RightsCorp To Bring Its Controversial Copyright Protection Tactics To Europe

judgecorp (778838) writes "RightsCorp, the controversial copyright enforcer, is planning to begin operations in Europe. In the U.S., the company scans torrents for IP addresses on behalf of media companies, shares them with ISPs, forcing them to send lawyers' letters (using the DMCA) demanding money from the supposed copyright infringers. RightsCorp says Europe needs its help in fighting piracy." They recently expanded operations into Canada as well.

Comments

RightsCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

More like YuoHaveNoRightsCorp!!

Thank you, i'll be here all week.

Re:RightsCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't we had multiple court cases and appeals end in the decision that "IP address != real person"?

I guess the people being sent the letters just don't want to deal with the legal hassle. There's a business model for you... "paying us money is cheaper than legally proving you don't owe us money". You'd think that'd be classified as extortion.

Re:RightsCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is incorrect. If it were, the minimum wage would be at $10.10 right now (an overwhelmingly popular proposition). We live in a representative republic, where a small group of elected officials make the laws that the entire country must follow. The small group has been purchased by moneyed interests and big corporations. Throw in some vocal radical minorities and voter apathy, and that is how stuff like this happens.

Re:RightsCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I happen to live in Canada and these guys are having some real problems pulling off their "jane and john doe" lawsuits here (and rightflully so).
The position many have taken is these lawsuits are a form of "Speculative invoicing" and the Canadian courts don't allow this (it is considered "fraud on the courts").

They have also attempted to "bundle" the lawsuits to keep their court costs low, and again this is being questioned.

You can read more here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6805/125/

I guess given enough pressure from the US canada will take a similar view and start all the lawsuit stuff where single moms are forced into bankruptcy when they would face no such charge had they actually just stolen the CD.

Re:RightsCorp

[StripedCow]

Haven't we had multiple court cases and appeals end in the decision that "IP address != real person"?

Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person".
The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.

Re:RightsCorp

[NotSanguine]

Also, the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a living wage.

And why is that? Someone working full-time should be able to at least support themselves. Or is that too much to ask? Actually, it feeds right into the oligarchs' plans. Keep the great unwashed too poor and busy working two or three jobs to get involved and make a positive difference for themselves and their fellow citizens.

It's disgusting. Even $10.10/hour is only $21,008/year, assuming a 40 hour work week and no time off at all. That breaks down to gross pay of $1751/month. That's net pay (assuming 15% withholding for federal taxes and 6.25% SS/Medicare withholding) of $1378.65/month (note, this does not include state or local taxes, so it's less in places where those taxes apply). Yes, I know that folks making that wage will likely get most of that back as a tax refund, but that doesn't help them on a day to day basis.

So. A single person making ~$1400/month. Please tell me how many of you could live on that. Just you, not your kids or your spouse. And if you have a couple of young kids and need day care, clothes, car, food, electricity (should that be optional?), etc., etc., etc?

But the minimum wage isn't $10.10/hour. It's $7.25/hour. After taxes, that works out to be $989.63/month. Try living on that. Sigh.

I just did some simple calculations. Apparently, that's too difficult for some people. Or they're selfish, mean-spirited jerks who have no empathy. What do we call those with no empathy? Sociopaths.

In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow this? It just makes me want to hurl.

Re:RightsCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Then we only have to show that RightsCorp's IP accessed child porn to put their CEO in jail.

Re:RightsCorp

[frog_strat]

Posting to undo accidental moderation. (Is there another way to undo ?)

Re:RightsCorp

[tranquilidad]

It's impossible for me to understand your logic.

I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.

At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?

Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?

What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?

Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.

In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.

Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.

I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.

Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.

Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.

Re:RightsCorp

[NotSanguine]

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and higher prices on things you buy? Because that's what has to happen. If businesses pay higher wages, they will pass the cost on to you. I agree that people should be paid a living wage, but that money has to come from somewhere.

Yes. And the tax code should be modified to incentivize reinvestment so that the 100,000 or so folks those who control 40% of the wealth in this country will put it into circulation, perhaps then 30% of our children won't have to live in poverty. Oh? Your kids don't have that problem, so fuck everyone else? I pity you.

Re:RightsCorp

[Microlith]

I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys.

What is this supposed to be, a badge of honor? Or is this stockholm syndrome? "Well I subjected myself to systemic abuse and overwork to just barely keep myself from becoming homless! There's nothing wrong with that!"

At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?

At the moment it was obvious that corporations were more powerful than most people, and would would abuse them to the extent they could get away with.

you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?

