Slashdot Mirror


Japan: Police Arrest Journalists For Selling DVD-Backup Tools

Modellismo writes "Last week four journalists from Sansai Books were arrested for selling, through the company website, a copy of a magazine published last year (with a free cover mounted disc) focused on how to backup/rip DVDs. They violated Japan's Unfair Competition Prevention Law that recently has been revised to make illegal the sale of any DRM circumvention device or software. It's interesting to note that Japanese cyber police could arrest the Amazon Japan CEO, too, as the online giant is selling a lot of magazines, books and software packages for DVD copy and ripping: exactly what put Sansai Books' staff in trouble."

252 comments

  1. libdvdcss ilegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    wonder how many enbedded devices produced in japan have this little piece of code in them...

    1. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's interesting to note that Japanese cyber police could arrest the Amazon Japan CEO, too

      Eh... if they can slap steel handcuffs on you and drag you to a brick-and-mortar jail, they aren't cyber police. They're real meatspace police.

    2. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. They could have all sorts of neural implants and such. Robocop was a cyber-cop, for example.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Tukz · · Score: 1

      Robocop was a cyborg.
      Cyber != Cyborg

      "Cyber" prefix is related to internet related concepts.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    4. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by totalg33k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that cyborg is short for "cybernetic organism". So yes, Robo-cop was very much a cyber cop.

    5. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Tukz · · Score: 1

      No, he wasn't.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes

      "Cyber" doesn't mean what you think it does.
      Cybernetic is something completely different.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    6. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by tragedy · · Score: 4, Informative

      And if you click on the word "cyber" at the top of the article you linked, it takes you to wiktionary where it says:

      Etymology

      From cybernetic.

      Cybernetic comes from Greek meaning "steer" or rudder. It basically means the study of feedback control loops.

    7. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by donaldm · · Score: 1
      This is why when you download a major distribution of Linux you will not find "libdvdcss" installed since the distributors of the distribution particularly any company such as Redhat or Novel which are based in the USA would be sued by the appropriate agencies.

      What surprised me from the article was the following:

      Among other things this law makes illegal all the Linux distributions which come pre-installed with libdvdcss like BackTrack, CrunchBang Linux, LinuxMCE, Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Puppy Linux 4.2.1, Recovery Is Possible, Slax, Super OS, Pardus, and XBMC Live.

      The above distributions appear that they like to live dangerously by pre-installing "libdvdcss" when a little bit of web searching will tell the installer of the particular distribution how to install the appropriate DRM defeating libraries and software ether by "apt-get" or "yum". Of course if you are a MS Windows user you can also install the appropriate libraries and capture/ripping software from an appropriate web site.

      You do realize that I can't tell you what to put in your web search string to find the appropriate read-me/how-to information pertaining to the above since that could be considered aiding people to pirate DVD's or other audio/video media. :)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    8. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Tukz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, and has nothing to do with the current meaning of "cyber".
      The cyber prefix was taken from Cybernetic, but that doesn't mean they mean the same thing.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    9. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Cyber" is a short form for "cybernetics", a former science that has been surpassed/replaced by control theory and dynamics system theory.

      Just because a few thousands clueless politicians use the term the wrong way doesn't mean that they successfully have redefined its meaning.

    10. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The above distributions appear that they like to live dangerously by pre-installing "libdvdcss"

      That's not a certainty. Those distros may be based in places where you can't go to jail just because you distributed a piece of software (isn't it funny that software == speech?). I could (without bringing any problem to myself*) post here instructions for installing libdvdcss on those distros that don't come with them, but that would put /. in trouble. It would be preaching to the choir anyway, so I won't.

      * That is, unless the US start requiring that people that post such things be extradicted there.

    11. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is, unless the US start requiring that people that post such things be extradicted there.

      It is not illegal in the US to post instructions for installing libdvdcss, as long as one does not include an actual hyperlink to the software. You can include the web address, but not the actual <a href=... Ridiculous? Enormously so.

    12. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by tragedy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Words and prefixes can in fact have multiple meanings. They're usually related in some way, but sometimes the meanings can be completely different. In the case of "cyber", it comes from "cybernetics" which comes from Greek. Today, the term nebulously refers to computers in general, electronics, and electronic communications. Your attempts to pigeonhole the term are quite amusing. I can only assume that you're quite young or have very limited experience.

    13. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But once it becomes part of common language frankly your arguments become grammar nazi crap. Take virus, I'm so damned tired of listening to the geeks have a royal shitfit over whether something is a virus, a rootkit, or a trojan because for all intents and purposes the common word for ALL computer bugs is virus. That is what the public has chosen, that is what works, and you can't change the language of the entire damned planet because you don't like what they use to describe computer bugs.

      Language changes, it morphs and grows and mutates constantly, and there is simply nothing you can do about it. The word car came from carriage...do they LOOK like a carriage to you? No and in fact i doubt most of the public even knows that word came from the era of the horse and buggy, nor do they care. Accept it and move on folks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just so you know, sex with a cyborg IS cybersex.

    15. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Take virus, I'm so damned tired of listening to the geeks have a royal shitfit over whether something is a virus, a rootkit, or a trojan because for all intents and purposes the common word for ALL computer bugs is virus.

      Hooray, and now we have no way to distinguish between self-propagating malware code and code that exploits a naive user. Popular usage - reducing the language to the lowest common denominator since the advent of human speech. I guess we should just change the definition of "terrorist" in the dictionary to "Muslim", and "web browser" to "internet". After all, the public has spoken.

      The word car came from carriage...do they LOOK like a carriage to you? No and in fact i doubt most of the public even knows that word came from the era of the horse and buggy, nor do they care.

      And if both cars and carriages were still relatively common, smooshing the two words together, then coming onto a vehicle site and telling all the professionals there that they shouldn't try and distinguish between cars and carriages because Gary down the road doesn't would be as stupid as your previous statement.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    16. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Lisias · · Score: 1

      That is, unless the US start requiring that people that post such things be extradicted there.

      Don't publish anything that would shame the USA government, and you will be alright.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    17. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I think you mean virii.

      *runs away*

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    18. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Are you being this obtuse on purpose? Or are you just feeling like being an asshole today? Because your argument makes no damned sense and seems more like an attempt at flamebait than a discussion.

      Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc because they have a need to know specifics and thus need more specific words. Your argument is frankly as foolish as saying "because doctors need to know which specific germ is making a patient sick then the patients should all learn latin medical terminology" because that is pretty much what you are advocating.

      Specialists have specific words because hey! What do ya know, what they do is specialized. the layperson has ZERO need for such specific terminology, all they need to know is whether its hardware or software and virus and bug take care of that quite nicely.

      If you wanna be a douchebag grammar nazi that is your choice, but there is a damned good reason why we call them grammar nazis and not grammar fairies, because frankly nobody likes them.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Take virus, I'm so damned tired of listening to the geeks have a royal shitfit over whether something is a virus, a rootkit, or a trojan because for all intents and purposes the common word for ALL computer bugs is virus.

      Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc because they have a need to know specifics and thus need more specific words.

      That may not be what you meant, but it sure as hell is what you said. Maybe you should proofread your posts before calling people obtuse asshole douchebag flamebaiting grammar nazis. Because, with that loud of perjoratives in your post, I know who's sounding like a troll, and it ain't me.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    20. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by BackwardPawn · · Score: 1

      Now I know why I get all the funny looks when I take my horseless carriage into the service station and tell them its broken down.

    21. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Want me to highlight? Okey dokey, here you go That is what the public has chosen,. Now unless you think the public is made up of computer geeks, which is who I said was bitching in the very first of the post, I think most can understand there is a difference between the public at large and a gathering of professionals. the public at large would be...oh say here, where you get everything from PC repairmen to fricking rocket scientists and everything in between, and a gathering of professionals would be something like Black hat or Securina where such grammar nazi crap would actually make sense since they would need to know specific behavior.

      Now lets quote you, shall we? Popular usage - reducing the language to the lowest common denominator since the advent of human speech. I guess we should just change the definition of "terrorist" in the dictionary to "Muslim", and "web browser" to "internet". After all, the public has spoken Now I'm sorry but if you didn't intend for that to be flamebait perhaps you might want to take a Midol because your as cranky as a woman under heavy flow bro.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      oh, no... they get you in your sleep.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    23. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      they don't even need to know the difference between hardware and software.

      All they need to know is that their toaster isn't working the way it should and there's a genius down the road who'll fix it for a blowjob.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    24. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Take virus, I'm so damned tired of listening to the geeks have a royal shitfit over whether something is a virus, a rootkit, or a trojan because for all intents and purposes the common word for ALL computer bugs is virus.

      Just because the uneducated masses ignorantly misuse technical terms doesn't mean that those who are educated should follow the ignorant. A virus, trojan, and rootkits ARE different things; the umbrella term for them is "malware".

      Would you be OK with everyone calling their monitor a "computer"? Because when you say "computer" to the uneducated, they look at the screen. Some call the computer itself (the box with memory, HD, BIOS, motherboard, etc) the "hard drive". You're ok with that?

      Educate ignorance, don't let the ignorant uneducate you.

    25. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc

      YOU did. YOU railed against those at slashdot who correct you when you call a trojan a virus. It's understandable from a layman, but you've claimed to be a professional, and believe it or not, this ain't People Magazine, it's NEWS FOR NERDS. Real computer professionals, some with PhDs in the field (not you with the MSCE who cleans out corrupted Windows machines) come here to discuss technology. If you don't know the lingo, learn it or stay away.

      Your argument is frankly as foolish as saying "because doctors need to know which specific germ is making a patient sick then the patients should all learn latin medical terminology" because that is pretty much what you are advocating.

      Your reasoning there is really bad. Everyone knows that "germ" encompasses all species of bacteria, and "bug" encompasses all species of virus and bacteria. If a layman called the influenza virus "Hepatitus" the doctor would correct him. Calling an influenza virus "hepatitis" is as incorrect as calling a trojan a virus.

      If you wanna be a douchebag grammar nazi that is your choice

      And if you want to look like an ignorant douchebag, that's YOUR choice. You're wrong here, son. Apologize to the fellow you insulted and move on.

    26. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So any woman having sex with me is a cyborg? We cyborgs are pretty common these days. I know quite a few people with implanted devices, and in fact have an implant of my own.

    27. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way off topic but isn't it funny how easy it is for one to tell who has "ADD" on these threads.

    28. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true Rep/Dem with no respect for the purpose of developing a language, then names and the definitions there-of.

      Before long the only word you will need to use if Baa Baa while you go off and chew on some grass. The attempt to correct public stupidity should always be respected. People must understand the true meanings of words and their etymology so that they can properly learn from the history in which they are doomed to repeat!

      The Devil really is in the details, and while the distinction between virus/trojan does not seem readily apparent to some people we must still resist the descent into ignorance!

    29. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Nobody said that computer PROFESSIONALS would not still have the words trojan, backdoor, rootkit, etc because they have a need to know specifics and thus need more specific words

      And yet, here you are telling a bunch of nerds, many of whom are computer PROFESSIONALS, what the prefix cyber means.

    30. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      they don't even need to know the difference between hardware and software.

      All they need to know is that their toaster isn't working the way it should and there's a genius down the road who'll fix it for a blowjob.

      Why is it I always do support in the wrong neighborhoods?

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    31. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by avatar139 · · Score: 1

      All they need to know is that their toaster isn't working the way it should and there's a genius down the road who'll fix it for a blowjob.

      Yeah, I'm kinda easy that way...

