Rethinking How Congress Pushes Copyright Laws

pigrabbitbear writes "Lamar Smith just can't get a break. The Texas congressman and widely despised author of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) ruffled the Internet's feathers once again this week with the quiet unveiling of a new piece of legislation that's drawing criticism for being plucked out of SOPA's language and rushed through Congress. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act (IPAA) would streamline the process by which the U.S. protects its intellectual property by enforcing U.S. copyright law abroad through specially assigned diplomats or attachés. These officers would report to a new agency-level position, the Assistant Secretary for Intellectual Property and push agendas that, according to the bill's language, are 'consistent with the economic interests of the United States, both domestically and abroad.'"

Comments

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome our new RIAA/MPAA SS Troup overlords

Re:I for one

[Z00L00K]

It may be interesting to check how much he has been paid by lobbyists to drive this.

Maybe it's time to study Lamar Smith in detail for any kind of inappropriate behavior. Everyone is guilty of something.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

and to enbiggen a vibrant creative economy

It's embiggen, not emgiggen. What do they teach in school these days?

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it shouldn’t be too hard, to put nice illegal stuff on his box, and call the cops...
How about a healthy mix of child porn, a written statement for a not-yet-happened public shooting, Al-Qaeda contacts, drug dealer contacts (will already exist), and media files from whatever media company is from the competition (will also probably exist)? ^^

Re:I for one

[Dexter Herbivore]

BAM Instant Godwin, well done.

Re:I for one

[ausrob]

The so called 'copyright clause' of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) doesn't say that at all - it states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It mentions nothing making things profitable. It also mentions granting copyright for a *limited* time, which - given the continuing extensions to copyright term - is not being exercised in accordance with the US constitution.

By the way, the public domain exists for a reason too, and was intended 'to embiggen a vibrant and creative economy'. Take a look at what has happened to it in the past few decades.

Re:I for one

[Kartu]

Note that copyright is exact opposite of sharing ideas => major driver of the progress.
Copyright was seen as necessary evil to protect investments into expensive R&D.
But tell me what "investment" is needed to come up with idea of:
1) Showing an animated icon in browser's loading area.(by Microsoft)
2) That tablet is a rectangular shape with rounded corners (by Apple)
3) Searching in multiple sources (by Apple)

Apparently patents like this exist only to be used as legal weapons vs competitors.
And then we have rights on music/movies. I doubt Elvis would create less songs inf copyright law protected his work for 10 years, instead of a 100. Oh, and just recently in EU it was "only" 50 years. Now they've changed it to 100. Incidentally, if not the change, one German company would lose rights on Elvis's songs...

Re:I for one

[Concerned Onlooker]

No, I think you have to explicitly mention Hitler.

Oops.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I am too tired to suss this out fully right now but holy media industry Batman...

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811 [opensecrets.org]

Did I do that right? I am trying to learn the finer points of SD so I can play too....

J.

Re:I for one

[spectral7]

Copyright was seen as necessary evil to protect investments into expensive R&D.

Those are patents, not copyright. Copyright is intended to help content creators profit from their work so they can make a living and create more content.

Re:I for one

[NormalVisual]

I think if people actually went and read the CONSTITUTION they would see that copyright exists for a reason - to protect the creator, to make it profitable to create, and to enbiggen a vibrant creative economy.

Go back and read it again because that's not what it says. What you've written are the means by which copyright fulfills its *actual stated* reason, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Everything that is created is supposed to enter the public domain and enrich society as a whole. Letting the creator have a limited (key word: LIMITED) time to make money on his works is the way by which society encourages that.

Re:I for one

[SuricouRaven]

The law is clear: Any comparison to Hitler or the Nazis counts.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish they'd teach people not to focus on the irrelevant.

Re:I for one

[Xenkar]

Honestly I have to wonder if Hitler would have been against file sharing if they had the technology at the time. Assuming file sharing is as bad for the media industry as the media industry thinks it is, and that a certain race dominates almost all aspects of it, wouldn't Hitler rejoice file sharing? The only reason I can think of that he would want to ban file sharing is because of the multicultural and degenerate propaganda contained in the content.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright in France (which definitely is in the EU) is 70 years after death, 100 years is only for artists who died for France.
Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006161638&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069414&dateTexte=20120713

Re:I for one

[shentino]

Or to put their foot in their mouth by makign the same sort of mistake

My own typo left in on purpose.

Re:I for one

[Taco Cowboy]

Welcome our new RIAA/MPAA SS Troup overlords

Watch out for their black helicopters !!
 

Re:I for one

[Xelios]

I saw this back during the SOPA trial. During the hearings the people on the left did everything they could to try to push it through, the people on the right were more or less the only ones speaking out against it.

One has to wonder why the $2 trillion+ in taxes we pay every year don't buy us as much influence over the legislative process as $100,000 in campaign contributions by various corporate interests. Why aren't election campaigns funded by tax dollars instead of private donations?

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

The discussion system understands HTML (this post is written with <p>'s around the paragraphs).

When you link, just use HTML:

<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811">OpenSecrets<a>

...displays as:

OpenSecrets

If you just want the link displayed and clickable, here is pseudo-html:

<url:"http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811">

...displays as:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Or people can just highlight the URL, right click, and select open in new tab (firefox).

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is intended to help content creators profit from their work so they can make a living and create more content.

You've got that backwards.

Copyright is designed to encourage creators to create more content by enabling them to make a living from creating content if they're good at it.

Being able to live off selling media is the side-effect not the goal.

Re:I for one

[Opportunist]

That's how it is in my country. You get more than 2% of the votes, you get your campaigning costs refunded. It does actually not only level the playing field, it also lessens to some extent the reliance on bribery.

Sadly, it does not eliminate it. Politicians are simply greedy, they take money where they can get it. The only cure would be to outlaw bribery.

Re:I for one

[CTU]

Wow and I just have to be out of mod points. Shame you posted as AC tho :(

Re:I for one

[Opportunist]

There is no problem with copyright per se. The problem is that copyright got way out of hand, and I doubt that's what the founding fathers of the US had in mind when they thought that it's a good idea to give the creator of content the sole right to reap the fruits from it.

Back in those days, the "unfairness" was on the other side of the swing. Creators had to hurry to publish as fast as they could because if it was even remotely some kind of success, others would copy and sell it. Back then, the "bad guys" were not the users of content, the publishers were. They would not sign up artists, they'd wait for the artist to have success with their limited ability to publish, then rip them off by copying their creation and quickly reproducing it. The idea was to protect the artists against the publishers.

The system has been perverted into the one we have today. Copyright no longer protects the artist either, rather, it protects the publishers now.

And I am quite certain that this is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the inventors of copyright had in mind.

Re:I for one

[seyfarth]

One has to wonder why the $2 trillion+ in taxes we pay every year don't buy us as much influence over the legislative process as $100,000 in campaign contributions by various corporate interests. Why aren't election campaigns funded by tax dollars instead of private donations?

Excellent point! My way of stating this is that those who buy our government through various contributions are getting control of the biggest economy and largest army on the planet for a dirt cheap price.

Re:I for one

[iter8]

think if people actually went and read the CONSTITUTION they would see that copyright exists for a reason - to protect the creator, to make it profitable to create, and to enbiggen a vibrant creative economy.

Article 1 Section 8
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Doesn't say anything about making it profitable or about the economy, rather congress may make laws granting exclusive rights for a limited time to promote progress in the arts and sciences. If you want to try and profit, that's your business not congress's. Maybe our current congress has it backwards.

Re:I for one

[iter8]

enbiggen seems perfectly cromulent.

Re:I for one

[datavirtue]

Where do I apply for one of these Attaché jobs? Sounds like fun!

Re:I for one

[datavirtue]

That is way too much work.

Re:I for one

[Jaysyn]

The only cure would be to outlaw bribery.

Bribery is legal where you live?

Re:I for one

[sageres]

Maybe it's time to study Lamar Smith in detail for any kind of inappropriate behavior. Everyone is guilty of something.

Well, it is time for our stormtroopers to start the witch-hunt. After all, if we can't defeat our opponents through ideas, lobbying and courts, we can always persecute them using character assassination, right?
Reminds me of a famous quote:

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”
  Karl Marx

Re:I for one

[MMC Monster]

Maybe someone should start a kickstarter campaign to buy a senator?

Re:I for one

[usuallylost]

Basically you have no options for the $2 trillion+ in taxes you either pay it or you go to jail. The people giving the campaign contributions have a choice who they give that money to. Which forces the politicians to listen to them.

Political contributions are not all bad. The need of politicians to raise money does force them to be somewhat responsive to the public. In countries where the public funds campaigns out of the treasury politicians know they only need enough supporters to qualify for support and they are golden. The real problem here is the people who want this stuff are very motivated, they stand to make millions or possibly billions off this. The people against it are far less motivated, we post on slashdot and possibly write / call our representatives. Basically we put up an ad hoc defense against an opponent that is working 24x7 on this. It is sort of like sports, who do you think will win the team that has professional trainers and practices constantly or the team that shows up on weekends for a pick up game? Sure the PUG group might win occasionally but overall the pro team is going win most of the time.

