Right, you need 51% evidence. Screenshots of file titles are 0% evidence, whether they are attempted to be introduced into Criminal or Civil Court. There is no universal standard file size for any song title at any song bit rate. And even if there were, that would not preclude other files such as personal commentary or fair use parody matching the file sizes of legitimate copyright infringing files.
It's not the burden of the defense to prove anything, even in a Civil Trial. The defendant doesn't need to take the stand and make any excuses whatsoever. I can't just willy nilly file suits against everybody and roll the dice on a 50% probability verdict that the Jury dislikes the defendant to collect damages for any claims I feel like making up.
That screenshots of file names were allowed as admissible evidence even in a Civil Trial is a gross abuse of the Justice System, and likely grounds for censure and removal from the bench for all Judges who failed to not allow screenshots to be admitted as evidence. I say we collect names of Judges, and begin proceedings.
Firstly, civil entities cannot entrap. A corporation is not a civil entity. Neither is an individual acting in a "private detective" capacity a civil entity. See Hewlitt Packard and the Carly Fiorina investigations of HP Executives. In so far as the RIAA is hiring a detective agency, let alone an unlicensed in some States agency, they certainly can entrap. And any unlicensed individual acting in "police capacity" can certainly entrap someone. You can't set up a hidden camera on a street corner and then try to bribe or coerce people to buy drugs or copyright infringed cds as a personal vendetta sting operation. You can do investigative reporting, ala Dateline sexual predators, but you are certainly subject to legal standards and legal risk (Dateline has plenty of legal and police advisement precisely to avoid being guilty of entrapment). If civil entities couldn't entrap there would never be any possible feasible example of any entrapment whatsoever, as all entrapment involves *individuals* acting in a certain capacity, such as a "police capacity".
Secondly, I think you are misinterpreting 'making available' here No, my interpretation is multiply *dependent* upon the RIAA interpretation, especially regarding to whether any form of consent or permission is given to second parties. I'll just argue the same standard be applied universally, and the RIAA's interpretation logically applied would argue that all businesses give consent (or be *assigned* responsibility) to illegal activity by second parties merely by "making available" any product. This would, of course, instantly destroy any and all legal recourse to patent and copyright infringement, as the first government protected party "made available" according to the RIAA standard and interpretation.
Moreover, you then go on to misinterpret the 'equal protection' doctrine fairly drastically. Excellent. So that means I'm in elite legal company, from the Supreme Court throughout the most brilliant legal scholars in history. And of course Equal Protection under the Law could *never* mean the Law is applied the same to all persons and entities./sarcasm
Are the Yellow Pages copyrighted? Can I make free copies of any and all the content included in the Yellow Pages and distribute it on my own for commercial profit or for non-commercial non-profit? Does the company which produces the Yellow Pages dropping off copies outside of residences (they don't tend to fit into mailboxes), public sidewalks, semi-public apartment spaces constitute "making available" consent? If no, then neither does uploading any copyrighted song or any copyrighted content whatsoever.
How about copyrighted and patented car parts? Does selling cars for the purpose of public display while moving through public streets constitute "making available" consent from the car manufacturers? If no, then neither does uploading any copyrighted song or any copyrighted content whatsoever.
If "making publicly available" constitutes *consent*, then all parties and legal entities must be held to the same standard under Equal Protection of the Law. And that means any and all products which are produced for public consumption have by default received "making available" consent to violate any claimed copyrights or patents.
The RIAA itself is guilty of "making available". Every company with copyrighted or patented stuff for sale is guilty of "making available". So they are all minimally liable for entrapment, or maximally liable for total forfeiture of the government monopoly grants of copyright and patent. Otherwise, nobody who makes anything whatsoever "available" has given *consent* to the actions of a second party, who may act "illegally" by violating copyrights or patents, unless explicitly otherwise noted and established by the case law precedents regarding consent for second party actions.
Of course you won't ALWAYS get that. All you need is to download in Court two different files with the same name that have different content in those files. As the RIAA/Media Sentry etc. has attempted to fight piracy by distorting, removing, changing, obscuring the content of files in order to protect their intellectual property from being infringed, we have PROOF that screenshots, or even results listing on any and all trackers or file sharing programs does not necessarily constitute the alleged infringement of copyrights by file title alone.
And I would get that established on the witness stand as well.
"Has your company, or any companies you hired, put up files with titles of your copyrighted works with content that does not contain any of your copyright protected works?"
"So then these titles may not contain copyrighted content"?
And even if you did all that, it still would not be illegal to put the cover of a copyrighted book around a bunch of non-copyrighted scribble drawings by the person's own three year old child. Thus, copying the child scribbles inside a book with The Cat in the Hat cover is not illegal. And a Cat in the Hat cover is not evidence of the pages within.