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    32. Re:libdvdcss ilegal? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      as they could just jail whoever is behind google and bing and yahoo on the same charges they have up against the former tpb funny guy i suppose. They instated real jail sentence a while ago for posession of copied stuff. It's called labelling in some circles or how to make a criminal out of someone who wouldnt hurt a fly. I guess Sony has got a lot of influence just like you get your average (dare i say 'norm'- al lobby here in europe and just like you get the same in the land of Uncle S. Thing is, here and in the states somehow stuff like ACTA gets rejected in the end whereas there the voice of the population seems to be ignored just a little more. A dam shame, i love that place (from afar) and i hope to go there as soon as i can make it happen, if only for a two week holiday. I just wouldnt like getting off the plane and having my ereader scanned for possible violation of the SONY-act ... and spend three weeks in jail (see i'm told they can just keep you three weeks without even having to file a complaint) ... imagine that. I have high hopes tho when i see the huge movement coming out against the nuclear reactors. It's a start

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Japan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only country who bows lower to corporations than the US of A.

    1. Re:Japan: by fnj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Parent would be correct, or at the very least it's a tie. Mod'ing someone down for telling the truth only shows what a sack of shit the moderator is.

    2. Re:Japan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The moderator was offended. When one is offended, that gives them justification to become angry and do what they can to control (censor) others speech and behavior.

      Of course, just ignoring the comment or behavior never crosses their mind. And they never consider that by being "offended" they are encouraging more of the same. As a matter of fact, an entire industry was formed to offend many people - example Talk Radio.

    3. Re:Japan: by jrumney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Parent would be correct, or at the very least it's a tie.

      It's not a tie. While a few very high profile sites like Pandora and NetFlix geoblock consumers from outside the US, most internet radio from the US is available worldwide. But try finding a Japanese internet radio station that plays music and is not blocked from outside Japan. Also, if you ever get the chance to watch the news on NHK Worldwide, witness how the entire sports segment of the news has the video replaced by a graphic stating "Due to rights issues, the video for this item is not available outside Japan", even though most of the sports being shown are local Japanese events that do not have rights holders outside of Japan to complain, and any other news channel is fine with showing short snippets of non-live sport, under fair use news reporting exceptions to whatever exclusive broadcast rights are in place for the sport.

    4. Re:Japan: by fnj · · Score: 1

      I'll take that under advisement, but I'll raise you one Fukushima. Now, who was NOT bowing to whom to set up that cluster fsck?

    5. Re:Japan: by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's like you believe Korea does not even exist!

      Corporations are an extension of government - it should not surprise anyone when they work together.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Japan: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you actually read one of these magazines? I have a few of them here and they are quite incredible from a westerner's point of view.

      I have a couple that are all about downloading, one focused on BitTorrent and the other on Share and Winny. They have huge lists of web sites that index warez, films, TV shows and porn, each one rated for you. They explain how to download and set up emulators, how to burn Playstation 2 games to DVD and chip your console, how to use a Nintendo DS flash card and so forth. On the first page there is a tiny warning about not breaking copyright laws, then 90 pages of how to break copyright laws.

      That is the real story here. The fact that the police picked this particular bit of software as their way of prosecuting these guys is just an aside. Personally I love those mags but I can understand why the police were under pressure to find a way of taking action.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Japan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a story from the Amiga days in UK.

      Back then you had magazines like Amiga Power, and in the back were page on page of classifieds.

      Among those were kids advertising copy services. These involved mailing them a stack of diskettes of games and programs accompanied with a list of what you wanted in return.

      One guy that told about his experience running such a service found himself so swamped with diskettes that he spent whole weekends on the task, and had to get himself one of those multi-drive addons just to keep up.

    8. Re:Japan: by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Corporations are an extension of government...

      Not on this 'Soviet' planet where it's the other way around.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Japan: by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Japan's government doesn't bow to corporations. By definition one can't bow to itself.

    10. Re:Japan: by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand. Governments (generally) will act in the interests of government. If you accept that corporations are an extension of the government, then there is no "other way around" - the government will protect corporate interests because "it" sees those interests as it's own.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Japan: by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Didn't know whether or not to mod. So replied instead. You're correct in the fact that corporations are an extension of government in general for without government, corporations could not exist and anyone who argues that government is an extension of corporations is an idiot as the damn corporations can't even come into existence w/o government regulation. If you posit that Corprations Control Government in the United States, then you'd be partially correct as the United States Government is controlled by anyone who has enough money to buy the law.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    12. Re:Japan: by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You are confusing bowing down with bending over.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:Japan: by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It is the 'corporation' (technically not a corporation until the 'government' is functional) that creates the government. Nobody else has the resources. It takes lots of money. Where's it gonna come from? Who finances the start up? And thus creates all the rules? The US was set up by aristocrats. Some more pragmatic about individual freedoms than others. But only they were able the borrow the money to pull it off. And today it is corporations that are setting up the regimes in various strategic places around the world.

      The government will protect corporate interests because "it" sees those interests as it's own.

        Yes, that's right. If it wants to stay in business the government will accede to corporate demands. The fact is that the government and corporation are a single entity. The government's military enforces the finance rules set up by the corp. In practice, that is its only function. It is an armored car company that moves their money from point A to point B. All other 'benefits' to the rest of the population are purely ancillary. The best balance is achieved through a mathematical formula called the 'riot index'. A ratio of money saved through austerity measures to the resulting property damage. It's no different than any other cost/benefit calculation.

      Remember, the government is a service. The ongoing debate seems to be who it serves. Pretty silly actually. The answer is quite obvious. Has been for thousands of years.

      To me the terms 'government' and 'corporation' are pretty useless. Two different names for the same thing. Rule by those with the resources to do so.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Japan: by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I agree with you - the corporation part of government can (and often does) control more of the economy than the elected part of government. At that point, it technically wields more power.

      Theoretically, legislatures could draft legislation that would liquify the assets of all corporations and return them to the stockholders. Realistically, that would never happen.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Japan: by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      without government, corporations could not exist

      Sorry, but that's just wrong. A rather pedantic example would be Belgium which in fact had no government for about two years. They still had (and have) a working administration, public services etc. but they were without government and legislation 2010/11. Same -in a much more drastic way- applies to Spain during the 1930s, half of Eurpe around WW2. More than a few corporations have been permanently in business since 18something, nevertheless.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    16. Re:Japan: by Modellismo · · Score: 1

      That is the real story here.

      Sorry but you are wrong. The Japanese law is different: you are free to list whatever "illegal" website you want but you can not sell any DRM circumvention device or software.

    17. Re:Japan: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is why the police went after the DRM circumvention software angle instead of the magazine content as they would have in other countries. It is similar to when they went after a guy who wrote a virus for copyright infringement in some of the graphics he used in it.

      I actually made this point in my post. PROTOP: read before hitting reply.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Japan: by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that has squat all to do with bowing to corporations that has to do with putting the back up generators below sea level leading to them failing and thus turning off the cooling system for the nuclear fuel rod leading to a meltdown during a tsunami, the hole thing was due to poor planing and not enough preparation.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    19. Re:Japan: by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is another way around because governments (or at least government officials) like the big cash prizes from corporations. They see continuing to get those to be very much in their personal best interests.

    20. Re:Japan: by McFadden · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's focus on internet radio in order to cherry pick an obscure example that satisfies your ridiculous need to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the U S of A is only "second bottom" when it comes to overzealous rights protection.

      Despite this incident involving Japanese journalists, America is way worse. No one has been prosecuted or fined in Japan for downloading illegally. Compare that to the numerous court cases and multiple-thousand dollar "fees" sent out by the RIAA during their war on the consumer. Or any number of other mainstream examples that actually affect people. It's not even illegal (at the time of writing) to download copyright infringing content - only to upload it, although unfortunately that law will be revised in a few months.

    21. Re:Japan: by jrumney · · Score: 1

      A lot of what has happened in the aftermath does have to do with bowing to corporations though, like the 7 out of 10 cleanup workers who did not question their employer's request to wear a lead lined pocket protector around their dosimeters.

    22. Re:Japan: by Modellismo · · Score: 1

      Do you know there are dozens other magazines published by other companies with content that is exaclty like the one that made the 4 journalists being arrested?

    23. Re:Japan: by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      in the UK the Government *is* a corporation!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    24. Re:Japan: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      FFS, read my post. I own some of them, so obviously I know. I imagine there will be a lack of cover discs and a chilling effect on the industry in general, which was presumably the goal all along.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Japan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't help that the characters used in Japanese are alien to 6 of 7 continents.

    26. Re:Japan: by ewok85 · · Score: 1

      Fukushima was the result of the government bowing to pressure from industry (who wanted vast amounts of cheap power) and the utilities (who lied and cut corners to maximize profit, all while demanding ludicrously low safety standards and high handouts)

    27. Re:Japan: by ewok85 · · Score: 1

      No one has been prosecuted or fined in Japan for downloading illegally.

      Wrong - a small number of individuals have been made examples. I'll find the exact names in the morning :)

  3. Insane. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just insane.

  4. Journalists? by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Two warnings were issued to Sansai Books by three industry organizations, including the Japan Video Software Association, protesting the sale of the guidebook, but the publisher continued to offer the product.

    There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

    1. Re:Journalists? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

      I disagree. Civil disobedience, historically speaking, is a very effective method to bring about political change. The founding of the U.S. itself is steeped in civil disobedience.

      The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally. Civil disobedience brings it to their doorstep and forces them to acknowledge it. It took people occupying segregated lunch counters in the South before civil rights were really addressed 50 years ago, just as it took people occupying lower Manhattan to get wealth inequality really addressed today. Whether you agree with the protesters or not is irrelevant (and I'm really not interested in a bunch of ranting responses about the Occupy movement one way or the other, honestly); it forced those issues into the limelight. Mission: Accomplished.

    2. Re:Journalists? by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Whilst this used to be the case, Occupy seems to have done very little to address the wealth inequality. Frank Dodd for example has been gutted, and completely ineffective. Why? Because it's all about the money. Civil rights 50 years ago wasn't about money, it was (and racism is still) about irrational and unfounded hate.

    3. Re:Journalists? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Right, because I forgot about how much change has happened against unjust laws by people following them and just writing letters to their congressman. I forgot all the monumental change that has happened because of that.

      Oh wait, that never happened and it will never happen. I remember back during the early days of the DMCA I wrote in a letter to my congressman urging him to oppose it. A few days later I get a letter back assuring me that he was -supporting- it.

      Civil disobedience is really the only way to protest effectively and get real change.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Journalists? by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Not only a good way, but perhaps the best. Disobeying a law often results in the government responding in clearly disproportionate and unfair ways that the public can then see (especially if you garner any press), which then draws public support to something they weren't too concerned about before or may not even have been aware of, before. It is the cornerstone of civil disobedience and civil rights movements of all kinds. Kindly obeying and quietly petitioning for change will almost never accomplish what forcing government or business into over-reacting before the eyes of the public will.

    5. Re:Journalists? by LocalH · · Score: 2

      "wealth inequality"

      So nobody should ever have more money than anyone else?

      --
      FC Closer
    6. Re:Journalists? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      There are examples of civil disobedience bringing about change. Women's suffrage and civil rights are good examples. But many, many more changes have been brought about by working within the system than by working against it.

      Compare the Tea Party movement to Occupy. I'm not saying one movement is good and the other is evil, just that they both raised awareness of their adherents' respective positions.