If we are really serious about opposing this stuff the only real answer is get our own full time team working on it. If enough of the public really becomes motivated for something they typically form an association and use that as a vehicle to push their agenda. No matter what you feel about the policy involved the best example, that I can think of, of this is the National Rifle Association. Gun owners don't like gun control and they are willing to join, fund and support with their votes and organization to push that agenda. In that case the NRA is out there 24 x 7 with their $100,000 donations and the threat of several million members who vote demanding that their views be heard. Not only do they lobby congress but they get out in front of the public and argue for their positions.

The EFF fights some of these battles but it is pretty clear most people here are not really motivated to act. The NRA has something like 3 million members who contribute, like $30 - $50 each per year, and vote. The EFF has about 140,000. People who propose gun control have been known to lose their seats. The people pushing this sort of thing never lose their seats. If we are really serious about this then we either need an EFF with 3 million members or some other organization. Still if we are really serious about blocking this stuff you need an organization with enough members, who provide money, support and votes, to make the members of congress take note. Elected officials tend to view everything through the prism of how does it impact their reelection chances. So when a group demands things they look at a number of things. How many votes can this group get me or cost me. How much money can they put into my war chest. What other benefits can they provide to me or to my constituents, all of which help me get reelected. Until you can shift that equation in your favor the best you are ever going to do is slow them down. The problem is we care but just not enough to really put our money or our votes behind it. Until that changes we lose.

Re:I for one

[betterunixthanunix]

During the hearings the people on the left did everything they could to try to push it through

Really? SOPA was not a leftist law. I think you are confused about the meaning of "left wing," perhaps because you have spent so much time focusing on Democrats and Republicans...

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

He's referring to the linked picture, which is split even Republic and Democrat, but just arranges the committee members into two columns. He's not saying it is a leftist law at all.

Re:I for one

[Dog-Cow]

It's legal in the US. Why would it not be legal elsewhere as well?

Re:I for one

[__aaltlg1547]

Because I don't want my tax dollars going to try to elect YOUR favorite candidate.

Re:I for one

[crazyjj]

Maybe it's time to study Lamar Smith in detail for any kind of inappropriate behavior.

He's a politician. If he were NOT corrupt it would be inappropriate.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

If you meant to speak of patents, then you need to consider the usual alternative: trade secrets. Patents force inventors to reveal their secrets in public while gaining a temporary limited monopoly on their invention. Trade secrets can be held indefinitely, but are not legally protected and may be leaked and copied. So actually the original intent of patents was sharing, but that intent has been subverted by large corporations colluding with government to extend the concept of patents to cover all sorts of false inventions.

Re:I for one

[alexo]

Political contributions are not all bad. The need of politicians to raise money does force them to be somewhat responsive to the public.

But only to the part of the public willing to pay (bribe) them.

Re:I for one

[alexo]

Copyright is intended to help content creators profit from their work so they can make a living and create more content.

You've got that backwards.

Copyright is designed to encourage creators to create more content by enabling them to make a living from creating content if they're good at it.

Being able to live off selling media is the side-effect not the goal.

This point must be made over and over again.
Please mode AC parent up to increase visisbility.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are patents, not copyright. Copyright is intended to help content creators profit from their work so they can make a living and create more content.

Well that *could* be used to justify copyright for life. But not beyond.

Re:I for one

[dnwheeler]

If we are really serious about opposing this stuff the only real answer is get our own full time team working on it.

The problem with lobbying, is it really only make sense to lobby for change. Trying to set up (and fund) a lobbying organization to lobby for the status quo sounds almost farcical. Somehow there should be more "inertia" in the system, so that "doing nothing" is valued extremely highly. This inertia would essentially represent the un-voiced vote of the population that has not weighed in on an issue.

Re:I for one

[Golddess]

Learn something new every day... thanks AC!

Re:I for one

[usuallylost]

I don't know about you but I for one would like to see a hell of a lot of change in the whole copyright arena. I am not sure that I accept that premise though. There are lots of lobbying organizations that are primarily defensive. The one I used in my example, the NRA, spends the vast majority of its resources trying to preserve their view of the 2nd amendment. The main thing about effective lobbying is it changes the reelection equation for politicians as regards to some policy. They are far less likely to advocate something that a motivated lobby is dead set against and more likely to push something that some other motivated lobby is for. If you have opposing lobbies you can kind of cancel each other out

Your other point about the value of system inertia is dead on. If you look at the design of the US government power is divided up among the three branches of the Federal Government, the states and the localities. One of the major goals of that is to create systemic inertia. To make it hard, or impossible, for any group to really force their views on the entire nation. That is really one of the major goals of our Federal system. The problem is that for decades now we have been slowly breaking down the inherent inertia in the system and concentrating power in the Federal Government in general and the executive branch in particular.

Congress used to pass laws that specifically included regulations or whatever. Now days they pass laws that have some specifics in them but contain legalese to the effect of and we authorize agency X to create regulations that will have the force of law to control Y. Which in essence delegates vast powers that are supposed to be exercised by congress to the executive branch. I mean if you want to do something the public doesn't like which way is easier, have congress debate it and pass a bill or have an agency of the executive branch do it behind closed doors, if I was trying to enact rules without meaningful public input I'd take the agency path.

Re:I for one

[fredprado]

I do agree with you in principle, but the situation is not quite as simple as that. Certainly if we want to have a chance to change things we need strong organizations with a lot of people supporting them, but it may not be enough in this case.

NRA fights weak organizations in US and not anything like the MAFIAA. Even a organization as big and as well financed as NRA wouldn't stand a chance against the kind of money MPAA and RIAA can put on the table.

Having strong organizations to fight them would certainly help and make their work harder, which is a very good thing, but it is just a step in the right direction, not a solution.

Re:I for one

[cdrguru]

Copyright has nothing to do with sharing ideas. In fact, copyright specifically does not affect "ideas", only the specific embodyment of something. You can't copyright the idea of a boy wizard but you can copyright a novel written about a boy wizard. Similarly, you can't copyright the idea of displaying a calendar in a program but you can copyright the code that displays a calendar. If someone else writes code that displays a calendar in exactly the same manner copyright does not apply.

Patents are quite different and everything you are describing in your post has to do with patents, not copyright.

There are two purposes to patenting everything in sight for a company - increasing barriers to competition and as a defense against patent infringement. You might object to the idea of increasing barriers to competition, but in many businesses if there are not significant barriers to entry by competitors the result is very simple - nobody is interested and there is no investment. Anyone who personally puts money into such businesses generally loses everything because if it looks good a competitor pops up out of nowhere and does whatever is necessary to dominate the marketplace.

Elvis and copyright is again completely different - Elvis might have sung a lot of songs but without strong copyright he might have been limited to singing in bars in the American South and nobody would have ever heard of him. Promoting Elvis and putting him out in front of the public in movies, TV shows, radio programs, magazines, etc. cost a lot of money that someone wanted to get back, likely over a period of over 10 years. Heck, people are still investing in "Elvis" by buying rights to republish his songs and people are still buying them making those investments pay off.

Re:I for one

[Travelsonic]

Um... if you read it yourself, you'd see the reason copyright exists is to stimulate the progress of science and creativity by giving EXCLUSIVE CONTROL to the creator for a LIMITED TIME in which he or she does whatever he or she wants, and after which, it goes back to the public. It doesn't say anything more, or less.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

SuperPac via kick starter!!!

Re:I for one

[Steve B]

Maybe the MAIFAA already did that "study", and makes sure to remind him about "those pictures of you and the goat" when handing him the latest bill he is instructed to introduce on their behalf.

Re:I for one

[usuallylost]

Good points. Politics is a path not a destination. Political power, in the US system at least, could be written as a formula. Money + Votes = Power. MPAA / RIAA are real heavy in the Money part of the equation. NRA has some money and some votes that they organize fairly effectively. AARP has a lot of money and a lot of voters and congress quakes in their boots when they go on the warpath. Right now we have a vague threat that maybe we might have some votes, assuming we remember come November.

Re:I for one

[hlavac]

Watch them equal economic interests with national security interests and unleash the great tools they have at their disposal when "national security" is involved. Yes, black operations and all.

Re:I for one

[Gr8Apes]

Think of your tax $ going to your candidate, and mine going to mine, and his going to his. Now we have 3 candidates already, 1 more than we usually have.

Re:I for one

[Gr8Apes]

I made that same argument, and someone came back and said it is still technically limited as written currently. My response is that as long as the term is longer than the average lifespan, it is effectively unlimited, and at even half the average lifespan, it appears unlimited to a large portion of the populace.