You're a mean spirited jerk because you assume that people who live in poverty have the time and resources to improve their skills.

Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.

Which works well for a small subset of people.

In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.

Indeed, in the richest country that ever existed why are people paid such poor wages and so often do without basic necessities (that they can't afford due to said same low wages)? Don't worry, the corporations you exalt are doing a great job at removing incentives for people to work hard by ensuring that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off.

Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.

No, it's about pointing out how the system is rigged and they are being taken advantage of for the sake of quarterly profits.

Re:RightsCorp

[NotSanguine]

It's impossible for me to understand your logic.

I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.

At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?

Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?

What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?

Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.

In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.

Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.

I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.

Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.

Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.

Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe that there is equal opportunity for all in this country? You should get out more, friend. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your illusions. I just feel sorry for you.

Yes. Because that works so well for us. With 30% of the children in this country living in poverty? That we incentivize greed and graft? That it takes the *average* (not the lowest paid) worker in a large corporation more than a week to earn what the CEO earns in an hour? You can't tell me that the CEO works hundreds of times harder, can you?

In the incredibly rich society that we live in, we should be able to provide equal opportunity for all and create an environment where social mobility is increasing, not decreasing. Which it has been for the last 30 years or so.

Re:RightsCorp

[NotSanguine]

Please, get off your soap-box.

monthly expense 500 apartment 300 groceries 300 transportation expense 100 utilities total necessary expenses = 1200

Granted, I live in a smaller city, but Minneapolis is about the same cost, unless you need to go a great distance for work. Just outside of DC is also about the same. A nicer home, car, and children are not necessities. As an adult, I spent 10 years working for less than $10\hr. A large number of people I know make less than $10\hr. In fact, I made less than $8\hr until I was 26, and I was still able to live rather comfortably because I didn't waste money on things that I didn't need.

Does this mean that I think things are fine? No, I agree that income disparity is a horrible problem in a country where the "average" income is $75k\year, but very few of us know anyone who makes that much money.

No. I won't "get off my soapbox." Don't want to listen to me? Fine. But I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts. You're thinking, "well, I did it so everyone else's circumstances must be the same. If they can't hack it, they must be stupid or lazy." Think about what you're saying.

So I guess you never had to go to the doctor or dentist? Buy clothes, linens or towels? Replace furniture or appliances? Save a little money for retirement? Pay off your six figure student loans?

Lucky you never got hit by a car or had all your possessions stolen or a hurricane, flood or tornado destroy your home.

BTW, According to the US Census Bureau, The 2011 Median Income of US households was $50,054 per annum. That's for a household with ~2.5. That breaks down to a bout $20,000 per person. Something like 30% of children in this country live in a household that has income below the official povery line.

Things are much worse than you think. Oh, and you're right, having children isn't a necessity. We don't need to propagate the species, do we?

Re:RightsCorp

[coastwalker]

Hey, if your lifestyle is only achievable if society uses slave labor then maybe you don't earn enough money yourself.

There is enough wealth around to pay a minimum wage and yes it does come from somewhere, its achieved by wealth re-distribution and works in most civilized countries, including the USA. But we could improve the minimum wage into a living wage without our economy crashing. After all the profits that would probably pay the living wage now just go towards the one percents increasing raft of wealth instead of being spent in the economy.

There are only two constants in life, death and taxation. Ask any civilization whether it be run by pirates, kings, governments or snow white and the Severn dwarfs.

Re:RightsCorp

[coastwalker]

From your super articulate post I am sure you don't have any trouble making your way in life. Have you ever considered what happens to people who are not as smart as you? (And why we spend a fortune to keep them in prison?)

Re:RightsCorp

[CaptainNerdCave]

Sorry, I forgot to respond to the other things.

I take care of myself by eating reasonably well, exercising, and visited the dental wing of a local college when I needed work. I was in a car accident when I was 20. My car insurance payed for the hospital expenses and work I missed. Clothes, housewares, appliances? Thrift stores and rummage sales. By the time I was 28, I had over $20k in savings. I guess I'm fortunate with regard to my student loans. My first degree was an AAS from a state school that I paid for as I attended, and my BA was at a private college (I know now, THAT was stupid), but I graduated with only about $55k in loans.

For about the last year, I've been making around $20\hr, and I still shop at thrift stores for almost all of my goods.

I'm not insisting that everyone can live like I do, but I'm telling you it's possible.

Re:RightsCorp

[Jane Q. Public]

You'd think that'd be classified as extortion.