Your child's school choir performance of "JingleBells.mp3" does not establish proof of copyright violation for every RIAA song that contains the words "Jingle Bells" (although it may constitute some form of PR Disaster copyright violation, which artist's version of Jingle Bells is being infringed?) Certainly a file title is not evidence of all songs ever made regarding "Jingle Bells" being infringed, let alone any single instance of "Jingle Bells" being infringed. Thus, the RIAA can not only censor you putting up your child's school choir performance of "Jingle Bells" within a file title JingleBells.mp3 with take down notices, but sue you for $150,000 and have a screenshot of "JingleBells.mp3" be admissible as EVIDENCE?
I'm outraged that screenshots of file titles are and/or ever were admitted into any Court of Law as evidence of content. What's next, installing hidden cameras in people's homes without their consent and charging the owners of the house with child pornography and public indecency? At least then, you know, you'd actually have some *real* evidence, even if it was wholly manufactured.
Any and all Judges who allowed screenshots of file titles to be admissible evidence should be censured and permanently removed from the bench, if not face additional charges of negligence and willful wrongdoing.
I don't believe hearsay is admissible as *evidence*. That's why you admit real evidence, even in a Civil case. There is no way to distinguish whether BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 is actually a song, or maybe some dude on the internetz commenting on the song, or anything whatsoever. The Judge is acting criminally, and this is grounds for appeal, if you object to screenshots not being evidence of copyright infringement.
This is extremely important, not just because it will basically indemnify (or convict policing attempts like those of the RIAA/Media Sentry) all P2P exchange, but because people aren't presumed guilty, even in a Civil trial. How can you defend against a screenshot with file titles that could contain anything in the files, that could be wholly manufactured? This is nothing that utter and complete CENSORSHIP and First Amendment violations against even fair use, against even wholly non-infringing commentary.
Can real copyright infringers who are selling physical cds on streetcorners be convicted criminally, or even found liable in a civil court, by taking some pictures of some cds confiscated in a raid, and saying that's the evidence of copyright infringement? Hell no! There'd damn well better be proof of copyright infringement on those cds. Similarly, pictures of file titles are not evidence of copyright infringement. It's total and completely utter hearsay, AT BEST!
A file title is not evidence of actual copyrighted infringement. I haven't heard a copyrighted single song the RIAA downloaded from a defendant played as evidence in a court of law. If I write BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 in this post, that is *not* evidence of copyright infringement no matter how many people link to this post from other sites, no matter how many screenshots the RIAA makes of files with any titles whatsoever.
The RIAA has no real evidence of copyright infringement to submit into any civil court. If I were a defense attorney I would make that extremely clear to the Judge and Jury. Explicitly, I would ask the RIAA "expert witness":
"Where is the actual song with content you copied from the defendant?" "You said you didn't download any actual song with from the defendant?" "How do you know the actual contents were not personal commentary about a song rather than copyright infringement distribution?" "You don't *know* what the actual contents of the files you claim are copyright infringements actually are?"
"Motion to dismiss, with prejudice, attorneys fees, malicious prosecution, fraud, extortion, unlicensed spying, stalking, harassment."
Then, once the RIAA is forced to have to download/upload files in P2P streams, in order to substantiate evidence, they will be guaranteed to be on the hook for $150,000 per "accidental" infringement. And we can subpoena all records and files the RIAA and Media Sentry have downloaded and forward to the appropriate parties and authorities, not to mention grow the list of criminal RICO racketeering charges against the RIAA.
The RIAA "evidence" of file titles constituting copyright infringement is as absurd as writing dollar amounts on an internet thread constitutes counterfeiting.
$100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 --- This is not "evidence" of counterfeiting, just as BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 is not evidence of copyright infringement.
Music has always been made from algorithms, even if those algorithms happen to be fuzzy or distorted at the edges. Was true for Mozart, is true for any pop genre today, or any indie music for that matter. It's sound wave frequencies, there's an element of mathematics. But just because mathematics can model every sound ever made doesn't necessarily mean mathematics will lead musical innovation. Regardless, there is a formulaic algorithm element foundation to all music, and scientific mathematical analysis of music has been going on for a lot longer than a decade. It's no different than that are "rules" of grammar in writing, with foundational construction elements.
Is there anything more formulaic, more static an algorithm, than a 4 or 5 member band with drums, bass guitar, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, and lead singer?
There has been an explosion of musical instruments, an explosion of musical references and phrasings, that can be combined in many more complicated subtle and outrageous ways. And the new sounds haven't found their way to the mainstream yet, because, the artificial restricted competition of the music industry is pushing mostly pure formulaic algorithms from Top 40 to so called indie. Innovative cutting edge music is more nomadic, more gypsy wild, whether its classical or rock and roll. And consumer feedback suggests the mainstream music "product" is a very tired algorithm.