Re:I for one

[Gr8Apes]

copyright should not be assignable, nor sellable. That would result in the creator retaining sole rights and the distribution industry focusing on ... distribution, not ownership issues.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

During the hearings the people on the left did everything they could to try to push it through

Really? SOPA was not a leftist law. I think you are confused about the meaning of "left wing," perhaps because you have spent so much time focusing on Democrats and Republicans...

He meant the people on the left in the image. There were Democrats and Republicans on boths sides of that, so please don't read some partisan connotation into a non-partisan post. There was no OP focus on partisan issues. Take another look and let me know if you still disagree.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, now that would be freaking hilarious.

Re:I for one

[hedpe2003]

How about a Kickstarter campaign to fix politics?

Sorry for any self promotion, but I quit my job because I believe in this. More info weekly.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone should start a kickstarter campaign to buy a senator?

Let's start with Lamar Smith. He's easily bought, and if nothing else we might be able to neutralize him for a while.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly I have to wonder if Hitler would have been against file sharing if they had the technology at the time. Assuming file sharing is as bad for the media industry as the media industry thinks it is, and that a certain race dominates almost all aspects of it, wouldn't Hitler rejoice file sharing? The only reason I can think of that he would want to ban file sharing is because of the multicultural and degenerate propaganda contained in the content.

File sharing promotes free, unrestricted flow of information and is anti-censorship by its very nature. Now why would Hilter, or the US Gov't for that matter, like file sharing in any way, shape, or form?

Re:I for one

[zzsmirkzz]

I take it one step further, logically. The current term (I believe) is the Life of the Author plus some additional years (like 70 or something ludicrous). Making the length of time be the life of the author makes the amount of time unlimited when looked at from the perspective of the author. It literally lasts for all the time they have in the world with no limits.

Re:I for one

[Gr8Apes]

You could argue that way as well - as soon as it is life of the creator - that is unlimited from their POV. I was speaking from the perspective of others. In any case, it is not limited by any but the most technical of definitions as far as the living are concerned.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the US, so yes. This shows the bribery used for this particular lawmaker and law: http://i.imgur.com/77CtK.png

Re:I for one

[mcgrew]

If embiggen or cromulent (let alone enbiggen) are words, then stratodoober is a word, too.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

During the hearings the people on the left did everything they could to try to push it through

Really? SOPA was not a leftist law. I think you are confused about the meaning of "left wing," perhaps because you have spent so much time focusing on Democrats and Republicans...

By "the people on the left" the OP meant the left of the picture, not ideologically. Please don't read partisan politics into a post that was not concerned with partisan issues; there were both Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the image. Check again and see if you still disagree,

Re:I for one

[ganjadude]

/s ?

Re:I for one

[justforgetme]

Wait, what? We call them lobbyists now?

Man things were sure easier when Adolf was around!

Re:I for one

[Opportunist]

What do you call it when people take money to get elected so they can push the laws their "supporters" want and ignore the needs of the people that vote them in?

Re:I for one

[chrismcb]

The so called 'copyright clause' of the US constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) doesn't say that at all - it states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". It mentions nothing making things profitable.

What do you think "to promote" means? It means to allow the creator to make money so they can create more.
What do you think it means?

Re:I for one

[Raenex]

I made that same argument, and someone came back and said it is still technically limited as written currently.

That would be the Supreme Court. It's a debatable argument, as most are that make it there. I agree that the current copyright terms are a joke and a travesty, but the Constitutional angle is dead, and any legal reform needs to go through Congress.

Re:I for one

[wallsg]

I saw this back during the SOPA trial. During the hearings the people on the left did everything they could to try to push it through, the people on the right were more or less the only ones speaking out against it.

One has to wonder why the $2 trillion+ in taxes we pay every year don't buy us as much influence over the legislative process as $100,000 in campaign contributions by various corporate interests. Why aren't election campaigns funded by tax dollars instead of private donations?

Maybe you should ask the first President to refuse matching funds and who thinks (or used to) he can raise a Billion Dollars for this election why elections are funded by however much you can raise instead of a fraction of that in taxpayer money.

The answer is obvious. There's a massive donation collection system in place ran by the two major parties and their surrogates that can raise an order of magnitude more money than taxpayers would (rightfully so) be willing to spend. And, when you consider that only half of the taxpayers actually pay income tax (yes, everyone pays sales, FICA, etc, but those wouldn't fund something like this) then you are forcing half the people to support candidates they may or may not want elected while the other half don't have to pay anything.

At least in the current system (except for matching funds) money is raised from people who actually support the candidate and want them to win. Nobody is forced under threat of fines or imprisonment to contribute via taxes to candidates that they don't support. Even unions are supposed to allow their members to opt out of the political portion of their dues.

BTW, President Obama and his supporting PACs will outspend Romney's campaign and PACs this year. The "fundraiser underdog" appeal is just that: a fundraising strategy. He raised Three-Quarters of a Billion Dollars for the 2008 election, nearly three times McCain's reported budget of $277 million (including matching funds) for primaries and the general election. Since McCain opted into matching funds and received (from what I can find) $84.1 million he was apparently limited to spending $168.2 million for the general election.

Re:I for one

[dryeo]

Despots always try to control the flow of information. I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany illegalized all the then current forms of sharing information such as radio, typewriters, mimeograph machines and if practical pencil and paper.

Re:I for one

[DedTV]

How about buying someone to run against him instead?

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out of your analysis the unfair "founder bias" found in the formation of the US constitution and the courts founder determination bias since its creation.
That bias is found in the copyright and patent clause, and private property rights that extend beyond personal owner use and also in the commerce clause and the necessary clause. Take a look! http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm. What bias: they own everything bias? The you go to school and learn enough so you can work for them bias.

Certain constitutional clauses allow the framer class persons to use the government that governs our humanity [living or born in America] as the founder class see fit. Note:the checks and balances everyone talks about is to keep things honest between members of the founder class, but checks and balances really have nothing to do with the rift raft (you and me).

Those few founder class persons [1%] can make laws that guarantee their Corporations own not only physical America but intangible America [ideas or processes expressed by creative human minds]. Moreover, the constitution implies only the members of the framer class, and only its members, can issue money, or make substantial profits from the stuff the members of the founder class own [private property ownership is not a natural condition of life; its a result of laws].

If you read the constitution carefully it may come to you that everything in it is designed to protect the economic interest and physical person [from competition or protest] of the founder class persons and their business interests (including their corporations). Even the bill of rights (first 10 amendments) were forced on the founders by the ratifiers [state senators and representatives]. The states refused to ratify the signed constitution unless the bill of rights was added.

The global average human person (now living) has been subjected to "economic misery" by those who control our security, money, behaviors and lives with their laws and use of force. Must we live according to standards imposed by framer type lawmakers? Must we allow the framer types to use our constitutions to make money and to keep their competitive edge over the rift raft (the rest of us)? Is that what God directed?.

The Arab spring is about this very issue. The Arab Springers do not want constitutions written by foreigners or by outsiders or by those who lived 200 years ago if those constitutions are to be used to control and regulate their political and economic lives. The Arab Springers do want their lives regulated, except by those who still live among them and except by those who actually are a daily part of their communities. The may by and made for rule should apply. In other words, laws made by "lawmakers and persons no longer living" should be removed. How should law be validated? By majority consent after full disclosure of the law and after adequate discussion of the implications, by those who are alive and still living within the community or by some lobbyist unknown to anyone at any time or by some international body no one every meet?

Rules made from afar by founder types or their lobbyist c\n\b fair to human life quality b\c profit making & life quality are opposite stick ends.

Human life is limited to 80 years or so.. a short time for copyright and patent purposes should be measured against this standard.. say 80 minutes.
If the 80 minute life time for monopoly ownership were adopted the economy would return; the big corporations would become competitors among us; and the law makers would respond to the communities that are charged to elect them.

Re:I for one

[__aaltlg1547]

Not really. Every election cycle we have more than three candidates for President and many other offices. It's the election system that dictates that at most two have any chance of winning.

Re:I for one

[lsatenstein]

Quote
"Lamar Smith just can't get a break. The Texas congressman and widely despised author of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) ruffled the Internet's feathers once again this week with the quiet unveiling of a new piece of legislation that's drawing criticism for being plucked out of SOPA's language and rushed through Congress. The Intellectual Property Attaché Act (IPAA) would streamline the process by which the U.S. protects its intellectual property by enforcing U.S. copyright law abroad through specially assigned diplomats or attachés. These officers would report to a new agency-level position, the Assistant Secretary for Intellectual Property and push agendas that, according to the bill's language, are 'consistent with the economic interests of the United States, both domestically and abroad.'"
endquote.

Just where does the congressman get his funding? He obviously doesn't recognize the will of the people and the will of the europeans who said NO NO NO to SOPA. How much damage will he be allowed to do before election time? Dump the man representing media mogals with deep pockets and vested interest.

