government and politics. No other course of action can be consistent with libertarian principles.
Fox Noise is a blight on humanity.
My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals?
Let's examine this statement. I've boldfaced portions for emphasis.
My business is just me [...] plus a few
So what you really meant to say, is "My business is me AND a few contractors". So right off the bat you've already answered your initial question. But let's continue.
At what point are we
Well, I'd say when you're using a plural form of the pronoun that indicates there's more than one individual.
Raising fist to sky and yelling: "Ruuuuupert!"
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Every time I look at who owns and who works for businesses, all I see are individuals.
Isn't Hulu already not distributed outside of the US, so what does one ISP more really matter?
My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals?
This is an older slashdot article, so nobody will likely read this, but....
The business is no longer an individual interest when you incorporate (LTD, etc..). If you have limited liability, you share no personal risk with the outcome of the business. Which leads to the company doing dumb things, like for short term profit, something that an individual would not do. A corporation is granted rights that exceed individual rights, and used to be reviewed by the government to ensure that it was providing a benefit for society. If the corporation was found to be detrimental to society as a whole, its charter was revoked. This is entirely within the realm of what government should be doing, and has done since the founding of our country. Except that now, the concept of ever revoking a corporate charter is pretty much off the table. All the rights and then some more, none of the responsibility or risks.
I would like to add another case where a business no longer pursues individual interests or can be said to be just a conglomerate of individuals: natural or artificial monopolies. Those businesses far exceed the power to influence that any other similar collection of individuals would have, and are largely immune to many market factors. In this case, like corporate regulation, it is entirely appropriate for government to create rules and frameworks in which those monopolies exist.
And yet another case: use of the commons. The commons being natural resources that are a shared resource of our country. Government land with oil, gold, etc.. on it. Or national forests, rivers, etc.. Businesses using those common resources should rightly be regulated by government, to ensure that those resources are not completely ruined (river pollution, etc..) or completely exhausted (forests) for future generations. The free market is not suited to self-managing common resources.
So despite being run by individuals, corporations, monopolies, and businesses that use common resources, all deserve regulation by our government, and should not be considered enterprise by individuals.
I fail to understand how you would think I could disagree with you on any of the above points...
... and nothing of value was lost.