    7. Re:Journalists? by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the point is, those without money should still get quality education, healthcare, and a chance at advancing themselves

      but current tax laws in the USA and American social policies advanced by the right are stratifying society, permanently

      meaning, if you are poor or middle class, you get inferior education, healthcare, and no chance to advance socioeconomically

      the point of life should be to better yourself. not to slave your entire life for someone who already has a lot of money, always will have a lot of money, never suffers for their crimes in the same way as the poor, and lives in a system rigged so that they, their children, and their grandchildren, can never possibly be poor. while those are poor, their children, and their grandchildren, are in such a rigged system they can never possibly be rich

      that's wealth inequality. a class society. that's where the USA is headed with the right wing republican political agenda

      the USA should be a MERITOCRACY. this is not what we have. what we have are country club boys complaining that the poor don't understand hard work, while they get a cushy job where they hardly exert any effort, just for chumming with the dad of their friend. meanwhile, the poor and middle class bust their ass, sometimes in two jobs, and live paycheck to paycheck, where the smallest of accidents or healthcare emergencies can ruin their entire lives

      THAT'S wealth inequality, and it is not a free society

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Journalists? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.

      Not true. 2 million people protested against invading Iraq in the UK. The problem is that they are powerless. We invaded Iraq anyway. Come election time when we could have thrown the government out we also had to consider things like the economy and the fact that the other lot were tossers and would probably have done the same.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were too busy being run off by the police. Its hard to get any momentum when the police are allowed to arrest hundreds at a time for no real reason.

    10. Re:Journalists? by Cwix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, people shouldn't be allowed to have many, many orders of magnitude more then the average person.

      When the CEO makes 200 million and the employees make minimum wage, then something is wrong. When someone can watch people who live on the streets suffer from menatl and physical ailments and they feel nothing, then something is wrong. When someone makes more money the the GDP for some small countries, then something is very very wrong. Then when you grant personhood to a corp, something is so wrong its not even comical anymore.

      Just having more does not make wealth inequality except in the strictest of definitions. Its when you have more money then a very large swath of the population put together that you get wealth inequality.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    11. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

      It's not good or bad per se, but don't disobey unless you're willing to take the consequences..

    12. Re:Journalists? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      civil rights was not about money. in the US, it had a chance of winning (and over years, it did win).

      'occupy' is about money.

      in the US, this won't be resolved. it *will* need a revolution, likely a violent one, to fix this.

      I do not wish this but I see it as something that will come down the pike.

      what's clear is that what we have now is not sustainable and once the shit finally hits the fan (bad enough), pitchforks and fires will be the norm.

      again, its not what I want to see but I see no other way to gut the financially elite. and its OBVIOUS they don't plan to change their ways voluntarily. the system does not show any signs of softening up, either, on this 'money is holy' bullshit view we have in this country.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:Journalists? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      600:1 ratio?

      no, that's never healthy. and yes, I used the extreme word 'never'. its NEVER good to have that imbalance. you think otherwise?? ceo's really deserve that kind of pay-level? and the lower classes should continue to 'just pray; you'll get your heaven when its time, little man!' ??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:Journalists? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ideally, that would be the case. Practically this isn't going to work in a largely capitalist economy that uses wealth as an inventive, but we can still keep the incentive in place at a reduced level without substantial harm.

    15. Re:Journalists? by Troed · · Score: 2

      There are examples of civil disobedience bringing about change. Women's suffrage and civil rights are good examples. But many, many more changes have been brought about by working within the system than by working against it.

      Have you actually verified that? The only way to progress a society is to break existing laws. If no one ever does, the society becomes static. Behavior changes first, laws describing the changed behavior comes afterwards.

    16. Re:Journalists? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      > "wealth inequality"
      >
      > So nobody should ever have more money than anyone else?

      Not so much that it causes the French Revolution. Some things are a bad idea just as a matter of public policy. The idea that there should not be too much imbalance of wealth is an idea that the likes of Jefferson would have very much agreed with.

      It's not that he was some sort of anarchist or communist. He just acknowledged what that kind of imbalance tends to lead to.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    17. Re:Journalists? by Shark · · Score: 1

      I assure you that it was no less about the money back then too. The major difference between then and now is people's willingness to stand for what they believe and lack of fear for the consequences of doing so. Most have it way too easy nowadays to consider the kind of rebelion and associated consequences required to change things. Plus, for the most part, principles are lacking to make an eventual rebelion more than an angry mob. All that established power needs to do to quell any genuine uprising is insert a few agents provocateurs and the protesters' case falls appart.

      On Frank Dodd... Large corporations aren't afraid of regulations and rules, they write pretty much all of those. What they're afraid of is competition. Thankfully for them, the regulatory costs in industries that matter is way to high to let any of that happen.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    18. Re:Journalists? by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      As long as it's financially beneficial for them to ignore you and pander to corporations, they will continue to do so.

      The money needs to be taken out of politics. "Politician" should be a temporary job, not a career.

    19. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.

      Well, if injustice brought you about, that's an accomplishment you must be proud of!

      IOW, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    20. Re:Journalists? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      When the CEO makes 200 million and the employees make minimum wage, then something is wrong.

      You are ideally right. However the CEO of a company is more interested in having the company he/she represents make money since most companies are responsible to their shareholders and shareholders like to see a return on their investment otherwise they will invest elsewhere. Yes this may not be nice for the employees particularly those on a minimum wage when the CEO is making a huge amount of money in salary, shares and other benefits but that is how capitalism works.

      You could go the other way and have a collective/communist system but you still have people at the top earning massive benefits while those at the bottom earn (if they are lucky) a minimum wage. At least with capitalism a worker has a better chance to leave his employment and take up employment elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with their pay. Of course that may be easier said than done.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    21. Re:Journalists? by noh8rz6 · · Score: 1

      the point is, those without money should still get quality education, healthcare, and a chance at advancing themselves

      umm, are you from the US? We have universal public schooling and very cheap public universities. I'm in CA, where several of our UCs are in the top universities nationwide. some public schools suck, but many are really good. healthcare? even before obamacare, the people that got the best healthcare were blue collar union employees, government clerks, and anybody at any large company. In fact, it's ILLEGAL for a company to offer one health plan to executives and another health plan to secretaries. upward mobility? that's why we have a 50% death tax, so the advantages earned by one generation aren't unduly passed on to future generations. you know, to even the playing field. I await your reply.

      --
      Don't be a h8r.
    22. Re:Journalists? by Yaa+101 · · Score: 0

      Didn't the UK have 58 million people?

      So 2 million is 0.03 percent of the population.

      So most people don't care. like the grandparent says.

    23. Re:Journalists? by noh8rz6 · · Score: 0

      600:1 ratio?

      no, that's never healthy. and yes, I used the extreme word 'never'. its NEVER good to have that imbalance. you think otherwise?? ceo's really deserve that kind of pay-level? and the lower classes should continue to 'just pray; you'll get your heaven when its time, little man!' ??

      I'll tell you wrong - I deserve that kind of pay level! The only problem is, I don't get it :(

      --
      Don't be a h8r.
    24. Re:Journalists? by Shark · · Score: 1

      I used to think exactly like you, but then I started pondering this: Who's going to be the grand equalizer? What sort of incorruptible angel is going to come in and make everything fair again? Who is going to decide how much money this guy deserves versus this guy?

      There are only two approaches, either you make becoming wealthy illegal and completely ignore the consequences of that (who's going to bother going the extra mile if that doesn't mean more for them?) or you appoint some sort of super-human committee that decides who's allowed to get rich and whose wealth gets shipped back down to the needy, which is pretty much what is happening now except that (surprize surprize) they aren't super-human and therefore have a strong tendency to favour their friends or pet causes.

      Giving more power to an arbitrator is a sure-fire way to rig the game unless you can be 100% certain that the arbitrator will be entirely selfless and immune to all forms of bias, ie: not human.

      Do the mental exercise yourself (if you're fairly decent at economics) and picture yourself grandmaster king of the US. You'll either run out of wealth to distribute or end up oppressing your people: They might not go sick or hungry but they won't be willing to work unless you force them to because they'll gain nothing from it. You can try to cheat and print money rather than rely on local production and exports, but that's been tried before too. Study what happened in the Weimar republic.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    25. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or we could, you know, change the rules of the game a bit so that corporations are held accountable for the externalities they cause, and make profit their SECOND legal mandate after ethical behavior. We can emulate other countries where employees are required to have seats on boards of directors (Germany, for example) and where CEO pay is not out of control. We could change financial reporting rules to favor long term investment over short term gain, or at least to acknowledge that it has a place. We could even return to the practices of the US in past centuries where corporations could only exist for a limited time and were required to serve a public purpose.

      We could do all those things, and the people in power do NOT want people talking about that. They'd rather we try band aid regulations, as if trying to get a sociopath to behave is ever going to work.

      We need structural change, big time. It may be that violence caused by collapsing society becomes the only way to get it, but if we can get it without violence it would be better. This is why the Supreme Court is so damned wrong about corporate personhood. Corporations are creations of law. They would not exist without laws authorizing them to. They can damned well do as they're told.

    26. Re:Journalists? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Just having more does not make wealth inequality except in the strictest of definitions.

      Actually in the most common definitions, that's exactly what it does. There's absolute poverty which has been in sharp decline, then there's relative relative poverty which is defined by earning under a certain percentage of the average - usually 50 or 60%. So all other things being equal, if your neighbor can afford another bottle of Dom Perignon then the average goes up and the number of "poor" people increase, even though they're actually no worse off. Talking to my parents or other old people on the conditions they grew up in you realize that even the poorest child growing up here in Norway today is probably far better off than the average child 50 years ago and that's probably true most places in the world. Not that it's a tall hurdle to pass but sometimes when you read about it they make it sound like child abuse to let children grow up in "poverty".

      Don't get me wrong, it could be a bit humiliating being the poor kid and maybe get teased and things like that, but not keeping up with the Joneses doesn't exactly qualify as any serious case of childhood trauma. We're not talking like they miss anything really important, only expensive clothes, status symbols like iPhones, expensive vacations and expensive social activities. There's nobody starving or freezing or that have diseases because they can't afford doing anything about it, then it's down to neglect or abuse. If it was up to me I'd pull some money out of general welfare and over into healthcare, police, child protection services and others to reduce the number of "worst cases" that really do have a childhood worth complaining over.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    27. Re:Journalists? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, i agree with everything you said, and i celebrate these facts

      now: what is the republican agenda in regards to what you have cited?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    28. Re:Journalists? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world, everyone would have everything that they want. That's not possible at our current level of social and technological development, so some form of rationing is required. We use tokens known as money to implement the rationing system, with the basic idea that people who create things or offer services that are perceived to have value should be able to get these tokens in return. If someone does something that is very valuable, or moderately valuable to a lot of people, then they get more of the tokens and can, in turn, buy more goods or services with them. This serves as a motivation.

      There are two problems. The first is the ratio and the second is how the value is determined. It's easy to look around and see that some people are contributing more to society than others by one order of magnitude. Look a bit more, and you can probably find a differential of two orders of magnitude. Someone in the USA on minimum wage makes around $20K. A CEO of a loss-making bank or hedge fund management company in the last few years probably made $20M in a single year. It's hard to argue that the bank CEO made a more positive contribution to society than, say, a toilet cleaner. It's even harder to justify that their contributions were a thousand times more beneficial.

      And that's not even going near the super rich. The three richest people in the world, between them, control more wealth than the 48 poorest countries. When one person is effectively able to buy 16 countries then there's a problem. You began with a strawman, so I'll end with one: the extreme case of wealth inequality is one person being able to own another.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    29. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are not legally the same as people in the US. At all. The only similarity is that they both have a type of tax ID and you can sue them, but even that is not the same.