I am waiting for a website like EBAY where musicians and small film makers can sell their wares. The BigBox stores with racks of DVDs and BlueRay disks are over. Technology has gone past them. If they sold me a protected USB with music or video or e-book that I want, then I might be interested. Just let me pay for it one time for all my devices.

Re:I for one

[Golddess]

Hmm?

Re:I for one

[robsku]

US citizens often get confused on these things, they have two right wing parties, one of which they call "left" - a real left wing party would likely be impossible to fathom for many of them... :p

Re:I for one

[robsku]

Just wanted to add that it seems there was not such confusion here and "left" apparently just referred to left part of picture - or maybe there was confusion and I'm just under estimating volume of stupidity in universe again :p

Re:I for one

[robsku]

agreed - I could live with short (something like 20-50 years), non-transferable copyright. As for what it is today, well, I generally only follow laws that I can agree with or that I'm too afraid to break - copyright laws are neither.

HERE I GO AGAIN ON MY... OWN?

[Anonymous Coward]

AND AWAY WE GOOOO.... (AGAIN)

Great

[fredprado]

This way they can bypass the congress and do whatever they want through secret trade agreements like ACTA and TPP. Seriously, US citizens should lock these guys and throw away the keys. They are corrupt to the bone.

Re:Great

[joocemann]

Our judges are from the same law schools, and they are all good friends... what now?

Re:Great

[fredprado]

Throw in the judges too? >.>

Re:Great

[c0lo]

Throw in the judges too? >.>

Hear, hear... I do prefer to keep alive a passivized (locked in a prison) parasitic life form than an active and aggressive one (still paid from taxes, therefore parasitic).

Re:Great

[EtherKnight]

don't forget the lawyers

Re:Great

[Opportunist]

You DO still have those guns, yes? Just asking...

How?

[TubeSteak]

The problem is not how these laws are being pushed.
The problem is the content of these copyright laws.

Lamar Smith (R-TX) obviously thinks that the copyright lobbyists are his constituents
and not the masses of citizens which protested and sank PIPA (Patrick Leahy (D-VT))
which in turn lead directly to SOPAs death

Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?

Re:How?

[core_dump_0]

Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?

"Wasn't life + 90 years enough copyright?"

It's not about copyright term length. It's about increasing the profits of the failing companies behind him, no matter how much any individual, or any other business in the country, has to suffer in any way.

It should also be noted that only one of the Hollywood companies is an American company, all the rest (BMG, News Corp, Sony, etc.) are foreign companies.

Re:How?

[c0lo]

It should also be noted that only one of the Hollywood companies is an American company, all the rest (BMG, News Corp, Sony, etc.) are foreign companies.

How this is relevant? I mean, they still pay taxes and lobbying in US, aren't they?

Re:How?

[Miseph]

It shits all over the rhetoric about protecting "American" interests and intellectual property if the relevant interests and intellectual property do not belong to Americans.

Not even the anti-protectionism crowd would bother defending the use of American political and legal machinery to specifically and disproportionately benefit foreign business.

Re:How?

[RedDeadThumb]

Lamar has been in congress since 1987, too. How about some term limits on these old connected farts!

Re:How?

[c0lo]

It shits all over the rhetoric about protecting "American" interests and intellectual property if the relevant interests and intellectual property do not belong to Americans.

The fact that the politicians interest and citizens' interest aren't aligned doesn't make the the politicians less Americans than the citizens, nor precludes them from having an interest on the matter. Granted, they are "more Americans than the rest", but... is not unconstitutional and/or making profit is not immoral nowadays, is it now?
</large_grin>

Re:How?

[Arancaytar]

Two terms of fourteen years each was enough.

The length of the copyright term isn't even the primary battleground - except for Disney, what company is still profiting from exclusive use of stuff created more than ninety years ago? The bulk of profit is made from content that was created in the last 10-20 years (maybe longer for books). The current trench warfare lies in the control of computers and the internet. The aim of the lobbyists pushing these bills is not primarily a perpetual copyright (though that's certainly part of it) but an environment where all technology that could potentially store, convey or reproduce copyrighted content is tightly controlled.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not how these laws are being pushed.

On the contrary, how the laws are being pushed is a serious problem. The issue of the US taxpayers paying to enforce the interests of a small international business group is one problem. It does not concern me very much, as I don't pay taxes in the US, but it should concern you, because it comes out of your checkbook.

There is then the issue of the "IP" MAFIAA using the US power and gaming the international legal system for their private benefit. You may not care about what happens in my country, but you should consider if it is in your best interest to create and support such precedents. Someday you or your kids may be on the receiving end.

Finally there is also the issue of jurisdiction. If the US expect her laws to be enforceable abroad by the simple means of a diplomat twisting the hands of the other side (remember Hillary asking their staff to collect credit card info on foreign dignitaries?), the US should not be surprised that other people may think their ideas of law are enforceable in the US as well and try to enforce them by, among others, flying aircraft into buildings.

Re:How?

[Rockoon]

While term limits would certainly limit entrenched corruption, it would promote "flash in the pan" corruption. Why worry about your reputation if you can't make a career of it?

Re:How?

[NoMaster]

How is News Corp. a foreign company?

Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ ...

How much more "American" do you want it to be?

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

It's very possible that the good people of Texas are ok with a strengthening of copyright law, when they think about it at all.

Either way, I'm willing to bet that a campaign of, "the Internet hates him because of copyright law!" isn't going to get him out of office.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

In California, where we've had term limits for a while now (for state politicians), the problem has been that although politicians leave office quickly, lobbyists don't. It takes the politicians a couple years in office before they figure out the lobbyist tricks, and how to deal with them, but the lobbyists stay around for a long time, and get more and more experience manipulating politicians.

As a result, lobbyists have gained more power. This problem isn't insurmountable, but we still have it here in California.

Re:How?

[c0lo]

How is News Corp. a foreign company?

Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ ...

How much more "American" do you want it to be?

Me? Let it be 100% american and even a bit more.

The only thing I'd wish for: keep it there (together with the ex-Ozzie Murdoch) and don't let it outside... but that's not going to happen, is it now?

Re:How?

[rolfwind]

The problem is not how these laws are being pushed.
The problem is the content of these copyright laws.

How these laws are pushed leads to their content. There is a reason Lamar is treating them like his constituents.

Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.

Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution process. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.

The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.

The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.

Re:How?

[brunes69]

[QUOTE]The length of the copyright term isn't even the primary battleground - except for Disney, what company is still profiting from exclusive use of stuff created more than ninety years ago? The bulk of profit is made from content that was created in the last 10-20 years[/QUOTE]
Marvel and DC would tend to disagree... although marvel is Disney now I guess.

Re:How?

[Opportunist]

Hey, it's good for the economy if foreigners bribe you! Money coming in from abroad is good, isn't it?

Re:How?

[Opportunist]

In other words, changing the sock puppet doesn't improve the quality of the show.

Re:How?

[Opportunist]

If you think a politician is bad, consider just how much worse the other guy must've been to let that guy win...

Re:How?

[Opportunist]

How difficult do you think it is to create a letterbox company in every state of the US if you're an international corporation?

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue is addressed in Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister except with the roles played by british parliament and the civil service in place of american politicians and lobbyists.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

And DC is WB.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The playbook since USA join the Bern convention on copyright seems to be to get some other nation to ratchet up their copyright term, send some lobbyists to Washington to say "see, now all the jobs will go over there", Washington ratchet up to match or exceed, and the cycle continues. Never mind that the lobbyists on both sides are payed by the international corporations that wrap themselves in flags of convenience.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

In actuality, there were a few politicians who had been around for a long time in California, and some of the other politicians wanted to get rid of them, so they suggested term limits. It didn't really work, the career politicians just moved to different offices after their term was up (one of them is currently our governor).

I think people should focus less on how long a person has been a politician, and instead focus on how well they are doing running their part of the government. There is always a way to limit the term, by voting them out.

Re:How?

[core_dump_0]

How is News Corp. a foreign company?

Incorporated in Delaware; headquartered in NYC; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ; the chairman/CEO (Murdoch), president/COO (Carey), CFO (DeVoe), and about 1/2 the rest of the board are US citizens; its primary listing is on the NASDAQ ...

How much more "American" do you want it to be?

The only thing I'd wish for: keep it there (together with the ex-Ozzie Murdoch) and don't let it outside... but that's not going to happen, is it now?

Sorry, thought News Corp. was an Australian company.

After looking things up:

MPAA: Disney, Viacom, Sony*, News Corp, Vivendi**, Warner (4/6 American companies)
RIAA: Vivendi**, Sony*, EMI**, Warner (1/4 American companies)

*Japan
**Europe

Re:How?

[sjames]

Simple, we have to thin the herd.

Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting wobbiests!

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Simple, we have to thin the herd.

Should we start with you? I'm sure there's some label worthy of attachment that would justify your "thinning" -- terrorist sounds about right.