I wouldn't be worried about mathematical algorithms writing new music anymore than I would be worried about mathematical algorithms writing new Shakespearian novels. But both are indeed theoretical possibilities. You can run super computer combination programs of all symbols, letters, musical notes, and they likely could very well stumble onto some very good small pieces of quality which could serve as further building blocks for artistic expression, but I don't see whole novels or whole concertos being written by pure combination programming anytime soon.
Yes, we are the cusp of Disc Jockey Super Competition. DJs used to be the Gatekeepers. But that role faded fast when Clear Channel owns the bulk of Top 40 radio stations across the USA, and the same set lists play on repeat 90% of the time for 90% of the big market big stations.
You go out to a dance club, and hear music you have no idea who the artists are. That will change. And there will be new money and new fame for new talent, for new different artists and new different gatekeepers.
Those pushing Payola music will have their clocks cleaned by those pushing new raw talent not inhibited by restrictive play lists. Sure, some Payola music is good, but some of it is just old model artificial scarcity pushing of tired formulaic drivel.
I never understood why information in the music industry is so far in the dark ages. It's not at all easy to even know the name of the artists and songs which are playing on the radio. How many times have you heard a good song and it takes listener effort to discover who the artist is? You see tons of internet threads asking for help finding the artist/song with "...lyrics...".
You've DEMONSTRATED nothing. Your example consists of a single trade.
No, it consists of absolutely every single trade which can possibly occur.
So, to use your model, suppose that person 1 buys all kinds of things from person 2, but person 2 purchases far less from person 1.
*BUYS* is just another word for *TRADE*. No EXCHANGE, no BUYING, no SELLING, no TRADING, occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. Person 1 doesn't trade ANYTHING to Person 2 and vice versa unless what is received in return is valued MORE than what is given away in exchange. It doesn't matter what the goods exchanged are. Nobody voluntarily moves item A (A = absolutely everything which can be and is traded) from Person 1 to Person 2, or voluntarily moves item B (B = absolutely everything which can be and is traded) from Person 2 to Person 1. My DEMONSTRATION holds for absolutely every single trade which has ever occurred, which will ever occur, and which can possibly ever occur. Your objection is as absurd as if you were to object to Newton's Law of Motion by stating he only demonstrated the law of motion for "apples" and not "feathers", or "computers" weren't around when Newton demonstrated his Law of Motion so that Law of Motion doesn't apply to "computers". No, it's UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE. And it would be absurd to hold otherwise.
Person 1 ends up sending a giant chunk of his income to person 2 each year. Soon, person 1 has to borrow money to keep up his rate of consumption - a lot of money. Person 1 goes broke and ends up living under a bridge.
Person 1 doesn't send a giant chunk of his income to Person 2 each year unless what Person 1 receives in return from Person 2 is WORTH MORE than the income Person 1 trades away. It doesn't matter what the goods exchanged are: they are independently extrinsically subjectively valued. Doesn't matter if it's a hard commodity like oil, paper "money", or credit promises. None of that is exchanged, none of that is accepted by another party unless it's by definition worth more than what is given away in exchange.
That's what a trade deficit is, since you seem to have a poor understanding of the concept.
There is no "trade deficit". This has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. It is impossible for you to show a single example of any "trade deficit" created anywhere. All trade increases wealth without exception (the only reason it occurs in the first place), and all the goods which exist before the trade exist after the trade (nothing disappears from any trade). Item A ends up in Country 2, and item B ends up in Country 1 (no matter what those items are, they are subjectively positively valued), and both those items are more valuable there in their new places of possession by different persons then they were before they were traded there. You'd have to be a stupid ass moron to think you incur unlimited trade deficits because you don't sew your own clothes, grow your own food, build your own computers, build your own house, create your own energy, etc. No, dumb fuck, trading for stuff you don't create yourself through the division of labor increases your wealth!
Stop and *think* for 1 second! If immediately after any trade occurred you artificially forced the reverse of that trade, the reverse of that "buying", the reverse of that "selling", the reverse of that exchange, no "trade surplus" or "trade deficit" would occur. You would simply make both Person 1 and Person 2 less wealthier (because by definition Person 1 values Good B more than Good A, and by definition Person 2 values Good A more than Good B), BUT THE EXACT SAME GOODS WHICH WERE TRADED WOULD STILL EXIST!
I expect the union bosses (the government) to look out for my interests whenever possible. That might take lots of forms, including the limitation of trade.
That is never looking out for the citizens as a whole interests, because it only causes the society (a
It's nothing to do with "opinion". I already DEMONSTRATED this multiple times.
1.) Every trade merely moves goods from one person to another person. The same goods which exist before the trade exist after the trade. All things which are traded are independently extrinsically subjectively valued, whether they are hard commodities, "money", or anything whatsoever.
2.) All trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. All trade creates positive wealth for all parties to the trade. B is preferred to A for Person 1 and A is preferred to B for Person 2. If in fact it was not so, if B was not preferred to A for Person 1, or if A was not preferred to B for Person 2, trade would not occur in the first place.