YES. There have been some RICO lawsuits started. I don't think they've been decided (or even heard) yet.

Not only is this pretty blatantly "racketeering", but when other companies tried to do this before, courts found that in order to tell who was infringing copyrights, the "detection" company had to be breaking the same laws as the people they were trying to out.

It is not permissible to break the law in order to enforce the law.

And yes, the basic business model is extortion. Every case I have read about lately having to do with this has run into courts that acknowledged that the methods being used were fundamentally extortionate. EFF has been winning left and right, as well. Where they haven't been directly involved in defense they have often provided amicus briefs to the court in the cases, and in a very high proportion of those cases, the courts have ruled just as EFF suggested was legally proper.

Re:RightsCorp

[Jane Q. Public]

Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person". The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.

Nonsense.

They've tried to pull the "ip address = person" BS for years. And they've been losing, right and left.

Not just frequency but increasingly courts are recognizing that not only does IP address not equal a person, but that it's not even CLOSE.

Take my case, for instance. I run an open guest internet account as a public service. Not just somebody next door but anybody in my neighborhood can connect to the internet from my router, and often do. In fact, I just looked and I see that there are 3 people outside my household who have connected just in the last 24 hours.

Sometimes it's someone living nearby. Sometimes it's someone walking or driving by with their cellphone. It could be someone in a car with a laptop. I don't know and I don't care.

Re:RightsCorp

[LifesABeach]

RightsCorp says Europe needs its help in fighting piracy."

Sounds to me like RightsCorp is looking into Franchising their busiess model.

Re:RightsCorp

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't understand how you guys think you can get away with this.

How "us guys think we can get away" with WHAT? What is it you think I am doing wrong? Please be specific.

The law doesn't like losing, so it is phrased for the win.

"The law" isn't losing, it's winning. THE LAW says an IP address is not probable cause. Many courts, including Federal courts, have clearly said so. One court ruled not long ago that not only does an IP address not equal a person, often it doesn't even equal a house. As I illustrated in my example.

The people who are losing are those who are trying to extort money from others who are "innocent"... or at least who have not committed any crimes. That's a victory for THE LAW, not a loss. The law does not like extortion and intimidation of common citizens.

The account holder paying the bill is responsible for the usage so if you let other people use your connection you are responsible for what they do with it, especially even more so since you purposely failed to secure your connection by providing this "public service" you are even more on the hook for it

Is this what you think I have been doing wrong? I think you misunderstand. *I* am the account holder, and I pay for a premium account. *I* am letting my neighbors use my internet, which *I* pay too much to the cable company for.

But even if it was a misunderstanding of what you meant, you are still wrong. Legally, I am very much NOT responsible for what other people do with it.

If you loaned your rifle to a neighbor who was going hunting, and he killed somebody with it instead, does that mean you are guilty of murder? Of course not.

If somebody "borrowed" or stole the rake I left sitting in the front yard, and used it to kill somebody, would I be guilty of murder? Of course not.

THE LAW says that you are not responsible for what somebody else does with something of yours, unless you were complicit in the act. If you loaned your rifle to him SO THAT he could murder somebody, then yes you are a criminal. Otherwise, no.

In the same way: if somebody uses my internet to do something that isn't kosher, it's their problem, and it very definitely is NOT my problem, under the law. I am not required by law to police my neighbor. That is something that happens in police states.

Why should my home be any different from an "internet cafe"? If you went into one, and did something wrong with the internet, would they be responsible by law? Of course not. If they were, internet cafes would have ceased to exist.

(By the way: the courts have ruled that my home is NOT different from an internet cafe, in that respect.)

I pay very close attention to the law in this regard. I should also mention that (A) some major ISPs are now renting out equipment so their customers can set up the same kind of public networks, and (B) the EFF highly recommends it for everybody.

I understand if that offends your concept of how the law works, but that is the way the law does work, and also how it should work in a free country.

Hi, I'm a copyright enforcement company.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I shall sell you lists of IP addresses for $10 each.

They correspond to people torrenting files without the copyright owner's permission.

I swear.

Re:Hi, I'm a copyright enforcement company.

[Bigbutt]

Did you RTFA? Apparently RightsCorp gives the ISP the list of IPs for free. They make their money off of the folks who do the downloading ("for $20 per track or movie we'll remove your name from this list we're sending to your ISP"). Anyone still on the list goes to the ISP who is legally required to send letters to the subscriber. This increases their chances of losing the customer. Without the list of IPs provided by RightsCorp, the ISP legally doesn't have to do anything.