Re:How?

[sjames]

Why, this IS wobbiest season!

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Why not? If you want to indiscriminately murder people for lobbying the government (though presumably not when they're lobbying for your issue or job), I think you've made yourself fair game.

That's the problem with would-be tyrants like you. You only think about your own issues and don't consider the greater picture of living in a world where anybody who's got a chip on their soldier starts murdering people to get their way.

Re:How?

[sjames]

Wow, someone has a terrible case of stick-in-butt disease, don't they?

Re:How?

[Raenex]

So that's all you got? Ad hominem? No response to the kind of world we live in when murder is the answer to political disagreements? OK to kill abortion doctors? OK to kill over healthcare laws? OK to kill you for advocating killing? Or is it only your pet issue?

Or do you want to now claim that you were only joking? Ha ha, we need to "thin the herd"?

Re:How?

[sjames]

Considering the rather obvious joking references to Elmer Fudd (did he ever manage to actually kill anything?) and his perpetual confusion as to what season it was, no I don't really need anything more than to note that you seem to have a rather large stick wedged up your ass. :-)

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Considering all the similar rabble-rousing that people on Slashdot have been doing, lots of it not even attempted at being veiled, trying to claim it is just a joke is transparently false.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

wow, you need to relax. Considering all the joking people do on Slashdot, you need to learn to laugh. It's fun.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

There's nothing funny about advocating murder under the guise of humor when lots of people have been doing the same thing without the guise, right here in this very forum, and in fact in the comments on this very story.

Enough is enough. We've got idiots advocating this crap all around the spectrum of political issues, regardless of the label or which side of the argument you're on.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

It's vewy funny. Have you ever made a joke in your life? I'm curious.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

You wouldn't think it was funny if somebody was making a joke about murdering you and there were already non-joke threats to do so, now would you? Or if it was joking about hunting Democrat politicians, or activist judges, or abortion doctors. This continued insistence that it was merely a joke is shameful.

And if you really want to keep playing this "no sense of humor" card, one of my Slashdot Achievements is "Comedian". I enjoy a good joke now and then, not this pro-violence masquerading as humor bullshit.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

I enjoy a good joke now and then,

Apparently this week is neither now nor then, eh? Mark my words, when the revolution comes, the first against the wall will be humorless slashdotters.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

You haven't addressed the issues and have only hidden behind the skirt of humor. In particular, you've ignored the environment in which the comment was made, and you've ignored other examples where you wouldn't so quickly just let a comment go as simple humor.

You want some humor? Here's some by a professional:

"Today is Martin Luther King's birthday. You know, I've always felt strongly that the nation should commemorate this day as a national holiday. People should not have to work on this day, the children should all have a day off from school. In fact, I felt so strongly that I even went before Congress to lobby for making this day a national holiday. IN FACT, KILL FOUR MORE AND we can take the whole week off."

It's funny, right? No problem making that joke in a public forum, right? Or maybe some good jokes about killing abortion doctors, activist judges, or the politicians responsible for the healthcare mandate when those stories come up?

Can you address these issues instead of hiding behind a skirt?

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

The issue is, you think it's not funny, everyone else thinks it's hilarious. We also understand he wasn't actually advocating killing people, because of the way he said it. You can't tell that, and your insistence on taking things seriously is entertaining me.

I'll bet you also have problems when someone jokes about suicide.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

The issue is, you think it's not funny, everyone else thinks it's hilarious.

Who is this "everyone else" besides you and the original poster? If it was even remotely funny then at least it would have something going for it.

I'll bet you also have problems when someone jokes about suicide.

Yeah, I'm sure it would be hilarious to make a joke about suicide when somebody killed themselves because they were secretly videotaped by their roommate in a gay encounter, and to post these jokes on comments in the story.

I've given numerous examples that you have chosen not to address, despite multiple chances to do so, and that's because you're a shameful coward defending the advocation of political violence in the guise of unfunny humor.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

Do you understand that in some cases it is ok, and hilarious, to joke about death, and in other cases, it is not?

You seem to have trouble understanding subtle differences like that. Maybe you have Aspbergers.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Do you understand that in some cases it is ok, and hilarious, to joke about death, and in other cases, it is not?

Yes, of course, and I've already explained why in this context it is not OK: Other comments were violent without the humor, threats of violence in response to political disagreements is common and wrong, and these kinds of comments have become more prevalent.

However, so far you've been avoiding an explanation of what makes this case OK and my other examples not. Let's just pick one and hear your explanation. After the healthcare mandate passed the Supreme Court, I was reading the comments on a conservative blog and they were very negative and sometimes ugly, much like the comments on this story. So if one of them had said:

"Simple, we have to thin the herd.

Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting actibist judges!"

Is that OK with you? If so, why, and if not, why not, and please drop the "because it's funny", as I've already explained that's not good enough given the context. If you can't supply an explanation, then you're just defending a violent comment because it was made in favor of your side of an issue.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

Philosophers from Kant onward have tried to explain why things are funny. Do I think I can do better than them? Nay, I do not. So I will not try. But part of it is likely this: SJames saying what he did is not anywhere near likely to induce violence.

There is nothing left for me to do but be amused by your inability to see what is funny and what is not.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

You have yet again dodged a direct question. I gave a specific example, one quite similar to the lobbyist example, and asked for your opinion on it. It's obvious you are afraid to give a direct answer because it either highlights your hypocrisy or puts you in support of the rabid fringe on the conservative side.

You have also neglected, yet again, the point about similar threats being made right on this very story without the humor. You've also ignored the other points which I'm not going to repeat again, but they all show that your claim of mere humor and not an incitement to violence don't stand up.

And finally, while I found his "joke" pretty pathetic, even if it was funny doesn't mean it is just a joke. I've already given a real-world example of that with the Martin Luther King Day joke.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

It's not funny if someone says, seriously, "I'm going to go thin the heard."

And I find you pathetic. But you entertain me.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Once again you have ignored all the points raised and come back with a shallow response.

I asked you, precisely, if somebody had made the exact same "joke" in the healthcare context what you would think. You changed the quote to a strawman version that you could knock down.

You're a shameful coward that can't face the argument head on.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

ok, I'm bored. Context matters, so your question is pointless.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Context does matter, and that's been my whole point all along. What you've been trying to do is strip that context (it's just humor) or use a completely different context (jokes about suicide).

However, when I bring up a context that is almost exactly the same, but for a different issue (health care mandate versus copyright), you've ducked the question every single time. It's because you have no answer for it, so you squirm around like a worm.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

No, I don't answer it because you are stupid, and it's more fun to make fun of you. Really.

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

Also, get a sense of humor.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

And you're a big poopy-head.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, you did attempt to answer with strawmen. It's so obvious you don't answer because you can't. I'm done here.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this does what regarding my comment?

Re:How?

[phantomfive]

Too bad. You've been entertaining. Thanks.

Re:How?

[robsku]

It was funny though, but now you're just making yourself way more funnier =D Have a bagle, relax =)

Re:How?

[Raenex]

Oh joy, a late entry repeating the same excuse and not addressing any of the arguments made, including the one that even if it was funny, that's not an excuse given the context.

Maybe instead of making light of advocation of murder for political reasons, you should explain your position on the examples I gave of similar humor that you probably wouldn't be so quick to defend.

Re:How?

[robsku]

I'm not making excuses, that was my first comment on this thread - and I wanted to just say that all this is funny =)

I listen punk rock bands who constantly sing about killing certain politicians, like Finnish band "Shitter Limited" - they are funny too.

Re:How?

[Raenex]

I'm not making excuses, that was my first comment on this thread - and I wanted to just say that all this is funny =)

So in the very post you replied to, I put a question for a similar situation. Since you decided to enter the thread, how about you answer it, as the previous poster was afraid to.

Sovereignty

[girlintraining]

Can't wait until China starts sending diplomats into our country to enforce their intellectual property laws. I'm sure our esteemed legislator from Texas will be overjoyed to cooperate with Chinese business interests acting within his state.

Re:Sovereignty

[c0lo]

Can't wait until China starts sending diplomats into our country to enforce their intellectual property laws. I'm sure our esteemed legislator from Texas will be overjoyed to cooperate with Chinese business interests acting within his state.

This may well be: I reckon is only a matter of how much they'd contribute to their electoral funding.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until the Laden family comes to the US to protect "their" gas stations. ^^

Re:Sovereignty

[girlintraining]

This may well be: I reckon is only a matter of how much they'd contribute to their electoral funding.

My point is that we act like we own the world. America, fuck yeah! But the truth is, other people own us. They've got us by the balls, and anytime they want, they just have to squeeze and it's the end of the line for us. We can't manufacture most of the goods and services we depend on. The only thing we have in abundance is fresh water, farmable land, and a lot of nuclear missiles. Everything else is decaying. It's been outsourced. There's a few hundred thousand in this country that are rich, and the rest of us are, or soon will be, dirt poor. We're dependant on the 3rd world to provide everything, they're starting to realize they have everything. It's just a matter of time until they can (and will) take the lead and do away with our exploitations.