So where is there any "deficit" from any trade? There is NONE. So admit it, claiming a "trade deficit" is false because no such thing exists.
This DEMONSTRATION qualifies me for one of the most important Nobel Prizes in Economics ever, as we see that mass ignorance of talk from the mainstream media to the halls of academia about "trade deficits". As there is no such thing, my DEMONSTRATION enlightens, and if followed with cause the eradication of poverty through the eradication of inefficient wasteful poverty causing government interference with free trade.
It's tight, it's rigorous, it's simple, it's on par with Newton's Law of Motion or Copernicus' demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
I've yet to hear you repent your original error of your false claims of "job loss" and "trade deficits" caused from trade.
You are confusing government regulation of commerce between banned things and things which do exist and are commonly possessed by the masses. If you want to talk about the markets for cocaine and nuclear weapons, that doesn't apply to normal things which are already possessed by the masses. Prohibiting or restricting trade of those items is causing poverty WITHOUT exception.
I've not at all contradicted myself. It still stands that there is no such thing as a trade deficit or job loss caused from trade, no matter what the goods exchanged are, no matter where the individuals trading are. The other replies are immaterial to the fundamental, IRREFUTABLE, DEMONSTRATED, conclusion that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit". You've certainly gone far out of your way to avoid admitting what you originally wrote was false.
Walmart isn't trading cocaine or nuclear weapons, so those points are immaterial to the original quote of your I excerpted where you claimed Walmart was contributing to a non-existent fairyland "trade deficit". But sure, there can be legitimate government regulation of commerce of some *things* (not circumstances); but none of those instances would ever apply to things you are allowed to buy from Walmart.
That's not an EXCEPTION to economic law. That's a personal subjective valuation imposed on others, which if they were intending to use nuclear power for peaceful means, is by definition causing them to be poorer.
Not to mention, the "bad thing" which you are against (like cocaine), would BY DEFINITION already exist for it to be traded in the first place. Trade merely transfers things to different persons. The same goods which exist before the trade, exist after the trade. There's no absurd "deficit". Though net wealth is by definition greater after trade than before trade. Trade creates wealth. The division of labor is trade. Restricting or eliminating trade only results in caused poverty, because by definition your personal subjective valuations are not the personal subjective valuations of those who by definition prefer A to B and B to A when A is traded for B.
I'm also convinced that enormous technological breakthroughs in physics and biology will proceed from this recognition in economics. But then I'd justly award myself the Nobel Prize in Economics for the next 50 straight years... because I'm just that much better than the competition of primitive quacks in academia.:P In the meantime I might as well rip, humiliate, and embarrass those who are wrong and in my way by strict DEMONSTRATION (as opposed to petty B.S. statistical mathematical masturbation pretending to... who knows).
It's a scientific economic LAW, not a matter of political expediency, which is why it's TRUE WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Newton's laws of motion don't operate differently when cocaine is being shipped rather than bananas being shipped. The only reason any trade whatsoever occurs is because simultaneously Person A values Person B's good more than his own AND Person B values Person A's good more than his own. It doesn't matter what the goods are. That's why all trade occurs. And there's never any deficit ever from any instance of trade.
All the mainstream media talk of "trade deficits" is exactly as if they were talking about the sun revolving around the earth when we see it rise in the east in the morning and set in the west in the evening. It would be nothing less than pure ignorance.
Cocaine might be subjectively regarded as "bad", but so might laundry detergent be subjectively regarded as "bad" if people started snorting laundry detergent. Drug users send information to non drug users. That's why you might see Darwinian evolution of the drug dealers that don't do really bad drugs like heroine or crack. And there's no limit to "bad behavior" you can ban. How about banning skateboards and bicycles because kids might do stunts with those items leading to severe injury like paralysis and/or death? Absolutely everything can be abused. Gasoline, household chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, computers, guns, staples, power tools, telephones, and on and on and on.
That said, neither would I be in favor, at this time, of everybody having free trade access to nuclear weapons in their backyards. But these are exceptional "mass destruction" things, which can be regarded as clear and present threats to safety, not typical everyday commodities which should not be part of political manipulation to cause net poverty while a few benefit short term from monopolies and artificial scarcity. No tariffs or NAFTA-MANAGED political interference on steel, lumber, wheat, corn, cotton, etc. If you are already allowed to possess something, instituting trade restrictions and interference on those things is causing net poverty without exception.
BUT - the slave labor that makes the goods in China is not voluntary. That's what a slave is, for the love of Mike. You are severely exaggerating.
Even if you disagree with the word slave, then fact remains that the Chinese are not producing their goods under the same rules that we are, and that gives them an inherent advantage. Of course they can make goods more cheaply! They have no concern for the health, safety, human rights, or general well being of their workers. That makes it easy to crank out plastic garbage cans at a cheaper rate. To buy those goods is to support that enslavement - period. The *only* remedy has been increased competition for labor and increased productivity of labor. Any old fool can make a garbage can. Why should skilled American labor produce garbage cans? It's completely contrary to the comparative advantage of trade. And I seriously doubt any employer considers himself better off the more worker casualties he causes, even if they were pure slaves.