So "I'll sell you this list of IP addresses for $10 each" would be met with "sorry, no idea who you are or what you're talking about, kthxby"

Sounds more like Blackmail.

[John]

Porn

[clarkkent09]

I have a friend who makes great money in similar way but with porn. He searches file sharing sites on behalf of a bunch of porn producers and looks for their content and then tries to figure out who shared it (some sites sneakily attach the member id to each downloaded clip and there are other ways too). Then he has his lawyer send them a letter threatening a lawsuit but offering to settle for $500 or something. He makes sure that the letter contains in big bold font the clip title as well as a detailed description of the contents. Decent enough percentage of them just mail the check.

Re:Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

So your friend is a blackmailer. The more you know ~~~*

Re:Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Take that advise with a grain of salt. It all depends where the guy you are extorting lives. In Sweden, extortion by threatening to file a police report or lawsuit is a felony, punishable with 2 years in prison.

Re:Porn

[mSparks43]

It's funny how Americans think the American law system applies to the rest of the world.

It's also not so much of an issue in the UK where it would go to small claims court which costs next to nothing to defend, and is comparably expensive to bring.

One piece of paper denying responsibility and citing lack of evidence (IP != responsibility) is enough to get it thrown out and they loose their filing fees.

afaik.

Indie

[pr0fessor]

My brother is in an indie band and they payed to go to a small but professional studio and record an EP. The content is all original and they have copyright but he saw a blog about indie bands publishing through tunecore on multiple services {iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc...} getting take down notices from companies claiming to represent the copyright holder.

He's a little freaked out because although they payed all that money for copyright and self publishing they really couldn't afford a lawyer if something like that happened to the band.

Re:Indie

[Threni]

He doesn't need a lawyer; just tell Google "that's BS - it's my copyright" and they'll put the content back up again.

Re: Indie

[Anonymous Coward]

i get those infringement notices by youtube all the time - except that i have all the right to use the material in question (i make music videos) - it's a hassle, that's usually sorted out by an e-mail - still, it's fucking annoying to constantly "clear" the rights of material, you already have the rights to - often multiple times - because some stupid program identifies the material as belonging to someone you've licensed it to.

it also cost's money (time).
i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.

Re:Indie

[Sockatume]

...unless the spurious claimant continues to assert that it's the real owner, in which case Google washes its hands and says you've got to find a lawyer, take them to court, and prove that your own work actually does belong to you.

Re: Indie

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.

Why small? May be it should start small and escalate based on each false claim they have filed, may be exponentially. Also small should be in relation to the size and strength of the spurious claimer. What is small for RIAA is not huge for the lone indie trying to get his/her work back from the false claimers.

Re: Indie

[Anonymous Coward]

i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.

You mean, copyright pretenders. I disagree. They should pay a large fine. We are talking about tortious business interference here.

And preferably with a three-strikes scheme. Three wrongful accusations, and you get put on a national copyright offender registry and are barred from making DMCA claims. Instead you have to go to court, and when you don't prevail, pay the court fees of the defendant as a rule.

The cost of handing those industries a free pass for abuse is just too high and interferes with civic life. Some misdemeanors are not worth the cost of pursuing to society.

Please do this in Italy

[spiritplumber]

send a letter like that to the wrong person, you will see exactly what happens if you set up a protection racket where the marketplace is already full.

You're not in Kansas anymore Toto

[Jahta]

From TFA:

I can’t give any specific dates, but we are getting a great reception from everyone we have spoken to [in the UK],” RightsCorp co-founder and CEO Robert Steele told TechWeekEurope.

It's significant, I think, that he singles out the UK which is becoming increasingly like the 51st state in legal/civil rights terms.

In the rest of Europe I'd suggest they won't find the legal and regulatory environment anything like as forgiving of their methods as the U.S.

Re:criminal scumbags

[hebertrich]

Who told you there was such a thing as a " honorable " businessmen in the first place.. ?
Everyone that wears a tie and suit is a scumbag in disguise. Never, ever, trust someone because he wears a suit.
Politicians are the best example of this.

Said it best ?

[hebertrich]

There's an old cut from Fila Brazillia and they said it well ..

" Suck a tailpipe , fucking hang yourself , borrow a gun from a yank friend .. i dont care how you do it ,just rid the world of your fu****** evil machinations "
" kill yourself "

Dosen't it just sum up what everyone thinks about the copyrights lobby ?

im pretty sure it wasnt by choice.