Intellectual property is the (failed) attempt to delay this fate of ours... but they saw through it. They're ignoring it. And although we can destroy the world a hundred times over with our military... they are still saying no. And rather than using this antebellum moment to prepare, to maybe even reverse our fate... we're letting those select few rich people ride headlong into our own destruction. And we put them on the cover of Fortune magazine and call them heroes even as they destroy it all.

Years from now, America will be nothing but a lighthouse, telling other countries where not to sail if they want to avoid a ruinous fate.

Re:Sovereignty

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure what numbers you are basing your ideas on, but US manufacturing output has been increasing for a long time. You might want to look it up. We don't do the cheap, labor intensive stuff, but we do a lot of manufacturing.

Re:Sovereignty

[Captain Hook]

We don't do the cheap, labor intensive stuff, but we do a lot of manufacturing.

A brilliant strategy which has no obvious downsides.... except for reduced levels of employment which you are going to need to support through a benefits system or risk increasing social instability and crime.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

Megaupload case is still going strong, and in a textbook operation, local (NZ) laws have been broken, some might say fatally with prejudice. Rules of evidence, and the chain of evidence cannot be mishandled. Looks like the FBI or whoever, botched this one with honors. In an age of 'deregulation' WTF is the law intent on getting commercial unqualified people involved ; and making a civil procedures criminal - even the French know this is just wrong.

Lets run these 'I' acts through a plagiarism engine, and if the score comes out as 'cheat', tell our overworked pollies, it is (another) defeated act being recycled , and they need to slam it in the bin fast. You would be a fool to associate with cheaters.

Re:Sovereignty

[DerekLyons]

But the truth is, other people own us. They've got us by the balls, and anytime they want, they just have to squeeze and it's the end of the line for us.

Who would that be, and how are they going to do it without destroying their own economy?
 

We can't manufacture most of the goods and services we depend on.

Well, setting aside the fact that you can't manufacture services (one of the many logical errors you make), you confuse "don't" with "can't".
 

The only thing we have in abundance is fresh water, farmable land, and a lot of nuclear missiles. Everything else is decaying. It's been outsourced.

Yeah, everything's been outsourced... Oh, wait... Our manufacturing sector, taken by itself, is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world.
 
Etc... etc...
 
You're a clueless git parroting crap you've read elsewhere without the slightest understanding what you're talking about.

Re:Sovereignty

[ShakaUVM]

Sorry to burst your ideology, but pretty much all your facts are wrong.

>>There's a few hundred thousand in this country that are rich, and the rest of us are, or soon will be, dirt poor.

The US has the most millionaires of any country in the world, with 3M (about 1 out of 100 Americans is a millionaire!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire#Number_of_millionaires_by_country

The real median household income rose steadily from 1947 to the present day (not counting the current recession): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

This includes all levels of income earners in America.

>>We can't manufacture most of the goods and services we depend on.

Manufacturing is doing fine: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/us-industrial-production-resumes-growth.html

>>It's just a matter of time until they can (and will) take the lead and do away with our exploitations.

If China stops exporting to us, there will be a disruption of our market as we shift production around. But China's economy would be destroyed.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

There are "numbers" out there to support your assertion but they are completely ridiculous. The increased processing of foods is a significant factor in rhe current numbers for manufacturing output. Yes, a bag of chips is manufacturing. Please keep in mind that we live in a country where pay to support families of military members is considered entitlement. Where medical sevice for military members is considered entitlement. Where financial firms claimed billions in the bank but aren't exposed until the CEO tries to suicide because there is less than one percent of those billions in the bank. Where the leader of the Nasdaq then forms a company that goes on for years as a real ponzi scheme. Where an energy company shuffles money between subsidiaries to manufacture fake profits and isn't caught until they basically don't have enough funds to perform the shuffling.

Just in case you haven't noticed, the US is led by lying criminal scum. Don't believe their numbers. The notion that numbers put out by the current US establishment have any credibility is completely unsupported. The opposite is overwhelmingly supported.

It is impossible to tell a bunch of people that they are working in manufacturing when they know they are not. Lying with numbers can still ride on the past times of competence and honesty and fool some people. Consider the rash of fraudulent representations in the US.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing we have in abundance is fresh water, farmable land, and a lot of nuclear missiles.

And the dollar printing press, which enable Americans to buy oil and Chinese imports in exchange of intrisically worthless green paper.

Re:Sovereignty

[Sique]

The bin Ladin family does not operate gas stations, they operate a construction and holding conglomerate.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing we have in abundance is fresh water, farmable land, and a lot of nuclear missiles.

Sounds good to me. Very soon most countries won't have the first two and only a few countries have the third.
Seriously, the whole "US is doomed" thing is just a tired, old diatribe. Quit enjoying being a loser.

Re:Sovereignty

[Opportunist]

Depends. How much does the Chink pay in campaign contribution?

Re:Sovereignty

[Opportunist]

Numbers may be misleading, just like that infamous "average national income". You know anyone who makes that magical number of dinero? No? But you know a lot of people who make less, right? Simple reason: If 10 people each earn 1000 a month and one earns 100.000, the average is still 10.000. Now, isn't an average income of 10.000 just great? How can this country have poverty if its people earn that load of money? Hell, I could easily support a family of 5 on 10 grand a month, couldn't you? Where is the problem?

How good a country is actually doing depends less on its imports and exports, as odd as it may sound and contrary to what a lot of business people seem to believe. The US economy was strongest during the latter half of the 20th century, and it wasn't for its exporting power. It was simply because of an incredibly strong domestic economy, which in turn was due to the ability of the majority of Americans to go out and spend. Currently my country is doing pretty well despite the global economic downturn, and again this is due to the high ability for domestic spending. We can spend money on services which in turn creates jobs and drives the economy forwards.

It seems we learned from the errors of the past. Between the world wars my country tried to create a "strong" currency by cutting back all government spending to the bone and it led to an economy crisis that was even worse than in the rest of the world. We've done well so far with anticyclic spending, and I can only hope our politicians continue with it.

Re:Sovereignty

[Opportunist]

I think the "can't" in his sentence is a matter of economic ability, not so much one of technical. It is an economic impossibility to manufacture a good sensibly domestic if it is cheaper to get from abroad. You will not sell it. Worse, nobody will be able to buy it.

I can only offer you an example from my country, not knowing how it worked in the US, but here, in the 70s, a TV could easily cost you the equivalent of 2 months income. And we're not talking about some kind of fancy 100" bleeding-edge technology thingamajig. But there was no China to assemble it, and domestic workers cost more. Can you imagine someone paying 4000 for an average standard TV today? Or 12,000 for a computer?

The problem the US is facing is that more and more of those manufacturing jobs are moving away. Due to economic reasons, of course, the US workforce could easily build iPods and cellphones, but they cannot be made competitively. How long until the same is true for every "high tech" manufacturing today done in the US?

Re:Sovereignty

[Opportunist]

So ... Ozzi just tried to get into the family business by starting a demolition enterprise and we just got it all wrong?

Ya know, cultural differences and such...

Re:Sovereignty

[jedidiah]

People tend to forget that we are an agricultural superpower. It must be all that cheap dirt everyone likes to eat. The fact that we are an agricultural superpower is not a bad thing. You've got to be able to feed yourself first. Everything on Maslow's heirarchy of needs has to take a back seat if you can't even feed yourself.

It's also not true that we don't have our own resources to handle the rest. Quite often it's just cheaper or simpler to let somene else run the sweat shop factories or scar the earth.

Re:Sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is that we act like we own the world. .

Actually, after W. Wilson's New World Order and the creation of the LoN and later the UN, IMF, WB etc., when nearly everyone was in debt to the USA after WWI and WWII, the USA basically wrote "we can do no wrong" into the new governing international laws; the USA has a lot of in-built control that the governing body thinks it is entitled to, when in reality power was just a fluke of the time after the War. Chomsky gave a very interesting talk about it a couple of years ago.

So, the USA acts like it owns the world because in some respects it does, politically. Not that I mean to say I necessarily agree with this, but it is the case.

Re:Sovereignty

[phantomfive]

It's ok we can throw them in jail

Re:Sovereignty

[phantomfive]

How good a country is actually doing depends less on its imports and exports, as odd as it may sound and contrary to what a lot of business people seem to believe.

Yeap, they're both around 10-15% of income and expenditures, an important, but still small portion of the overall economy.

Re:Sovereignty

[DerekLyons]

How long until the same is true for every "high tech" manufacturing today done in the US?

A very long time, if ever. Not everything "high tech" is a mass market consumer good. And that's what folks keep missing - we've outsourced the hell out of mass market consumer goods, but there's still a great deal of manufacturing in the US. Not to mention that a "high tech" assembly line is still an assembly line. There's nothing magical about it, and the folks working on it aren't rocket surgeons. Stop making a fetish of it.
 