And though you may decry the Chinese condition, those workers are willing voluntarily better off by having those manufacturing jobs options than they are not having them. Only free market competition (and Unions can be a form of free market organization, just as college degrees are nothing more than Union Cards) can bring about a better deal. And to the extent any Chinese laborer can quit or choose not to work in a job, that is a 100% free market decision. Let's not pretend they are worse off than wandering primitive tribes hunting food 100k years ago, or an actual slave population being whipped en masse.
And you have a personal choice, and so does everybody else, to not trade with Chinese labor by not trading with Walmart. But the minute you take away people's choices through government interference, you are attacking the freedom of others and causing poverty, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Every trade tariff, every trade embargo, is an act of violence on the freedom of your fellow citizens. If you think a deal is bad, start your own business and offer a better deal. You *can* compete on more than just price. It's up to you to convince people to voluntarily boycott Walmart; don't make enemies by using or advocating for political interference.
And still, remember, there is no such thing as a "trade deficit", the primary, DEMONSTRATED, point of this argument. "Trade deficit" is absurd contradictory made up baloney which shows lack of enlightenment and economic education. If you understand and agree, then my job is done. And that error is made at least several times per day at this site, and you are far from the first I've called out on it.
Re:Artists should make the most money, not the lab
on
Must a CD Cost $15.99?
·
· Score: 1
I believe you are generally correct. Professional sports athletes generally get about 50-60% of revenues as salary, and they don't have building maintenance, stadium construction, field upkeep, or marketing costs deducted from their paychecks. The music industry is just mobbed up, has mafioso contracts and elements. And competition is severely limited, with 3-4 Family Bosses, I mean corporate CEOs.
But 30 years ago, professional athletes weren't making the kind of money they do today. What changed? The Union, free agency, 20-30 competing bids (teams), and shorter term contracts.
Given that almost everything at Walmart is made in China, your entire free market argument falls apart before it even gets off the ground. By definition, in order for a market to be free, all parties must not be coerced. Guess what? The Chinese government has some pretty intense ways of coercing people. The typical free market response is to say that the Chinese worker is better off than they were. Maybe so, but a better off slave is still a slave. Doesn't address in the slightest the irrefutable economic fact that all voluntary trade whatsoever, no matter who or where the people are, no matter what the goods exchanged are, only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. It doesn't matter WHAT the goods are: it could be a stolen car being fenced, it could be the product of slave labor. Nobody is still going to ever voluntarily trade for anything that does not immediately increase their economic wealth. So again, there is absolutely no such thing as a "trade deficit". I'm sorry that you feel calling you a moron is an ad hominem, but it's a fact as long as you publicly write nonsensical absurdities like "trade deficit". Nor would it be an ad hominem to call someone who said the earth was flat a moron.
First off, you can't have free markets without free people. Totally false. Every voluntary action, every voluntary exchange is a free market exchange. When you walk through a grocery store and choose to buy bananas and choose not to buy oranges, that is nothing less than 100% free market activity. Even a slave that chooses to put mustard rather than ketchup on his hotdog (if his master makes the choice available) is engaging in a free market decision.
There is always an externality, and all of the players in the game did not start at the same place, so these free markets that you're raving about exist only in your mind. Completely absurd and immaterial to reality, to the fact that voluntary exchanges can and do occur, and that they ONLY occur because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. Suggesting absurdities like "trade deficits" is moronic. If you want to talk about coercion and slavery, then use a term such as "slave deficit". Don't try to co-opt and corrupt the voluntary definition of trade to encompass non-voluntary actions the way the socialists co-opted and corrupted the word "liberal" to encompass government restriction which take away liberty and freedom.
You might be willing to leave the preservation of our national parks up to private entities. I am not. You might be untroubled by the fact that every article of clothing on your back was made by someone who had very few choices in life, and enjoyed very little freedom. That fact does trouble me, sir. No excuse for primitive economic theory to wrongly explain things. Your talk of "trade deficits" is no different than listening to a Christian Fundamentalist explain evolution as occurring by "intelligent design" and the world being 6,000 years old. I would have stopped calling you a moron if you were capable of grasping that there's no such thing as a "trade deficit" from any trade whatsoever, EVER. But you failed, and remain, a moron.
You don't correct for lack of freedom by taking or further limiting the freedom of others away through unnecessary government interference which causes poverty. If you disapprove of Walmart's business methods, then don't shop there. That's a free market choice to shop, or not shop, at Walmart. And there's no "trade deficit" caused from shopping or not shopping at Walmart.