    30. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more like 3 percent of the population.

    31. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd only be stopping corporations from forming. They'd just stay as individually owned entities whose owners get [b]all[/b] the money the company earns and then disperses a portion back to the workers. Granted it would be more difficult for them to amass the money required for quick expansion, but once they do expand literally [b]everything[/b] else would be just the same except that the owners of those previously corporate entities would be making billions of dollars instead of merely tens of millions.

      Trying to ban/limit corporations is a band-aid solution because there are more methods of running a business than corporations. That just happens to be the most efficient form.

      No, it's better to target the activities that businesses abuse: High-speed trading, lobbying, and corporate/political conflicts of interest (ex: CEO of a company becomes a politician or vice versa) being three major ones.

    32. Re:Journalists? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Have you priced UC lately? Tuition is $10K/year, and room and board can up that to close to $30K.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    33. Re:Journalists? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Math fail.

      2 Million is *3* percent, not .03%.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    34. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, remember your decimals. That's 3%, not 0.03%. And that's 2 million people that could be arsed to get off their arses and go protest. That's a huge number of people considering that 0.03% of the population could be expected to protest about a significant event normally.

    35. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind. Your math is as correct as mine. -_-

    36. Re:Journalists? by noh8rz6 · · Score: 1

      room and board doesn't count, because a student would pay that at any school, or if he didn't go to school he would pay that anyway. so the delta cost is $10k/year. Or, go to school near home and live at home. or get roommates and eat raman. There's also cal states and community college, so there are plenty of options for a college education and upward mobility.

      --
      Don't be a h8r.
    37. Re:Journalists? by noh8rz6 · · Score: 1

      i don't know what you mean. you say that what I said are facts, then you suggest there is an agenda in what I said. this makes no sense. please explain. I await your reply.

      --
      Don't be a h8r.
    38. Re:Journalists? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i said:

      "now: what is the republican agenda in regards to what you have cited?"

      i didn't say you stood for it. i didn't think you stood for it. i don't understand how you got that impression (scratches head)

      it was an invitation for you to summarize the republican political agenda as you understand it in regard to the status quo you cited

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    39. Re:Journalists? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      "wealth inequality"

      So nobody should ever have more money than anyone else?

      No one should have to live like an animal while other people have more wealth then they need.

      If the USA actually took care of it's people, it would find that a lot of the lesser crimes would stop, as people wouldn't feel the need to steal or do crimes to feed their family. Instead, the USA spends in money in useless crap like wars and terrorizing it's people (like at the airports via the TSA), and making laws that give that 1% more money and power.

      "We the people" ya, right. "Home of the Free" not anymore.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    40. Re:Journalists? by russotto · · Score: 1

      There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

      Disobeying it is usually the ONLY way. It's about the only way you can even get a reaction from the behemoth usually called "society", even if it's the wrong reaction. Complaining while obeying simply gets you ignored, because "society" has what it wants.

    41. Re:Journalists? by russotto · · Score: 1

      If the USA actually took care of it's people, it would find that a lot of the lesser crimes would stop, as people wouldn't feel the need to steal or do crimes to feed their family. Instead, the USA spends in money in useless crap like wars

      The US crime rate started dropping about the same time we got into the first Gulf War, after a decade of increase during a decade of peace.

      And unless "taking care" of people includes providing them with all the opiates, meth, cocaine, booze, and cigarettes they can consume, it isn't going to do much about crime in the US.

    42. Re:Journalists? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Crap like this always amuses me. Businesses are not entitled to exist, they do so because they create a value that is then sold to people who want or need that value and they have to accomplish this at a profit else they go bankrupt. The more you raise the costs of doing business, the more you force these companies to either cut costs (usually employee salaries are the easiest) or raise the costs of the product or services they offer.

      Your entire idea is the very reason why corporations are the way they are right now.

    43. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people so obsessed with this idea that corporations shouldn't have the same rights that the people who make up the corporations have? The problem isn't the rights. The problem is the lack of responsibilities. We don't "grant" personhood to corps - they have it by virtue of being made up of people.

    44. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Financial aid is almost always need based. My daughter talked a friend into applying to college and seeing what grants were available. Friend had been absolutely convinced that she could never afford to go to college, but it turned out that she's better off taking the grants and work study than she was working the minimum wage job she had before.

    45. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obsession is because a Supreme Court decision allowed corporations to make political donations. This is a huge problem for Democrats. They had tried to stop it by passing an unconstitutional law, now their only option is to make it illegal for any organization to donate but that would mean cutting off the big piles of cash they collect from unions and that ain't gonna happen.

    46. Re:Journalists? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you failed middle school maths. You mean about 3.3% of the population, a factor of 100x more.

      You also don't seem to understand how this works. 2 million people took time off work, time out of their lives to go and march in London. That number is too large to represent a small number of interested parties mobilising their supporters. It demonstrated widespread support among the general population, and indeed opinion polls at the time backed that up.

      In hindsight they were proven right. The war was very unpopular and generally regarded as the Blair government's biggest mistake.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:Journalists? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Tuition at the University of California is getting steeper.

      http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/cost/index.html

    48. Re:Journalists? by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      The French found a sollution to wealth inequality back in the early 1800s, it is called the guillotine!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    49. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why ask him for the Republican Party's agenda? They make it quite is quite clear

    50. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the war took place, people got killed, and the whole complaining thing ended up being utterly useless.

      So... what if "Blair took the hit"?

    51. Re:Journalists? by Inda · · Score: 1

      That's unfair.

      I pointed at the TV, shock my head and tutted.

      I ever considered writing a letter to The Times.

      I cared.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    52. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these wide-eyed idealist commie pushers are mediocre workers who think that communism would be the land of milk and honey for them, once the oppressors are gone. But they're forgetting that a ruling class by any other name (party heads or whatever) is still a ruling class with power over you.

      And they forget - or they never knew - that in communism you don't get to live and work where you might want. You get to work where "the country needs you". You get told right out of school where your new job has been allocated, and if you don't like the boonies tough. Everyone needs to do their "fair share".

    53. Re:Journalists? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Your own sig is applicable here:

      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

      No, people shouldn't be allowed to have many, many orders of magnitude more then the average person.

      Let me counter your opinion with my own: the problem isn't that people have more. It's that it's unearned.

      If you're making orders of magnitude more than the average person, then you should be providing orders of magnitude more benefit. That's the fundamental principle of capitalism - you get rewarded commensurate with your productive capacity. There are very few people that are more effective than most others to that degree. Sure, people in positions like CEO have great influence over productivity, but that's the result of the office, not the person. The problem comes when people start getting rewarded, not due to their productive capacity, but due to who they know. That's not capitalism gone wild, it's capitalism that's ceased to be capitalism.

      The other problem is that the biggest predictor of being wealthy isn't being productive, but being born wealthy. That feedback loop needs to be fixed if capitalism is ever to truly work. Of course, the generations of benefiting from that feedback loop have made the wealthy essentially dominate politics, and they have no desire to see a true meritocracy emerge.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    54. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism and its evil spawn Communism have that nepotism problem orders of magnitude worse than capitalism. There, you can pretty much rest assured power is distributed strictly according to who you know in the hierarchy.

      The other problem is the biggest predictor of being wealthy isn't being productive, but being born in the right place on Earth. Fixed that for you.

    55. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nobody should ever be too big to fail. Nobody should be so rich that the law is no longer applied to them. Nobody should be rich enough to perbvert the law to help them remain rich (for example by paying half the tax rate of the less fortunate).

      As with many things, the extremes can be bad. Extreme disparity of wealth nearly always brings a civilization down.

    56. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      1/3 of Americans cannot afford healthcare. Executives can do so with or without insurance. Meanwhile, where have you been hiding to not have heard about the student loan problem? Some countries provide FREE university education.

      Scratch the 'self made' wrapper on most wealthy people and you'll find that they made it by failing miserably a dozen or more times, each try costing more of daddy's money than a middle class family will ever earn. Each also requiring contacts that a rich parent has and a middle class or poor parent does not. The wealth passes on before the parents die.

    57. Re:Journalists? by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Ironic that they lead themselves to the Napoleonic Imperialism, no?

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    58. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not some massive redistribution sort of thing. It's just better and more fair policies. Universal healthcare is a great equalizer. Unfortunately, because the Democratic party has no spine, we get Romneycare. For best results, income tax is progressive so that those most able to afford it pay it. Instead, we have the rich paying half the going rate because they can turn income into capital gains.

      Even enforcement of the law would help a great deal. Why does crack cocaine carry a much bigger sentence than powder cocaine (other than that crack is for poor people and the 1% don't want to put coke addled stock traders in PMITA prison. Wanna see havoc? Take the drug dogs that search school lockers and walk them around Wall street.

      Why do the bankers get away without even the threat of punishment when they crash the global economy for personal gain?

      Raise minimum wage so we can quit subsidizing Walmart's payroll with food stamps.

      The basic income is an interesting idea. It eliminates a huge number of social ills while leaving people interested in working for a good living. If we implement that, we can do away with the minimum wage entirely for example.

      All of that can be managed by well structured progressive taxation.

    59. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      And yet the standard of living in higher in the countries where those measures have been taken. Their businesses are doing fine.

    60. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you're so sure the underclass is so in to meth and crack, perhaps you should provide them all they want. The problem would be self limiting.

    61. Re:Journalists? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean in those countries who are forcing austerity measures onto others so the Euro doesn't collapse? Or those countries that are in a deeper recession then we are right now?

    62. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of countries likle Germany nearly single handedly holding up the EU or Finland where things are actually going fairly well.

    63. Re:Journalists? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      disobeying a bad law is the ONLY WAY to dispute it!

      In fact, it is one of the core obligations of any and every citizen of each and every country which has a Constitution.

      Clause 61 of Magna Carta makes it clear that if the People are wronged by the Crown and no remedy is forthcoming after all steps have been exhausted, that the People may take whatever action is necessary to obtain satisfaction without fear of reprisal. As Sir Winston Churchill wrote (A History of the English Speaking Peoples -1956) “The underlying idea of the sovereignty of the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a doctrine for the national state. And when in subsequent ages the State, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of the subject, it is to this doctrine (Magna Carta) that appeal has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success.”

      The People were previously rebuffed when noble Lords invoked Clause 61 of Magna Carta on 7 February 2001, at which time they asked Her Majesty to withhold Royal Assent from the Treaty of Nice.

      On behalf of the People we therefore invoke the authority of: Magna Carta 1215/1297, Clause 61, which states, as repeated with great distinctness by Henry III (1216-72) “ it shall be lawful for every one in our realm to rise against us to use all the ways and means they can to hinder us until that in which we have transgressed and offenced shall have been brought again into due state ”

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    64. Re:Journalists? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      ha.. that is rich. You picked one country that is largely still subsidized by the US (They cry every time we try to close a military base and drop our troop strength) that by your own admission is basically supporting the 17 other countries in alliance with it.

    65. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Just wow, you're going to have to back the assertion that U.S. military bases are holding Germany up. I have no doubt that the towns around those bases enjoy the economic activity they bring, but that's not the same as propping the whole country up. And then there's Finland.

    66. Re:Journalists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3 of Americans cannot afford healthcare.

      Yeah, if you count those who are not of working age or disabled, who had it provided for them.

      Meanwhile, where have you been hiding to not have heard about the student loan problem?