As far as "can't" or "don't", should that unnamed country for some inexplicable reason decide to commit economic suicide by ceasing to sell to us... Then we will start producing them domestically again, and people will re-evaluate their priorities. We act as though cheap shiny things are somehow vital to life and something deserved by right - but nothing could be further from the truth.

Economic interests of the United States

[Compaqt]

Haha. Whoever said that the economic interests of the copyright cartel were the same as that of either:

1) the US government (I'm not talking about the Obama or Bush campaigns when they inhabit the White House). The copyright cartel is pushing the US into forcing other governments to do stuff they don't want to do, leading to blowback, leading to anti-Americanism. Hollywood films already routinely make more abroad than domestically, and it'll only increase as the world gets richer. What's the problem?

2) the United States (i.e., the States, united). State and local governments are the ones who have the most to gain from a freer copyright regime. They're usually strapped for money.

3) people (RIAA lawyers are not counted among these). IP is strangulating innovation and increasing prices. What's the upside? Avatar wouldn't have been made if copyright expired before James Cameron's death?
 

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the upside? Avatar wouldn't have been made if copyright expired before James Cameron's death?

Pardon me, but... just as a personal opinion, I would have preferred Avatar was never made - it's a waste of money and human effort: storyline-wise, even Matrix 3 is better (and I never understood/remember what Matrix 3 is about).

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

even Matrix 3 is better

You lost all credibility right there.

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[c0lo]

even Matrix 3 is better

You lost all credibility right there.

My right to opinion.

The elaborate my POV: both of them have childish story lines, to the point in which I can remember none of them after a while (other than: some oppressed population decides to fight back with the help of the powers of some "comics-like heroes"). But... Matrix 3 was pure 2D... less headaches for me after I wasted the time watching it, thus a slightly more enjoyable experience.

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[Anonymous Coward]

even Matrix 3 is better

You lost all credibility right there.

What movie is he talking about? There was only one...

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[SuricouRaven]

It was just Fern Gully.

In SPAAAACE!

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[Opportunist]

I haven't seen Avatar, but I have to watch it now. By that description, it has to be at least twice the hoot that Plan 9 was.

Re:Economic interests of the United States

[metacell]

even Matrix 3 is better

You lost all credibility right there.

Exactly. Everyone knows there was only one Matrix movie ever made.

Just. One. Movie. Made.

ugly american agents...

[harvey the nerd]

No doubt when these extortion and espionage agents start to disappear or become "accident prone," the US will declare it a casus belli for more foreign adventures. Foreign nationalism and impatience should not be underestimated with this type of invasion.

Re:ugly american agents...

[c0lo]

No doubt when these extortion and espionage agents start to disappear or become "accident prone," the US will declare it a casus belli for more foreign adventures. Foreign nationalism and impatience should not be underestimated with this type of invasion.

Sustaining a war in two third-world countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) for 10+ years and running out of money... and you still think "invasion" is a viable solution for US? I mean... the so-called IP is almost the last merchandise US may have chances to export to cover the deficit... and this not for very long.

Re:ugly american agents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know the story of the “cold” war...

Just that this time, US would be the global menace...

Re:ugly american agents...

[Opportunist]

Erh... rethink that.

Trying to enforce copyright in countries you could have a "war" with (with "war", n: Where we dump a ton of weapons without having to fear too much of a problem because the enemy has some bb guns at best) is pointless, because countries that have no money to defend themselves are usually also countries where the population doesn't have money to buy content.

And waging war against China, Russia or the EU... uh... you might want to reconsider that. Not so much that you might lose it, but it could be a tad bit unpopular at home. For many reasons. Hint: They have weapons that can hit the US mainland, and they needn't hijack planes to get them there.

Follow The Money

[OrtCloud]

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&type=I&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

Idiots won't give up

[Arancaytar]

ACTA->CETA->
SOPA->IPAA->
They'll keep renaming it until people stop paying attention long enough for it to pass. They've still got almost 17576 four-letter acronyms ending on -A that they haven't used yet.

(All this keeping in mind that they already pushed the DMCA through.)

Lamar...

[X0563511]

Lamar smith needs a very hard kick in the pants just prior to being thrown out of government onto his ass in the street.

How long are we going to put up with his shit?

Re:Lamar...

[c0lo]

Lamar smith needs a very hard kick in the pants just prior to being thrown out of government onto his ass in the street.

How long are we going to put up with his shit?

Wanna bet? I say: longer than Lamar is goin' to get his pants kicked... what do you think?

Re:Lamar...

[Exrio]

How long are we going to put up with his shit?

Forever. You kick out lamer smith, they kick in a replacement that shits just like him.

Re:Lamar...

[Freddybear]

It won't matter. Kick Lamar out of Congress this year and he'll be back next year as a lobbyist for the MAFIAA. Just like Chris Dodd and countless other members of the Revolving Door Club.

Re:Lamar...

[Opportunist]

Ask the Texans.

Then again, I don't know who he ran against. Maybe the other one was even worse?

Re:Lamar...

[jedidiah]

The other man was probably a Democrat.

So the Republican gets to be the biggest dirtbag he can just because he knows the demographics of his district allows for it.

Re:Lamar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is also a primary...

Re:Lamar...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean before he gets that nice job with the RIAA or MIAA or whatever...

CHINA FAKES!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So we would be going to war with china? Cause ya know, honey badger doesnt give shit about no stinkin copyright diplomats.

Rethink Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is to rethink the whole idea of Congress. We have now reached the point where direct, non-representative, democracy is possible. Why not vote directly on the issues, instead of voting for representatives who may or may not represent our interests?

Re:Rethink Congress

[Opportunist]

Are you nuts? How the heck am I supposed to bribe 200 million people?

Re:Rethink Congress

[TemporalBeing]

What we need is to rethink the whole idea of Congress. We have now reached the point where direct, non-representative, democracy is possible. Why not vote directly on the issues, instead of voting for representatives who may or may not represent our interests?

And you really think that would solve the issue? Too many people will just do whatever they're told. For example, look at how many people still buy Window.

Its funny.

[WindBourne]

Back when the first bill was killed, I was certain that it was over. And yet, the neo-cons try over and over and over to get their agenda through. My guess is that their under-the-table money depends on getting these bills through.

Sad. They put more effort into styming our nation, then they do into solving unemployment, high deficits, and our on-going illegal issue (though they will no doubt introduce HR-2885 in the next couple of months; an e-verify bill that is so bad (basically, little penalties on the businesses) that the dems will not pass it).

Re:Its funny.

[WindBourne]

The first bill WAS bi-partisan. ANd like I said, I thought it was dead. Said so at the time.
HOWEVER, it is the neo-cons that continue to bring it up in different fashions. And it is fuck heads ACs like you that are worthless and serve to retard all down to your level

Re:Its funny.

[tbird81]

He uses the term neo-con a lot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2957783&cid=40547637
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2957783&cid=40547125

But states he's a libertarian - so he can't be all bad. Although he does defend Obama - make of that what you will.

Re:Its funny.

[nzac]

He has only got to get one though, then he does not care if he gets kicked out.
They will give him a job for a stupidly high salary somewhere and then get someone else to get the next one though.

Is this his last chance before elections?

Re:Its funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading some of that stuff I'm not sure he really knows what a neo-con is.

Re:Its funny.

[ciggieposeur]

This isn't neocons, it's neoliberals who sometimes overlap with neocons. Neoliberals like Clinton who signed DMCA and Obama who voted yes on telecom immunity. Ironically it is the Democrats who often push for greater abuses of government power over communications media, and then the Republicans who merely consolidate that power with some new legal fiction about how it helps promote American prosperity. Rinse and repeat every decade.

Re:Its funny.

[WindBourne]

Actually, I have plenty of areas where I have ripped O at, and will continue to do so. However, that is a different issue.

I use neo-cons CORRECTLY. Basically, the followers of reagan called themselves neo-cons back in the 80's. And just like the term COOL, or SIC, it has many meanings. Now, I call those that are followers of reagan/W neo-cons because that is what they called themselves for ages. They only wanted it stopped when they realized that neo-cons had the same connotation as NAZI.
Likewise, you have dems (a party) that has various sub-groups in there. Some are Liberals (reid, polosi come to mind), while others are moderates and then you have the blue dogs ( social moderates, but strong fiscal conservatives: like John Barrow, Mike McIntyre, etc).
Now, a lot of dems point fingers at the blue dogs and blame them for not following on all of the liberal policies. So, can you paint these ppl with the same 'Liberal' moniker? Nope.