Yes, this is definitely the word on the street. The RIAA has zero evidence of any infringement whatsoever. Nothing but empty claims or screenshots of titles. All defense attorneys, and Judges, need to be made aware that there isn't any hard evidence to any of the RIAA claims. That's why the DEA cannot arrest people for offering to sell drugs, but must actually by drugs to prove a crime has occurred. They are basically suing people who have list names of similar titles to the RIAA catalogue with no proof of actual content. This should probably be enough for a class action lawsuit to get all settlements returned with treble damages, and is just another RICO predicate violation in an an enormous list of RICO predicate violations for the RIAA.
I don't think that piracy is exactly a courageous stand against high prices. But it's "courageous" when artists and businesses copy the ideas created by others, such as delivering content by P2P method, or writing songs in I-IV-V progression?
The US economy was made weaker by the job loss, and the increase in the already staggering national trade deficit. Pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a "trade deficit". All trade whatsoever, no matter where the persons are, no matter what the different things exchanged are, only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. Trade increases wealth for all parties for every trade. Your claim about "job loss" is as ridiculous a claim as "job loss" since you don't grow your own food, sew your own clothes, manufacture your own computer parts, and do absolutely all production for everything you have and want 100% by yourself. There's no job loss when somebody won't hire you, or continue to employ you, for $1 million per hour, nor is there any job loss when somebody won't hire you, or continue to employ you, for any amount of money per hour. Your conception of "job" is absurd as a record label company's absurd notion of a right to earn the same or ever growing profit ad infinitum.
This division of labor increases net society wealth. The division of labor occurs solely through free trade. Imaginary international borders are immaterial to the real wealth increasing benefits of trade.
People who talk about "national trade deficits" are morons spewing false negatively connoted propaganda. If you were to prevent or by force reverse the trades which resulted in the alleged "national trade deficit" you would solely be *causing* net world poverty, causing the world to be less wealthier, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
You are exactly right. And this is very similar, if not exact, to what exists on the music channels on Comcast cable. Song plays, lots of info about the band, info about the song, related info, pictures, videos, etc., on the right 10-20% of the column, or on the bottom 10-20% of the row. You can rotate adds in that space. Make it free on demand, and you can undercut 100% of the profit Clear Channel makes from selling advertising. Let individual fans create personal DJ lists, pre-game mixes, etc. You have perfect record keeping of songs played. Bands could get their own advertising cuts by listening to their own songs.
If it was done correctly, back when the labels could have worked with one big site like Napster, revenues and profits probably would have exploded (the industry certainly would have been more valuable than Google). But the executives were total greedy short sighted idiots.
But even though the industry could have been more valuable than Google plus Clear Channel plus maybe even Disney, they would have blown that too, by instituting stupid adds that overdid advertising fatigue, or requiring listing and tracking of personal information to sell to marketers. If you could have also been able to download the tracks for reasonable prices, $0.10 for older content, $0.25 for newer content, the industry could have been more valuable than Google plus Clear Channel plus Disney plus Comcast. Net sales likely wouldn't have merely doubled or tripled, but multiplied times ten. Every movie, every television show, could have had links to websites in the credits where you could download the songs. Now you are talking price and convenience that can compete with free file sharing, as you have guaranteed content and level of quality to go with ease of acquisition. You could have had real music channels, showing local and national live concerts, history channel type documentaries, blah blah blah. You could have bought bulk credits for say $10 or $100 to deduct from your accounts rather than charging hundreds of $0.10 or $0.25 transaction charges to the credit card.
Bands could have uploaded their own stuff, or hired a marketing company to tailor their offerings, and word of mouth free market marketing would have brought in many more billions than the industry ever made at their peak. It's just that the industry wouldn't have been able to shut out competition from non-RIAA labels and independent artists. And the marketing and promotion function of the traditional record companies would have been eliminated, hence destroying these dinosaur middlemen anyway.
But that's likely what the model will somewhat evolve to. Though the greed of spamming annoying advertisements would constantly threaten its viability, checked to some degree by advertising free file sharing. But the market will eventually get their, and both fans and artists will be liberated.
Plus, you got to admit the perks of having * FREE * education and health-care, albeit some of it isn't the best, but it's still free, and good schools and healthcare for * FREE * does exist in large degree, you just got to pick where you go:) Nevermind the fact that they infact ** PAY YOU ** to goto school here and get educated, and govt ** PAYS ** for innovation, and sometimes for employing people too. Education isn't "FREE". Just because the costs are hidden from you, and the net result being far inferior quality at a massive waste of resources cost (employing a massively wasteful bureaucracy), doesn't make it "FREE". 90% of the teachers, including professors, are nothing more than day shift + night shift ditch diggers digging in and filling in the same hole. Most of those teachers can be fired, and all the students can access video lectures of the very best professors on the internet for the majority of education subjects. 90% of the money spent on education is pure welfare queen subsidized waste, that isn't voluntarily paid by free market buyers and sellers.