      Have you heard about the STEM shortages? Stop offering financial aide for degrees in basket weaving and group studies.

      Scratch the 'self made' wrapper on most wealthy people and you'll find that they made it by failing miserably a dozen or more times, each try costing more of daddy's money than a middle class family will ever earn.

      Stop with the class warfare--why the fuck does it matter to you. The person from a poorer background will necessarily be more prudent with business expedentures than the rich dumbass.

      each try costing more of daddy's money than a middle class family will ever earn.

      Do you ever wonder where this money goes? Unless the failed business plan was to literally burn cash it just trickled into the economy. You should be applauding the dumbass for spreading more money around--redistributing his own wealth, but that does not follow your marxist class warfare goals.

      A fool and his money are easily separated and a fool with no money is never going to amass it...exactly how it should be when your gains are based on merit--not just because you were born rich and justly not because you were born poor.

    67. Re:Journalists? by russotto · · Score: 1

      I haven't been diagnosed with terminal cancer, chemistry isn't my top skill, and I'd rather use the pseudoephedrine as a decongestant. So I won't be providing meth and crack for anyone. However, if anyone is going to provide free drugs, I'd suggest they stick with the opioids; someone high on speed or crack is a lot more trouble than someone on opioids.

    68. Re:Journalists? by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      No, there are more than two approaches. There are a multitude of approaches. Just as one example of how fantastic your rhetoric is: in the late 50s and early 60s the top tier individual income tax rate in the US was 90%. I don't recall any large corporations shutting their doors because the CEO decided it was no longer worth it to work. In fact that was the period of the greatest expansion of the middle class in the entire history of the world. Hello?

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    69. Re:Journalists? by Shark · · Score: 1

      I'm entirely with you with respect to enforcing existing law (heck, just making bankers accountable for fraud would obsolete most of the planned regulation) is a major part of the solution. All the other points you bring however are fairly substantial wealth redistribution or price control schemes, all they do is shuffle the power and influence to entities which haven't had a chance to be as evil yet and gives them a free pass to become so.

      This happens anytime you centalize authority which, to me, is the real focal point. As I like to say, giving monopoly to government, especially these days is probably worse than giving it to a corp. At least a corp isn't able just demand your money unless you buy what they're selling. The government can and will. There's arguing that the government is accountable but I think we both know just how far government accountability goes, especially on the federal level.

      Of course the divide between the poor and the rich is growing at an alarming rate, but this isn't for lack of accountability. The economic asset pump is unchecked capital creation (without a matched production of wealth). It's a monetary issue, everything else derrives from it, be it social problems, government abuse, wealth concentration, debt epidemics.

      As a simplistic example: When the bank lends you 10 bucks (capital), it pretty much creates it out of thin air, when you pay it back with interest, you're paying it with your real productive output (wealth), not money you just created out of thin air. Thus the bank drained a little over 10 bucks of real wealth out of the economy.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    70. Re:Journalists? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Arguably, a minimum wage below the poverty line results in the public subsidizing poorly paying employers. For example, many Walmart employees get food stamps. If not for that, they wouldn't be able to afford to work for Walmart for that pay. Effectively, the public is helping Walmart pay the cost of maintaining it's labor units.

      By raising the minimum wage, we cut off that payroll subsidy and force them to pay the actual cost of living to employees. (that is, pay for maintaining their labor units out of their own pocket).

      Otherwise, when you save a dollar at Walmart, they effectively pick your pocket for it while you check out.

      As for the rest, it could be argued that the redistribution is simply correcting the effects of rent seeking by the wealthy. Those whose labor has produced the value deserve to enjoy the full measure of that production.

      I violently agree that banks must not be permitted to hand out fiat money as loans. Particularly when they charge the recipients very real money in return. For a bit of reductio ad absurdum, if they have the right to create money by fiat, so do I (and everyone else, of course). Since I'm fairly sure most everyone will agree that cannot be permitted (and in fact when anyone but a bank does it, it's a crime), that means we cannot permit banks to do it either.

      If the federal government would care to make an argument that fiat currency is a good idea or even necessary, then basic fairness dictates that it be passed out to all citizens equally. I can see no just reason that a fat banker should be snacking on caviar bought with fiat money while others are skipping meals so their kids can have school supplies. It seems that proponents of the current arrangement aren't really averse to wealth redistribution, they just prefer that we rob the poor to give to the rich.

      It could be argued that after decades of that, the scales need to be tipped the other way for a generation or so to correct the damage.

  5. Interesting by ausrob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a wonder that the publishing company (Sansai Books) weren't issued some kind of ceast and desist letter first, considering the company did not break the law when the magazine was published *last year* (presumably well before the law was ammended). It sounds like they were probably selling back issues and may not have fully appreciated the situation.

  6. this is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a few years about a decade japanese people will be more stupid then anyone else on earth GO GO GO do more.....NOW only if americans did this....

    1. Re:this is good by fnj · · Score: 2

      They are.

  7. Two things come to mind by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfair Competition Prevention Law

    Most people would think that this law is designed to prevent unfair competition. What it really means is it's an unfair law to prevent competition.

    Also, getting governments to step on other people for you is apparently NOT unfair competition...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Two things come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without any sort of punctuation in the English translation of this law's name, you're actually correct, it is a prevention law, it is a competition law, and it is an unfair law, not an Unfair-Competition-Prevention Law. I don't know what the rules of grammar would be like in Japanese of course.

    2. Re:Two things come to mind by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Yep, but that's how it is with most laws. Consider the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, reading the title you think it would require the bank to obtain less personal information, not to disclose its information and generally be more privacy friendly. Nope, instead it does the opposite, creating less bank secrecy and whole heck of a lot less privacy.

      All laws are newspeak.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Two things come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfair (Competition Prevention) Law.

      It does exactly what it says on the tin. Unfairly prevents competition.

  8. Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the written word become illegal for any reason - tyranny is the ruler.

    1. Re:Tyranny by v1 · · Score: 2

      When the written word become illegal for any reason - tyranny is the ruler.

      Free speech needs to have some limits. Bomb threats and yelling FIRE in a theatre are the most popular counter-examples. Slander, exposure of trade secrets, and insider-trading are just a handful of other arguable candidates.

      It IS possible for someone to clearly violate someone else's obvious rights under the guise of "freedom of speech". It can't just blindly be labeled "tyranny".

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Tyranny by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has always been a bit of a gray area from a legal point of view. Not really the concrete example of prohibited speech that most people seem to think. Bomb threats are less of a gray area since they're a form of threat and threats of violence are pretty clearly beyond the pale. I'm not going to go into slander except to say that I understand why the concept exists, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the concept. I find it disturbing that exposure of trade secrets would be anything more than a civil matter, and, of course, it should only be prohibited for those who have obtained them by being entrusted with them and agreeing not to reveal them or those who have obtained them through some sort of burglary or infiltration. As for insider trading, that's not a matter of speech. Rather it's the specific action of making trades based on insider knowledge that's a problem.

    3. Re:Tyranny by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Free speech needs to have some limits ... yelling FIRE in a theatre are the most popular counter-examples

      For the umpteen time, you along with the majority are conflating Free Speech with Property Rights and missing the point that "Laws are Relative" IN context.

      Most theaters are PRIVATE property that are OPEN to the public. Let's go over the 2 scenarios:

      1) Theater really IS on fire.
      Yelling "Fire!" is a way to help the owner protect his property AND more importantly, help others from coming to harm and to prevent injury caused by said fire.

      2) Theater is NOT on fire.
      Yelling "Fire!" you may be causing unwarranted destructing to the property by creating panic along with implicitly causing people to get hurt.

      "FIRE!" in a Theater" is NOT free speech UNLESS the theater itself is owned by the public.

    4. Re:Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free speech needs to have some limits.

      No, it doesn't. Kill yourself.

    5. Re:Tyranny by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      If someone yells fire in a theater, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. There, solved.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    6. Re:Tyranny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The private vs public issue has nothing with what most people care about for "Shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater".

      What we care about is the risk of damage to *people*. Damage to property is a lot lower priority.

    7. Re:Tyranny by darkfeline · · Score: 1

      Dammit, why is it always yelling "fire!" in a theatre? Don't you guys have any imagination or artistic initiative? Try: yelling "The Zerg are invading!" in a park or "My nipples are melting into deadly nanofluids!" in a pool.

    8. Re:Tyranny by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      .....and get trampled to death or maimed by the over 60% of people who dwon't do that.

    9. Re:Tyranny by Lisias · · Score: 1

      You are perfectly entitled to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You're completely free to do that, there's no one with gun pointed to you head or gagging you there.

      What you are not entitled to do is to avoid the consequences of the yelling.

      If it's true and you end up saving lives, you're a public personality and you loose (some of) your privacy.

      If you did a good faith mistake and was caught, you will have trouble.

      If you did it by malice and was caught, you're screwed.

      Heck, I'm free to pick up a barbecue knife and play havoc on my neighbor's apartment - there's absolutment nothing preventing me to do that right now (besides my good will and the fact that I'm not a psychopath, besides looking as one - what probably would prevent my neighbor to open the door at this time of night anyway! =P).

      But you can bet your mouse that, would I do it, I'll have my sorry arse canned for the rest of his farting life in some cell full of male rapists in the local prison. And THIS is the reason that makes nuts like me kept inside our homes without being tied under the table or chained in the bed. ;-)

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    10. Re:Tyranny by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a classic example that some people think is cut and dried. It's actually a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes justification for finding against someone for distributing anti-draft pamphlets under the espionage act. As such, I tend to automatically find any argument that refers to the idea to be suspect until proven otherwise.

    11. Re:Tyranny by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Right, distributing a pamphlet that say the draft should be opposed by some legal means is a clear and present danger like someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. Never trust a professionalism liar. Oops Freudian slip, meant to type lawyer. . Free political discourse hasn't really been entrenched in the U.S since after WWII.

      A threat is illegal if it is as such to mach a reasonable person fear for some harm or injury. If I break a chair, start running toward you screaming "I'll kill you for that". that's a threat. If a friend steals my favorite chair at a bar, and I sit down next to him and say "I'll kill you for that", it's not a threat. It's not the words or speech that is regulated

      If I as a audience member shout fire in a crowded theater when no fire was present, people probably wouldn't believe me. If they did panic and someone gets hurt, I'm responsible because I knew or was reckless in not knowing the disorder that would result. If an actor shouted it as part of their act, and people in the off chance did panic he would not be responsible because it's not really reasonable to foresee people would confuse part of the act with a genuine warning. Again it's not the words themselve

      Same for slander, trade secrets and whatnot. Speech in each of these just happens to be an element of some larger tortuitous (spelling? defined as of or relating to torts) action that resulted in distinct and palpable legal injury (the specific fact of loss, harm, or damage) DMCA type prohibitions of circumvention devices do indeed infringe on free speech, as the distribution results in no legal injury (no unauthorized copies are made via the mere distribution of a tool), and even the use of such tools do not as there are such things as fair use exemptions. To believe these types of provisions do not infringe on free speech, you would have to believe there is no such thing as fair use. You would also have to believe the existence of the tool rather than it's use is the proximate cause of copyright violations, thus ignoring analog hole that can bypass any DRM technology for non-interactive media.

    12. Re:Tyranny by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      So because others may behave stupidly, I should face restrictions?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  9. Obey. by neoshroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

    The bus driver said to Rosa Parks.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Obey. by tomhath · · Score: 2

      That's why I qualified it with "usually". There are extreme situations.