[nimbius]

The problem is Americans arent coughing up the cash. instead with the help of the FSF and other dedicated groups, courts are beginning to agree that IP addresses arent people. Most courts unanimously concede that movie studios cant sue regular people for infinite money either like they used to in the metallica napster days. And honestly, most ISP's are large enough to either ignore the service, lie about their compliance, or tell the RIAA to piss off. Comcast, who isnt an RIAA or MPAA member, could threaten to use DPI to black hole any references to a top ten artist for entire states like vermont if they were beholden to this extortion experiment.
Europe on the other hand (and lets not forget that abbott fucker whos slowly turning his country back into a prison colony) hasnt been privy to this dog and pony show. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont, but for Rightscorp to just sit on its rump and not try to expand means a slow death.

This was not a false claim

[voss]

This was an issue of Indmusic having a deal with Tunecore to monetize music published through its service. If you didnt publish your music
through tunecore then its not an issue. Your brother needs to read the TOS and decide if Tunecores uses of your brothers rights is what he wants.

Re:The link in the paragraph refers to the UK...

[jabuzz]

Better still it has already been tried in the U.K. It failed spectacularly.

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

Misdirection.

[CaptainNerdCave]

Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?

We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.

Re:Misdirection.

[NotSanguine]

Does this smell anything like the platform that our current president ran on, twice?

We don't need to pay more in taxes, we need to stop spending so much on things like war, unnecessary civil developments (Silent railroad crossings?), corporate welfare, politician pensions, etc. You're addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root: government spending and thieving to support private interests that are funneled through government spending.

Yes, there is a lot of waste in government. Especially on the military side. And corporate welfare and all kinds of other things. Government spending is absolutely an issue. Creating a fairer tax code would help too. Also, having economic and tax policies that encourage reinvestment in our society, its infrastructure and instruments of personal advancement (education, fairer employer/employee interactions, health care, child care, etc., etc., etc.) would be extremely helpful, IMHO.

The Democratic party and the Republican party are completely under the control of our oligarchs. Wealth and income inequality, the limiting of social mobility (through poor education, the growth of the prison population, destruction of full-time jobs, etc., etc., etc.), the rise of the surveillance (both government, and more troubling, corporate) society and the huge lies being told and believed about who benefits are all consequences of this.

The Obama administration is doing the same things the Bush administration did. The House and Senate (regardless of party) are just as corrupt and broken. Just because the Democrats sometimes *talk* about social justice and equality of opportunity, doesn't mean they're actually doing anything about it. The political theater of the "left" and "right" (if you really look at the actual, not the stated, policies of both "sides" we're not really very far apart) sets us against each other while the oligarchs bleed us. It's really sad.

Massive government spending is just another symptom. The root of the problem is that our government is beholden to the monied interests. They aren't going to loosen their grip unless we force them to do so. I wish I knew how to do that.

Re:Misdirection.

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

United States military spending is the highest in the world (higher than the countries in positions 2 through 9 COMBINED, and some of those countries are our staunch allies.) If you cut out our allies France, United Kingdom, and Germany we outspend the other 11 on the list on that Wikipedia page combined. Who are we afraid is going to invade us? Who are we planning to invade?

If we wanted to cut our spending to the point where we're outspending China and Russia combined by 50% (at which point our spending would exceed the combined military budgets of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and France) we could drop a little over 226 billion dollars. That's not a small chunk of money.

Do artists benefit?

[X10]

They would have a point if the money would go to the artists. But it doesn't.

Re:BS

[NotSanguine]

Extremely few children in this country lives in true poverty. With public assistance, most "poor" live a life of luxury many in the truly poor parts of the world can only dream of having.

The idea that to allow everyone to get ahead, we need to bring down the top to meet the bottom is pure lunacy.

Any individual in our country with the desire to improve their station can do so. The idea that somehow the man is holding everyone down is a creation of government, left and right, to subjugate the populace. Sadly many have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker.

Cell phones, internet, and cable TV are luxury wants, not needs. Eating meals at a restaurant (even McDonalds) is a luxury.

The reality is that you'll never be able to fix stupid. You simply can't protect people from themselves.

The reality is much more nuanced and complex. I suggest you educate yourself. I doubt you will, and so I pity you the illusions you've bought into. Feel free to disagree and even say mean things about me. I don't mind.

The Utilitarian concept that all ideas should be expressed, examined and debated is an excellent one. It allows us to weigh all the ideas against each other as well as against the realities of our existence. In the end, the best ideas (sadly, often in retrospect) will be seen for what they are.

In the meantime, far be it for me to try to disabuse you of your world view. You need to decide for yourself.