Never mind the fact that we DO NOT wiretap masses at will, we DO NOT track where you are by your cell phone at will if you do not approve. We do not kill prisoners neither at a whim, but actually punish them by having them to live for their actions. As I said originally, and you were unable to refute, you take property without due process, and you have no respect for privacy whatsoever, as EVIDENCED by your totalitarian mandated registration of personal data, including name, address, income, race, etc. What part of *EVIDENCED* do you dumb socialists not comprehend? Wiretaps and cell phone tracking is far less egregious than tapping, tracking, and reading peoples' paycheck statements and withdrawing funds directly from those paychecks. And you made not even the slightest argument to the contrary. Your phony cries about pretending to love privacy is pure BULLSHIT LIES.
Who is responsible for the original massive invasions of privacy? Who is blind and stupid that they cannot even realize how they massively invaded and enabled further fascist invasions of personal privacy with paved precedence? Dumb socialists. So take your phony privacy pretension elsewhere. And may many more leftists like Eliot Spitzer suffer their just desserts.
I'm no troll. You're just upset that I pointed out your hypocritical lies.
I'm European, and damn i'm happy to be european and not live in the US these days. Where are all privacy and human rights? U.S. Govt is corrupted, and badly, starting from Mr. George W. Bush, who has the office for manipulation of the elections. Oh please, European government is just as corrupt if not even more corrupt than US government. Privacy and human rights? No European government believes in privacy. They don't force registration of your name, address, and income whenever you receive a paycheck? That don't force registration for social welfare benefits? You people started the invasion of private information to mandate your social engineering welfare redistribution schemes.
Your government doesn't know how much money you make and take deductions directly from your paycheck? That's 100% pure invasion of privacy which fools like you wholeheartedly embrace. So stop bitching if the government (any government anywhere in the world) reads your email. It's extremely minor in comparison to the government reading your paycheck stubs, and taking deductions before you ever even touch that money. You don't believe in due process, you don't believe in privacy. So stop lying, you dumb socialists.
That this US government data free-for-all has not been a big deal to American sysadmins has been a source of more than a little concern and confusion to us here north of the border. Because simply leftists concerned about privacy are hypocritically contradicting their nature. These are the same people that originally got the government invasion of private data ball rolling by requiring everyone who gets a new job to submit their identity, address, and income for automatic tax theft. Canadians and Europeans are even bigger socialists than the US, are even bigger violators of privacy. What pretension that they somehow value "privacy".
It's the mother load of irony of ironies when leftists complain about government collecting private data. These are the people, the socialists, who started the whole thing. They aren't serious about phony beliefs in privacy until they start advocating against the government collecting tax data, until they start advocating a repeal of big government socialist welfare programs and the taxing methodologies.
Seriously, WTF, they are going to bitch about the government reading their email, but want to mandate the government have access to your bank accounts and paycheck stubs? Give me a break. I've never seen a thread of more hypocrisy than this one. If we can get a new McCarthyist movement to punish some leftists for "bad behavior" (just like Eliot Spitzer) than it's just desserts.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, you need 51% evidence. Screenshots of file titles are 0% evidence, whether they are attempted to be introduced into Criminal or Civil Court. There is no universal standard file size for any song title at any song bit rate. And even if there were, that would not preclude other files such as personal commentary or fair use parody matching the file sizes of legitimate copyright infringing files.
It's not the burden of the defense to prove anything, even in a Civil Trial. The defendant doesn't need to take the stand and make any excuses whatsoever. I can't just willy nilly file suits against everybody and roll the dice on a 50% probability verdict that the Jury dislikes the defendant to collect damages for any claims I feel like making up.
That screenshots of file names were allowed as admissible evidence even in a Civil Trial is a gross abuse of the Justice System, and likely grounds for censure and removal from the bench for all Judges who failed to not allow screenshots to be admitted as evidence. I say we collect names of Judges, and begin proceedings.
Are the Yellow Pages copyrighted? Can I make free copies of any and all the content included in the Yellow Pages and distribute it on my own for commercial profit or for non-commercial non-profit? Does the company which produces the Yellow Pages dropping off copies outside of residences (they don't tend to fit into mailboxes), public sidewalks, semi-public apartment spaces constitute "making available" consent? If no, then neither does uploading any copyrighted song or any copyrighted content whatsoever.
How about copyrighted and patented car parts? Does selling cars for the purpose of public display while moving through public streets constitute "making available" consent from the car manufacturers? If no, then neither does uploading any copyrighted song or any copyrighted content whatsoever.
If "making publicly available" constitutes *consent*, then all parties and legal entities must be held to the same standard under Equal Protection of the Law. And that means any and all products which are produced for public consumption have by default received "making available" consent to violate any claimed copyrights or patents.