    2. Re:Obey. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Imagine if the bus driver didn't like driving on the right hand side of the road and all the sudden started driving on the left. It may not have matter where Ms Parks sat.

    3. Re:Obey. by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      Usually, laws are just. This is the extreme situation.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    4. Re:Obey. by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She didn't just disobey it. She flagrantly disobeyed it, in full knowledge that the NAACP branch she was secretary of would support her. This is one of those exceptions where disobeying is a good idea.

      If these guys have decided to disobey the law in order to challenge it in the courts then that's cool, and I look forward to seeing their well prepared legal battle.

    5. Re:Obey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are too many of them for that to be true.

    6. Re:Obey. by westlake · · Score: 1

      The bus driver said to Rosa Parks.

      Rosa Parks accepted the risks and the consequences of being arrested.

      She did not know nor could she have known that the NAACP would chose her as their test case. There were other candidates.

      Think about that for a moment. The ones who were left on their own.

      Although widely honored in later years, she also suffered for her act; she was fired from her job as a seamstress in a local department store. Eventually, she moved to Detroit, Michigan, where she briefly found similar work.

      Rosa Parks

    7. Re:Obey. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You do know that Rosa Parks was a secretary for the NAACP at the time she pulled her move on the bus right? Saying "She did not know nor could she have known" is kind of a stretch.

    8. Re:Obey. by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      I don't believe that the driver would have garnered enough sympathy to support a bus boycott.

    9. Re:Obey. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There are ways to dispute a law you disagree with. Disobeying it is usually not a good way.

      Pft.

      Both Socrates and Cicero(both ancient roman statesmen if didn't pay attention) believed that disobeying the law were effective ways to fight against laws you disagreed with. And believed that the more people that did it, the stronger the message you would send by using such a message to the courts, and to the government itself. There was a very long history of doing this in the republics, it died out of fashion at the end of the Roman empire it didn't really come back around until the enlightenment era.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Obey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Her refusal to move was planned ahead of time and there were some big guys on the bus to protect her if it came to that. She didn't sit in a Whites Only seat, but she did pick the time and seat knowing that she would be asked to move after the White section at the front filled up. The NAACP needed an arrest in order to motivate people to participate in the boycott of Montgomery's bus system; the boycott is what really brought about the change.

    11. Re:Obey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also disobey traffic speed limit when driving on a bridge or in a tunnel. In both these places you have no escape root or take a side route if some jerk endanger your life. So, there are always situations disobeying is necessary and desirable. Your life depends on it. But copy right violation is not one of them as it just involves buying a copy and help the producers to provide more such useful or entertainment related things. Greed and anger against them is a different issue.

    12. Re:Obey. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Although I guess would stop riding the bus if drivers insisted on driving on the left (US).

    13. Re:Obey. by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I agree. In modern society laws are frequently far too complex, numerious and counterproductive for average citizens to understand and follow, meaning all citizens are criminals to one degree or another.

      I remember, for example, when I learned to drive. I got on the highway and followed the posted speed limit. I was informed by my parent I was driving dangerously and I was! Why? The speed limit was 55 mph but the traffic on the road consistently travels something more like 70 mph and traveling at the speed limit was a great way to get rear-ended. Thus, to safely use the interstate technically requires breaking the laws of the interstate. We get used to these paradoxes in day-to-day life and tend to ignore them, tend to accept them.

      That's why one woman on a bus standing up non-violently to one small paradox means something. We need more people like her if justice and law are ever to be in accord.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  10. Anime fansubs by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    If the news is true, then it should end all doubt that the Japanese authorities are somehow tolerant of the unlicensed distribution of media, including Japan's number one entertainment export, anime. Even if it might be argued that Japanese copyright law doesn't apply outside Japan (or that Japan wouldn't dare to conduct a Megaupload-style enforcement action), this does raise the question of how anime can be fansubbed at all if the episodes can't be recorded and shared with the "outside world."

    1. Re:Anime fansubs by Microlith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      this does raise the question of how anime can be fansubbed at all if the episodes can't be recorded and shared with the "outside world.

      No it doesn't. That question has been answered for ages: fansubs are copyright violations, period, and only exist because it wasn't worth the time or effort to pursue those doing it. Once upon a time fansubbers had respect for the studios in Japan and the US and would stop doing releases once it was licensed, then the warez kiddies came in and took over.

  11. About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by mark_reh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Some guys got arrested for dealing in counterfeit phone cards- they figured out how to duplicate them and started doing so en masse, selling them on the streets and train platforms around Tokyo. Ultimately a judge ruled that it was not a violation of law to duplicate or even sell the cards. It was only illegal to use them. Shortly thereafter you could see guys standing in front of police boxes, selling the cards to anyone walking by. Shortly after that NTT got rid of the phones that used those cards.

    Japan has some weird laws. Someone once told me, and I don't know if it is true, that Japanese laws don't say what you can't do, they say what you can do. If there isn't a law specifically allowing something, then you can't legally do whatever it is.

    1. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Japan is a weird place. On one hand it is very much into collectivism. On the other hand, it also has a strong amount of individualism in its culture due to the influence of the west. So often you see the two basic philosophies clash.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Tukz · · Score: 1

      Someone once told me, and I don't know if it is true, that Japanese laws don't say what you can't do, they say what you can do. If there isn't a law specifically allowing something, then you can't legally do whatever it is.

      Would make sense if the amout of stuff you CAN'T do, is higher than the amount of stuff you CAN do.
      Shortest path and all that.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    3. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      the whole East is based on NOT showing individualism! are we both on the same planet, here??

      asia is about following rules, don't question authority, don't make waves. or, am I the one on the 'other earth', here?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of interesting comments from an American Japanese-naturalized lawyer debito.org .

    5. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you thinking of Singapore?

    6. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

      That's kinda what I thought too before writing my masters paper on a subject related to privacy here in Japan.

      Basically it isn't really as much individualism as we understand it, rather it is about being invisible to the government so that they can't spot what they think is a nail that sticks out.

    7. Re:About 15 years ago it was phone cards. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you are. China is about following the rules and not getting caught and thrown into the government's secret concentration camps, as such it is very much based on not showing individualism. I'd imagine the case would be the same in North Korea.

      In Kong Kong and Singapore, things are much more individualistic. The focus in work is about climbing the company ladder and being the best for yourself. Japan is a mix between the two, on one hand they don't want to be the "squeaky wheel" on the other hand they idolize individuals who go out and do something. So it is rather caught in the middle, you can see this in Japanese media, especially anime where the hero has some great power, but must use it in a collectivist way.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  12. Did he say Cyber Police!? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. not in the USA by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in the USA, government is an extension of Corporations

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:not in the USA by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think the guy was talking about the Government-issued corporate license, which makes corporations an extension of the government with special govt-granted privileges (like immunity for the owners). Of course the corporations return the favor by giving politicians campaign donations. Quoting from the article:

      >>>"Japanese cyber police could arrest the Amazon Japan CEO..... exactly what put Sansai Books' staff in trouble."

      No because Amazon has bribed the politicians not to bother them, and instead go after competitors. The law is an effective way to kill off any potential new business from challenging the top dogs. Ditto regulations which hurt new small businesses more than large businesses. Contrary to popular believe Megacorps LOVE regulations, especially those written in their favor.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:not in the USA by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Informative

      yes, and on the subject of the far east, it is pretty much worse than the USA, it is practically social, political, and cultural foundation of the society:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol

      these guys can do no wrong. it's like the british monarchy also ran apple, ibm, microsoft, google, ge, and gm. this is way beyond special treatments and regulations in your favor. it's not even corporatocracy. it's more like corporate monarchy

      someone: what's the term for this insane level of assimilation between political, corporate, and aristocratic power?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:not in the USA by Lisias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      someone: what's the term for this insane level of assimilation between political, corporate, and aristocratic power?

      Idiocracy.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    4. Re:not in the USA by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      it's like the british monarchy also ran apple, ibm, microsoft, google, ge, and gm

      A better historical example: The East India Company.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:not in the USA by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      luckily that's historical, because that's even worse: that's chaebol, PLUS the racist imperial subjugation and theft of other people in their own lands

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:not in the USA by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I would say the word you are looking for is feudalism, because like in the days of the barons these orgs are treated more like Gods than they are organizations of men. Those at the top wield almost Godlike power over all, they can make elections go their way, control governments, make the people believe what they desire through massive advertising campaigns, can even get the churches singing their praises by putting money in the right coffers.

      I would say looking back over history feudalism would be the term closest to describing the current situation in many countries, the only difference from the classical feudalism is the size and scope.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:not in the USA by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>what's the term for this insane level of assimilation between [Japanese] political, corporate, and aristocratic power?

      I believe it's called fascism. Mussolini however argued the better term is "corporatism" because it involves corporations and government working together like best buds. The government does not own the corporation, but it can order them what to do ("work double shifts and make more bombs"). Vice-versa the corporations expect special favors in return, like protective laws from new upstart competition.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:not in the USA by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      Aristocratic liberalism?

      i.e., we're more equal than you because we have more money.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    9. Re:not in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism

  14. Re:I hope they die before this disease hits Europe by next_ghost · · Score: 1

    The disease already hit Europe, we just had success fighting back up until now.

  15. so loading linux can get to you jail in japan? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    so loading linux can get you to jail in japan? even more so if it's a new pc with UEFI? or even loading windows 7 on a system with windows 8?

  16. It's also worth noting....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .......that Japanese DVD ripping tool coverdiscs have been appearing in Archive.org's "Shareware archive" lately.

  17. Unfair Competition Prevention Law by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    How Orwellian.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    1. Re:Unfair Competition Prevention Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's time to act and hang these traitors in the government.

  18. Pirate Party Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there we go: facebook page for the Pirate Party of Japan, of course not to be confused with the WiiWare game of almost the same name.

  19. Re:I hope they die before this disease hits Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, GEMA and BREIN are every bit as bad or worse than the RIAA.

  20. tentacle linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    "The Hardware is crippled for the sake of Microsoft. Period.

    Secure boot is Microsoft's attempt to maintain computer OS market share as their influences is being stripped away by the likes of Google (Android) and Apple (iOS). With HTML5 on the way, we will have WEB based applications that rival desktop versions, and run on ANY device. The OS is just a layer to get to where the real work gets done, information exchange.

    AND the worst part is, secure boot doesn't actually fix the problem it pretends it solves. It can't. This is the whole DRM of DVD's and BluRay all over again. Look at how well that is working out.

    DRM is broken by design."

    - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2985953&cid=40681007

    "Richard Stallman has finally spoken out on this subject. He notes that 'if the user doesn't control the keys, then it's a kind of shackle, and that would be true no matter what system it is.' He says, 'Microsoft demands that ARM computers sold for Windows 8 be set up so that the user cannot change the keys; in other words, turn it into restricted boot.' Stallman adds that 'this is not a security feature. This is abuse of the users. I think it ought to be illegal.'""

    - http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/07/17/2326253/richard-stallman-speaks-about-uefi

  21. it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone else by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    what is wrong is that being poor or middle class dooms you to poor education, poor healthcare, and no chance to become rich. i want people to work for their dream. i don't want people to work from some rich guy who can never become poor, and the workers can never become rich. then what's the motivation to work? if you have no chance at your dream, why get out of bed in the morning? but the republicans in the usa advance social policies that pretty much lock the poor into poverty, the middle class into lower middle class, and the rich as permanently rich

    i don't want to redistribute wealth. i want to say the guy born to the poor person has just as much chance to become wealthy as the guy born to a rich person. then you have a real meritocracy

    but when you have rich kids getting cushy jobs through connections and then saying the poor don't know how to work hard to get rich (irony!) then we have a problem in society

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  22. i really hate the word "idiocracy" by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    it doesn't mean anything. i've come to the conclusion the only people who like that word are, themselves, idiots

    society has problems. do you want to fix it? or just go "it's all stupid" and walk away thinking you've said something valuable and important?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by Lisias · · Score: 1

      The first thing you must do to fight a enemy, is to give him a proper name.