BUT, like reagan/W, neo-cons remain a group of ppl that are social conservatives, fiscal idiots, and constantly promise loads, but have ZERO intentions of delivering most of it. Worst of all, they represent big business and foreign gov. esp China (in spite of their pointing fingers at them, neo-cons are the best friends that China has EVER had), far more than they represent any American, or even the citizens that elected them.
Lamar smith is a WELL KNOWN neo-con. And his backers are big businesses. Should I paint him with a REPUBLICAN paint brush, or neo-con? The fact is, that he ran as a republican, but compared to the republicans BEFORE reagan, Lamar smith has absolutely NOTHING in common with them. Just like the tea party runs under the republican umbrella, but other than being controlled by the neo-cons (yes, the top ppl of the tea party ARE neo-cons; to them, the tea party is a lightening rod that can do their dirty work), the members have very little to do with neo-cons.

The AC is upset because he wants a single brush to paint all of them. More importantly, he knows that the neo-cons have a dirty reputation (kind of like liberal, who now call themselves progressives). But, if it WALKS like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, FLIES like a duck, SWIMS like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then his calling it a robin will not change the fact that it is STILL a duck.

Re:Its funny.

[WindBourne]

The neo-cons, including Lamar Smith, have another interesting bill that will be coming up. Oddly, I support a revised version of it. Basically, HR-2885 was put forward by Lamar smith to address the illegal alien issues. However, it has sat in committee controlled by neo-cons for almost a year. It was SUPPOSED to push e-verify on ALL businesses with stiff penalties. Now, it is only for some of the businesses (you can sub out to another business without checking that they use e-verify), and the penalties are worthless.

Had this bill been any good, it would be a COMPROMISE. It should have dealt differently with those that were brought here and raised here in our schools, etc. Likewise, it should deal differently with those that have served in the military. Finally, it needs STIFF penalities for businesses that hire illegals. But, it will not.

Yet, it will be dragged out by the neo-cons in about 2-3 months and will fail. So why do this? Purely for politics. This will be a pure rove style tactic.

Re:Its funny.

[WindBourne]

No doubt. But of course, all pols do it. I view the neo-cons as being worse, but few in CONgress are winners.

Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it on one hand the US Government is going through all this trouble to protect IP and such while on the other hand on every military installation in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq), local vendors (with permission from the garrison) are allowed to sell hundreds of bootlegged movies and TV shows to Soldiers and contractors for a fraction of the cost. All the while operating PX's that sell 'legitimate' copies of the same movies.

Re:Hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The same reason that you can buy Cuban cigars on some of the bases (at least on Tallil you could), when you're in a war zone, stupid bullshit like "protecting IP" isn't important.

If only ...

[cdrnet]

If only these guys would apply their fancy IP laws to their IP laws, preventing them from spreading uncontrollably ....

Re:If only ...

[Opportunist]

If only it was uncontrolled, or at least unintentional. One could hope that there would be an end at some point.

In my pocket.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone believe this guy is NOT in someones pocket?

Re:In my pocket.

[Opportunist]

Why stuff your puppet in your pocket?

Sounds kinky, but then ... have you taken a look at the guy?

What's good for Disney is good for...

[Dave Emami]

That bit about "consistent with the economic interests of the United States, both domestically and abroad" sounds remarkably like "what's good for GM is good for America" -- except that, to my knowledge, Ford never tried to block sales of the Camaro by citing infringements of Mustang-related patents. Besides, I must have missed the part where biasing the US legal system in favor of the RIAA and MPAA, and constricting our network infrastructure to conform to those organizations' business models, is even slightly in America's overall economic interest.

FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Anonymous Coward]

no really and i think its time to start guerilla war around the world and join your enemies and become a terrorist
maybe when more and more nations peoples start murdering your kind and we thin you form the genetic pool we can have peace as you realize this crap is not the way to go

im gonna blow up some Americans what ya gonna do one me 50 you
that's what we all need to do go kill more then one

to hell with being nice
im beginning to think arabs got it right blowing up the trade center

Re:FUCK YOU AMERICA

[Opportunist]

The US are already seen as some kind of "international schoolyard bully". He goes around and he wants your lunch money, and if you don't give it to him on his terms, he comes and beats you up. There are of course some kids that suck up to him to, partly to be safe from his fists, partly because they hope that he'll drop some crumbs for them. And of course there are those that dare to stand up against him and get beaten to a pulp, either directly or, if the bully can somehow manage to have a teacher, in the form of the UN, see how someone dares to strike back, even with the blessing of the teacher, to show that no good punk kid that there are some rules.

The problem with such bullying is that there is always the chance that some other kid comes along who is in some way tougher, who can actually stand up to the bully and beat HIM down into a pulp. Then the bully usually get to notice how his "friends" suddenly turn around and don't know him anymore, worse, they may even help that other guy, either to just get that bully out of their way or because they think they'll be better off with him. Bullies don't have friends. They have sycophants. And they'll suck up to whoever is the biggest.

I'd be wary to cheer for the new guy that beats the bully up, though. Rarely, he's any better.

Also, murdering US people is not going to help here. These poor people don't have a choice, you know? Their political system is rigged so only people who accept the absolute corporate rule have a chance to be elected. It's a bit like in the Muslim countries where people who want to be elected have to accept that laws have to be in sync with Muslim laws, but it's more insidious. It's not stated outright, but it's implied. You don't support corporate rule, you don't get campaign money. Without campaign money, no chance for you to be elected.

If anything, you should attack the system, but attacking the people who can't do much to change it isn't going to help. Quite the opposite, they might see you as their enemy and put their support behind their crooked system.

when do we start talking about

[circletimessquare]

intellectual property free products?

like hormone free milk or pesticide free fruit?

Re:when do we start talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

or GM free food?

So FIX IT.

[roman_mir]

So how about fixing this problem?

First goods step would be to get either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson elected for POTUS.

Second good step would be to vote out EVERY incumbent that's been in Congress fore more than 2 terms, regardless of who they are.

Third good step would be to stop paying all of your income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and face the government and its illegal ways, its power, its size, its spending.

It is the government that has destroyed the America, not people, not businesses.

really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger government in this day and age? wtf... Who is going to fund this? Where is the money coming from? Are we going to borrow from the Chinese to enable this?

Vote Him Out

[misfit815]

Lamar Smith's Democratic opponent in the 21st Congressional District of Texas is Candace Duval (http://www.candaceduval.com/). I'm sure donations are welcome.

Re:Vote Him Out

[TonyJr4]

She also has this tidbit on her website.

"Candace also believes that it is vital to defend the privacy and civil liberties of individuals online. She strongly opposes legislation authored and supported by Rep. Lamar Smith such as SOPA, CISPA, and HB 1981 which seek to infringe on the civil liberties of law abiding Americans."

To bad she has no chance of unseating a Republican in Texas.

blast from the past

[node636]

Can anyone else recall similar practices, albeit in different venues? The U.S. (and everyone else) wants to do for intellectual property what Britain did for Earth during the 16th - 19th centuries, control it. (Britain ruled roughly 1/5 of the Earth's population) The recent moves by US, UN, Britain, and (speculation) China are power grabs for the newest financial tool, intellectual property. The best part is IP, as a concept, is not a tool of financial gain, it is a tool of creation and a safe guard of innovation. Meanwhile, the common man is kept in the dark intellectually and financially. Ironically and paradoxically, the largest potential capital of a nation is simultaneously the biggest threat to the established regime. The people of every nation have the ability to act collectively and pursue any goal. The government has the task of incentivising cooperation while minimizing criticism and collaboration. These become increasingly difficult the further divergent a government is from the governed. TLDR: Business as usual, governments making power grabs.

when is this guy running for office again?

[davydagger]

and who is he running against. can we croud source an operation to un-elect this goofball?

How To Explain This Bill To Your Right-Wing Inlaws

[Steve B]

"Didya hear about Lamar Smith's bill to create another Obama-appointed czar?"

Let's Make Internet Censorship a Third Rail

[obscuro]

One way of dealing with this would be to destroy the careers of people who advocate Internet censorship. We can elevate this to the level of social security by doing one simple thing.

Make sure than advocating Internet censorship results in losing the next election.

Here's Lamar's district: Texas District 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas's_21st_congressional_district

We don't even need a PAC. The people reading this have the skills the PACs usually buy at a high price. We can do SEO, SEM, YouTube content, autodialers, blog posts, comment spam, push email, analytics, list management.... Let's just swarm Texas District 12 with an open source PACish approach where we bring this guy down. The next shill that pops up, we do it again; and repeat until the shills get the picture. It needs to be more expensive to buy a politician than to play fair.

S.I.P.S. ?

[doccus]

Is the new "Secret Internet Piracy Service"? The old Secret Service might have a word or two about that one...

One more thing for y'all down south of the border.

[doccus]

Y'all down in the States can STILL do a write-in for Ron Paul in your election.,. you DO know that, right?

agricultural superpower?

[Anonymous Coward]

US agriculture is subsidized. Agriculture is not a free market. Subsidies are a drain on the economy and reduce economic growth in the long run.