      Only a idiot would fight someone else calling him respectfully with "Sir".

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    2. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by Lisias · · Score: 1

      As you wish.

      Aristocracy: "rule of the best"

      Meritocracy: "rule of the par excellence"

      Democracy: "rule of the (common) people"

      Idiocracy: "rule of the idiots"

      Now you are a bit less idiot. Congratulations.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    3. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i understand the deriviation of the word. but just because you can invent a word doesn't mean it has any meaning

      i understand how democracy and aristocracy works (aristocracy, btw, is not "rule of the best" it is "rule of the people who's parents had money"... calling it "rule of the best"makes me wonder about you)

      now tell me exactly how idiocracy works

      it doesn't. it just elicits laughs from a certain kind of person

      it's a trendy term invented by cynical douchebags who hold their fellow citizens in contempt

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might as well, if you're powerless to make any significant change..

    5. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      just because you can invent a word doesn't mean it has any meaning

      Every word in existance was coined at one time or another. The word "nerd" didn't exist until a 1954 Dr. Suess book titled "If I Ran the Zoo". Isaac Asimov coined the word "robotics" in his robot short stories in the '40s. I won't mention the stratodoober...

      it's a trendy term invented by cynical douchebags who hold their fellow citizens in contempt

      No, it's a term invented by cynical citizens who hold their idiotic douchebag leaders in contempt.

    6. Re:i really hate the word "idiocracy" by Lisias · · Score: 1

      i understand the deriviation of the word.

      No, you don't. You managed to withhold the information in your mind, but failed to give them any meaning.

      i understand how democracy and aristocracy works (aristocracy, btw, is not "rule of the best" it is "rule of the people who's parents had money"... calling it "rule of the best"makes me wonder about you)

      No, you are wrong again.

      From::

      Aristocracy (Greek aristokratía, from aristos "excellent," and kratos "power"), is a form of government in which a few elite citizens rule.[1] The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning "rule of the best"

      You are the idiot that thinks that words have to be a reasonable meaning to you , a very aristocratic behaviour, if you ask me (and this speaks a lot about you, my friend).

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  23. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you fail to understand is that poor people are just as greedy as rich people, nature being what it is. Otherwise the poor wouldn't so casually and eagerly enable the rich. But they do, because they want a piece of the pie, just like anyone else. And just like everyone else, they're not too good about sharing, especially as they acquire more riches. Hoarding and gluttony cross all economic boundaries the same way pollution from a single country spreads throughout the world. Real change will require eons of evolution... or a global epiphany. To say only the rich are evil is like saying only Italians and Germans are fascist. Without the support of your '99%' they will go nowhere.

  24. K9 Copy Worked for Me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disobedience is the best way to fight unjust laws and rules.

    Start by dumping Windows and MacOS - or are people just paying lip service to the idea of freedom?

    Next, back up your own media with K9 Copy. If the copyright police come knocking, you are within your rights to make an archival backup. IANAL and that's not legal advice.

    Finally, boycott corporations that push for unjust laws. Stop purchasing music and going to theaters. Rent movies from the library.

    Is it too much to ask for people to practice self discipline?

  25. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "exactly what put Sansai Books' staff in trouble."

    What put them in trouble was dirty low down snitches.

  26. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    everyone is greedy. so the movement towards permanent wealth inequality becomes natural. so a fair society counteracts this force by ensuring social safety nets of healthcare and education, so that greed doesn't mean you and your grandchildren are permanently poor and some other guy and his grandchildren are permanently rich

    i want a meritocracy. i want a poor child to have just as much of a chance as a rich child. if this is not true, society is unfair, and all sense of freedom and equality is a sham

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  27. Not really by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    There are various forms of corruption. There is the obvious south European method where every action requires a financial payment. This is obvious and the reason those countries are in such trouble from Greece to Mexico. But right in that same area, you got another kind. The corruption of the Catholic church that until quite recently claimed the Mafia was an invention of the communist to discredit the government. That was not just about rather generous kickbacks, it was a corruption of spirit. The Catholic church found that the accumulation of wealth by individuals at all costs was more wholesome then sharing the wealth, just like Christ teaches... oops oh wait.

    You have to remember that being a politician is not a position of logic but of faith. Politicians believe, doesn't matter what their religion is, communism, socialism or capitalism, they all believe and any doubt cast on their faith is treated in much the same way as most religious believers deal with it. Heretic, unbeliever!

    Japan is still ruled by very old men and they are old men that believe that their policies work. They did work, Japan had a huge economic miracle. Then the world changed and the old men didn't. They couldn't because their ideas and policies were not based on reality but on their fate in a system.

    The real problem with ruling a nation is that what is required at anyone time might change and even contradict itself. You would need to adopt to the facts rather then attempt to force you ideology on facts that don't listen. Take patents, they are both desperately needed and something that needs to be abolished. You can't rule this with absolutes, you need to compromise, go to extremes and then re-balance. ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

    The job market goes in direction X, balance it out with Y then re-balance with Z and do a bit of W just to test a theory out. Sometimes you need strong unions, sometimes you need them to give in and that can happen on the same day.

    But you can't run a party election system with that. How can you run a campaign with "I will do whatever the country requires at a particular point even if it hurts a group that can hurt me bad".

    So... we get politicians that grew up in a system, got their world view decades ago from teachers who couldn't do and making promises they can't keep.

    Luckily for Japan, the people are sheep.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not really by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But you can't run a party election system with that. How can you run a campaign with "I will do whatever the country requires at a particular point even if it hurts a group that can hurt me bad".

      My deepest wish is for a "pragmatism party" - I'd actually like to work on such a project if I could think of a way to make it feasible.

      Actually, I'd like to work on a discussion system that encourages civil discourse. Start small :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  28. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    There are simply too many examples of people going from nothing to something and becoming rich to make your view remotely valid. Some people's capacity isn't much more then working for someone else and some people's desire doesn't extend past that. There is where you are making your first mistake.

    The raw truth of the matter is that people mess their lives up well before they can get a job. This is especially true in poorer areas where parents tend to lack parenting skills or even parents and the child gets trapped into gangs, drugs, violence, crimes, and so on. This also happens in more affluent communities too, but not to the same degree.

    The republicans, as well as the democrats have no way of controlling that and your disdain for one is only a symptom of ignorance. The republicans have always been pro education, they just do not think the way the democrats seem to want to do things work. Take the NCLBA for instance. It said we are going to end the days of skipping over children's education and that teachers and schools, the very same people who claim to be able to get kids to learn and take jobs doing so, will have to find ways to teach kids or find new jobs. It was met with fierce opposition "how dare you expect teachers to teach every student under their charge". They specifically despised the alternative school provisions "how dare you give students of failing schools the ability to go to better performing schools so they can receive a quality education".

    Yet Obama came to power and repackaged the same old shit and called it a gem while speaking kindly of it.

    To blame any of you just said you thought was wrong on one party is only asking for more. Of course then again, ignorance is sometimes comforting. I guess you can always get satisfaction by getting more mad at republicans when democrat policies do the same.

  29. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a real deep thinker on this, are you? Who in the world is going to set up and enforce your 'fair society' if everybody's so greedy?? And do it without becoming corrupt themselves? You're still looking at eternal war.

  30. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    then why do you engage in lawsuits rather than shoot people?

    the law and courthouses are the answer to constant warfare

    likewise, ensuring that being poor doesn't mean you don't have a chance, don't have bad healthcare, and don't have poor education, is simply a matter of government policy. who is fighting who exactly? where is the war?

    if anything, we are preventing the war. to NOT counteract the effects of welfare inequality means that society will eventually go the way of the french revolution, the russian revolution, or arab spring: all of these situations are a natural result of a society entrenched in permanent welfare inequality

    so what do you want? a bloody revolution when the people are fed up with the unfairness? or a simple government policy that ensures fairness?

    you decide

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  31. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    so you are willing to accept that a smart kid, who, given the chance, will become a great person, should be denied, simply because they are born poor?

    then what you are willing to accept, but don't understand yet, is that the french revolution, the russian revolution, or the arab spring, is coming to the USA

    do you want that? no?

    then simply make some simple government policies to ensure society gives everyone a fair chance. or the people get fed up and destroy society. because it is unfair

    that's your choice

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  32. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You still haven't answered the question. Who's gonna implement all this 'fairness'? What 'counteractions' do you know of that will provide lasting results? Unless what you call for happens unanimously you will get nowhere. Your 'fair society' will be run over by Genghis Khan. You won't be able to protect yourself unless everyone goes along. Good luck! Oh, and your "Arab Spring" there.. purely a result of outsider 'agitation' by vested interests. Only natural in the typical predator/prey scenario. This is how corporations destroy governments they don't like or have outlived their usefulness. There was nothing 'righteous' about it.

    Wow! Slashdot has definitely given preferences to the spammers when it comes to posting limitations. Off to the proxy servers, I guess.

  33. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the government will implement taxing policies and social programs: healthcare, education

    then there is no motivation for the people to revolt because the rules of their society is rigged to keep them poor

    i don't understand what genghis khan is supposed to mean. the usa is a highly militaristic society. if anything, more economic productivity simply means more money for the military. while a country of a few ultrarich and mostly the rest poor and lower middle class: this is a society that has less revenue to spend on the military

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  34. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the government will implement taxing policies and social programs: healthcare, education...

    Oh really? And you're going to appoint the people to do this? Or are you going to Diebold to rig up the desired election results? C'mon man. Don't hold out on me. Show your work. How you gonna do it?

  35. simplify by manaway · · Score: 1

    First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
    Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    -- Martin Niemroller, c.1900s

    Then there's:

    The simple fact is, most people don't give a shit about injustice until it effects them personally.
    -- AngryDeuce, 2012

    Personally, being as how Occam's Razor has demonstrated itself to be regularly useful, I lean toward the second version. Same idea, of course; and Niemroller's does provide examples, which is useful from a research and scientifically rigorous perspective. Still, Monsieur Deuce's statement maintains the principle while displaying a memorable terseness and emotional impact with considerable appeal.

    On a related note, DRM provides a method for the copyright acquirer to maintain ownership of a right granted by the public, without providing a method for the right to be returned to the public at the copyright's expiration. Thus I find the self-help irrationality of DRM technology to be unconscionable; and breakers of same to have respectable morality on their side, if not (corporate-financed) legality.

  36. Copying? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    How can you prevent copying?

    insert dvd into drive

    mount /dev/dvd /media/dvd (YMMD)

    cd /media/dvd

    cp -r * /home/joe_user/dvd_copy

    then burn to a dvd.

    1. Re:Copying? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      easy, outlaw operating systems that support those commands and utilities

    2. Re:Copying? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And can you remove that capacity from Windows?

    3. Re:Copying? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Bill and Steve say hell yeah!

  37. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    A smart kid will become a great person in spite of being poor. That happens quite often. There are literally hundreds of thousands of scholarships looking for the one smart poor kid just to say their organization was part of making that great person. That is of course unless he ruins his chances first by joining a gang or by committing some offensive crime or wasting his education opportunities.

    If you think the Arab Spring is coming to the US, the outcome will not be as you want. In the US, we are allowed to keep guns. Most people who do so are of the libertarian/republican mindset that think the federal government is limited in it's powers. The people who think like you tend to hide from guns and weapons and will be vastly outnumbered.

    Fairness has little to do with it either. Life simply is not fair. But we have this ability to make the best of the situations we find ourselves in.

  38. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    what are you talking about? are you saying it is impossible to setup universal healthcare and universal education? and you tax people's incomes progressively?

    what's the big mystery?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  39. Not DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Journalists are Korean, Permanent Foreign Resident, of Japan.

    Go to Osaka. Hang for a few months. You will see the truth.

    LoL

  40. Not journalists by Alimony+Pakhdan · · Score: 1

    Bad headline. Sansai Books dont do or claim to do journalism. http://www.sansaibooks.co.jp/ publishes magazines and "mooks" which are basically extended advertorial. The name sansai by the way means "three years old".

  41. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all well aware of what needs to be done. You still seem unable to explain how your going to put in place the people that will do all that. Tell me how you're gonna do it. Personally, I think you have a hell of an election campaign ahead of you. But I'm very interested on what your plan is.

  42. This is flagrant disobeying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if printing a magazine on how to pirate stuff and providing the software to help on the front cover isn't flagrant disobeying then what is?

  43. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    There aren't actually all that many rags to riches stories out there once you weed out those who's 'rags' were by Gucci. There are far more stories of bright people who got nowhere because they didn't have any startup capital or because their brand of brilliance didn't extend to business. Those stories don't tend to become made for TV movies though, so they're less noticeable.

    As for the big two, both have been letting us down, but there are sound statistics that show the Democrats have historically let us down less and that the Republicans have consistently supported more concentration of wealth at the top.

  44. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    The republicans with all the guns who believe in small government have been fully abandoned by their party. Certainly I can see no evidence based on the last several Republican administrations that small government is even on their radar. They've grown it every time. Those people with the guns are the ones who will one day see through that and start the Arab Spring.

  45. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Dude, I was talking about the people, not the party. If there ever was an Arab Spring in the US where the sitting government was overthrown, the whiners about education and the government not giving them enough crowd will not be the ones to rebuild the government. Those people will probably wish for the old government back because the gun owners typically see no fundamental problem with the government as it is envisioned by the founders, just as the government in practice who ignores the constitution instead of amending it.

  46. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    The Republican party has shifted far right and the Democrats have shifted right as well. Consider how much Eisenhower looks like a modern day Democrat.

    Those gun owning republicans have been dumped on by the party's friends as much as or more than the democrats. They tend to be pro union and pro worker's rights.

    Once the lies are discredited, I believe the gun owners will prove to be neither Republican nor Democrat. They will heve a libertarian leaning, but some will lean to the left and some to the right. I suspect few will actually favor the Libertarian party as it stands (especially given it's rather permeable boundary with the neocons and Tea Partiers).

  47. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Riches is a subjective word to begin with. There are a lot more rags to riches stories then you think when you consider what is relatively rich to the person. Millions of people are born into welfare roles who through the existing education system end up either building their own mini empire or bettering their lifestyle to a point of having savings, investments, a home, and so on. People are able to do better then their parents were doing within the current education system. Sure there are people who are limited because they do not have access to funding or because they shine in areas of skill there are no demands for in their areas, but that is not a problem with the current education system- unless you somehow think schools are supposed to provide opportunities also or something.

    As for the big two, listen, not penalizing success does not create a situation of only supporting those at the top. I can show you studies that prove we never landed men on the moon too, but I give them about as much credit as the studies saying one political party is for the rich and the other is for the poor. Wealth will gravitate towards the top simply because the top consistently take in more then they spend.Those at the top do not sit on that money or bury it in the back yard, they invest it and thereby create more wealth or put it into a bank who does the loans it to others who do the same. That is simply how the world works. Every barrier we put in place on that happening will mean a barrier for those on the bottom trying to make it to the top. It slows the economy and drive the costs of doing business up which means lower salaries to compensate.

    This can be seen in action right now. There are some major factors in the costs of doing business. They can be described as raw material costs, energy costs, labor costs, and regulatory costs which would include taxes. When you increase taxes, you increase raw material and energy costs, when you increase regulation, you increase regulatory costs, and what is left, salaries. We are in a recession (some say a depression). Yet we got the EPA increasing regulatory costs and energy costs which also increases raw material costs. We got the government threatening to increase taxes which further increases those costs, and people are wondering why we aren't seeing jobs being created at a scale needed to pull us out of the recession. It's because all the excess money is going into a black hole.

    Cheap energy and/or Cheap raw materials has always been the key hallmark of any period of economic boom. It certainly was a key during the Clinton boom where we had Cheap energy (oil, gas, electricity and Coal), we had China dumping cheap steal on the market that forced a lot of US steal manufacturing out of business, we had Canada undercutting US lumber with subsidized lumber. If you have that cheap energy and cheap materials, you can have high taxes without much problems, you can have high salaries without much problems. When you do not have that, you need to have lower taxes or lower salaries or both. The alternative to this is a price point for the products or services that end up slowing sales to a point where less of each is needed which means unemployment because less sales are being made and growing national debt because less tax revenue is being brought in.

    That isn't universal and is dumb'd down a lot but it is largely true. There certainly are areas of the economy that will thrive regardless like bankruptcy law, debt consolidation services and some areas that we cannot live without or a without a minimum level of like health care and food.

  48. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 0

    You are delusional. There are no lies about a limited role of the federal government. There might people people lieing by claiming to believe the same and doing the opposite or something else altogether once elected, but you seem to have the cause and effect backwards. Those people would be lieing because there is a significant portion of the population that believes that way, not because some rock star senator amassed a following and uttered it one night.

    As for the libertarian leaning, I believe I covered that as well as the dysfunction of the party by saying libertarian/republican mindset originally. As I said, I'm talking about the gun owners, not the parties.

  49. Fable by Max_W · · Score: 1

    of the Japanese police and two journalists.

  50. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    I never said anything about penalizing success, that's your conclusion and it's up to you to support it or not.

    It is undeniable that wealth distribution has become increasingly top-heavy and that middle and lower class buying power has failed to track productivity gains at all. Where is the incentive for that bulk of the population if the payoff all accrues to the very few at the top?

    There is one group that is not suffering a depression, recession, or whatever you want to call it. That is those at the top. Many corporations have posted record profits in the last year. Yes, those you claim are being taxed to death are thriving. It's the rest of us that can't seem to get things moving in the 'jobless recovery'.

    I can agree with you about regulatory costs to an extent. Regulations need to exist. Extarnalities must be internalized if a market economy is going to work at all. Those externalities are chalked up as 'regulatory costs' when they are internalized but in reality they always existed but were being palmed off on the middle and lower class. The other part is what could best be called 'compliance cost' That's the pure red tape, paperwork, and such associated with regulation. THAT part needs to be kept as small as possible. In many cases, page after page of regulations could be simplified down to a paragraph without a substantial change in effect. Where that is true the simplification must be done. Note though that it is often the incumbants in the industry that lobbied for those complexities in order to raise barriers to entry. They like to moan about their suffering, but it's fully self-inflicted.

  51. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    If you believe any Republican president in the last 4 decades actually shrunk the government, you are the one with a delusion.

    Go ahead and actually look at what Ike did while in office. Read the speech about the military-industrial complex. Does any of that honestly sound like any of the faux republican neocons?

  52. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 0

    Jesus fuck dude.. who cares? Are you retarded or something, I said nothing about the republican party or republican presidents so stop creating fallacies with them as if they pertain to me.

  53. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    I don't think i accused you of wanting to penalize success. It certainly is a democrat position where they publicly admit wanting to tax people who earn more at higher rates.

    Those record profits you are talking of are largely due to restructuring and layoffs. Like I said, salaries is the place that gets cut.

    You spew about externalities is a load of crap also. They are covered by the populations taking the cheaper products. Most of them are completely arbitrary depending on what nut case you want to listen to. They will still be palmed off on the middle and lower class populations if they were internalized because businesses need to make more money then they spend which means only that costs will increase and the population will either have to pay that increased costs or go without.

    I do agree that regulation does need to exist and I do agree that it needs to be simpler and easier to understand. WE can have a book of 500 pages of regulation and it won't mean a thing if it doesn't correctly address what it intends to address. Instead of lots of regulations, we need a few well written regulations.

    I also agree with the attempts at creating barriers to entry for competitors. This alone should be reason enough to get the old ones out and effective ones in place.

  54. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by Anzya · · Score: 1

    What you have is anecdotes, the research doesn't support it. Look at this for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison
    You can always find persons who managed despite a difficult upbringing. What you say about avoid getting into gang and other trouble might be right but here's the difference between the rich and the poor: Rich boy screws up and he's just being a boy, poor boy screws up and he is a criminal and fucked for life.

    Oh and when all your rednecks finally find out that the dream of the american pie and land of possibilities has been stolen and replaced with "might makes right" the risk is that all those guns will tear the country apart. I hope that won't happen but you as a country are so off the track at the moment that it's scary. Your image of yourself doesn't nearly match the reality anymore.

    --
    "This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
  55. Re:I hope they die before this disease hits Europe by next_ghost · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but their influence isn't as big. European politicians already got the message that passing into law whatever crap GEMA and BREIN wants effectively means giving their parliament seat to the local Pirate Party.

  56. Illegal to make copies of DVD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still, in this age of technological capability, the ease at which most anything can be copied can never be stopped. DVD's are only one media form
    almost a joke of an article to read in this day and age.

  57. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Rich boy screws up and he's just being a boy, poor boy screws up and he is a criminal and fucked for life.

    And this has what to do with the state of education how? I never said a wealthier kid doesn't have advantages, I said that poor people can and do use the education system to better their lives.

    Oh and when all your rednecks finally find out that the dream of the american pie and land of possibilities has been stolen and replaced with "might makes right" the risk is that all those guns will tear the country apart. I hope that won't happen but you as a country are so off the track at the moment that it's scary. Your image of yourself doesn't nearly match the reality anymore.

    First, you say redneck like it is a bad thing. It isn't.

    Second, I think you missed the part where the GP said the french revolution, the Russian revolution and the Arab Spring is coming to America. This would imply the country is already torn apart and the reality is that in a vacuum of power, those with the guns will fill that vacuum because the others claiming to want something better will be powerless. A revolution in the US will not end favorable for the op and most likely not for you. You both can wish for the best socialist outcome possible but reality will slap you in the face hard.

  58. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    The part you're missing is that once the party bullshit is gone and the actual republicans with guns take over and so are again represented, the country would actually shift towards the left relative to where it is now.

  59. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Nothing is missing anything. The point was that it wouldn't be some liberal utopia like the op seems to want. There are highly vocal groups right now crying about the US government over stepping it's bounds on a lot of things. And by all means, it has ever since the civil war but was compounded by FDR, That stuff will go away, most states will refuse to be part of a new government that is more liberal then what we have if the government is overthrown.

  60. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sjames · · Score: 1

    A lot of those gun owners think Ike was about right. So do a lot of liberals if they cover up the R next to his name.

    That would be a shift to the left and would make many Liberals happy.

  61. Re:it's perfectly ok to be richer than someone els by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Keep thinking that and keep encouraging the Arab Spring in the US and we will find out. From the people and groups I know, it would seem like you are talking out your ass but I guess we are just guessing until it really happens.