The RIAA itself is guilty of "making available". Every company with copyrighted or patented stuff for sale is guilty of "making available". So they are all minimally liable for entrapment, or maximally liable for total forfeiture of the government monopoly grants of copyright and patent. Otherwise, nobody who makes anything whatsoever "available" has given *consent* to the actions of a second party, who may act "illegally" by violating copyrights or patents, unless explicitly otherwise noted and established by the case law precedents regarding consent for second party actions.
Of course you won't ALWAYS get that. All you need is to download in Court two different files with the same name that have different content in those files. As the RIAA/Media Sentry etc. has attempted to fight piracy by distorting, removing, changing, obscuring the content of files in order to protect their intellectual property from being infringed, we have PROOF that screenshots, or even results listing on any and all trackers or file sharing programs does not necessarily constitute the alleged infringement of copyrights by file title alone.
And I would get that established on the witness stand as well.
"Has your company, or any companies you hired, put up files with titles of your copyrighted works with content that does not contain any of your copyright protected works?"
"So then these titles may not contain copyrighted content"?
And even if you did all that, it still would not be illegal to put the cover of a copyrighted book around a bunch of non-copyrighted scribble drawings by the person's own three year old child. Thus, copying the child scribbles inside a book with The Cat in the Hat cover is not illegal. And a Cat in the Hat cover is not evidence of the pages within.
Your child's school choir performance of "JingleBells.mp3" does not establish proof of copyright violation for every RIAA song that contains the words "Jingle Bells" (although it may constitute some form of PR Disaster copyright violation, which artist's version of Jingle Bells is being infringed?) Certainly a file title is not evidence of all songs ever made regarding "Jingle Bells" being infringed, let alone any single instance of "Jingle Bells" being infringed. Thus, the RIAA can not only censor you putting up your child's school choir performance of "Jingle Bells" within a file title JingleBells.mp3 with take down notices, but sue you for $150,000 and have a screenshot of "JingleBells.mp3" be admissible as EVIDENCE?
I'm outraged that screenshots of file titles are and/or ever were admitted into any Court of Law as evidence of content. What's next, installing hidden cameras in people's homes without their consent and charging the owners of the house with child pornography and public indecency? At least then, you know, you'd actually have some *real* evidence, even if it was wholly manufactured.
Any and all Judges who allowed screenshots of file titles to be admissible evidence should be censured and permanently removed from the bench, if not face additional charges of negligence and willful wrongdoing.
I don't believe hearsay is admissible as *evidence*. That's why you admit real evidence, even in a Civil case. There is no way to distinguish whether BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 is actually a song, or maybe some dude on the internetz commenting on the song, or anything whatsoever. The Judge is acting criminally, and this is grounds for appeal, if you object to screenshots not being evidence of copyright infringement.
This is extremely important, not just because it will basically indemnify (or convict policing attempts like those of the RIAA/Media Sentry) all P2P exchange, but because people aren't presumed guilty, even in a Civil trial. How can you defend against a screenshot with file titles that could contain anything in the files, that could be wholly manufactured? This is nothing that utter and complete CENSORSHIP and First Amendment violations against even fair use, against even wholly non-infringing commentary.
Can real copyright infringers who are selling physical cds on streetcorners be convicted criminally, or even found liable in a civil court, by taking some pictures of some cds confiscated in a raid, and saying that's the evidence of copyright infringement? Hell no! There'd damn well better be proof of copyright infringement on those cds. Similarly, pictures of file titles are not evidence of copyright infringement. It's total and completely utter hearsay, AT BEST!
A file title is not evidence of actual copyrighted infringement. I haven't heard a copyrighted single song the RIAA downloaded from a defendant played as evidence in a court of law. If I write BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 in this post, that is *not* evidence of copyright infringement no matter how many people link to this post from other sites, no matter how many screenshots the RIAA makes of files with any titles whatsoever.
The RIAA has no real evidence of copyright infringement to submit into any civil court. If I were a defense attorney I would make that extremely clear to the Judge and Jury. Explicitly, I would ask the RIAA "expert witness":
"Where is the actual song with content you copied from the defendant?"
"You said you didn't download any actual song with from the defendant?"
"How do you know the actual contents were not personal commentary about a song rather than copyright infringement distribution?"
"You don't *know* what the actual contents of the files you claim are copyright infringements actually are?"
"Motion to dismiss, with prejudice, attorneys fees, malicious prosecution, fraud, extortion, unlicensed spying, stalking, harassment."
Then, once the RIAA is forced to have to download/upload files in P2P streams, in order to substantiate evidence, they will be guaranteed to be on the hook for $150,000 per "accidental" infringement. And we can subpoena all records and files the RIAA and Media Sentry have downloaded and forward to the appropriate parties and authorities, not to mention grow the list of criminal RICO racketeering charges against the RIAA.
The RIAA "evidence" of file titles constituting copyright infringement is as absurd as writing dollar amounts on an internet thread constitutes counterfeiting.
$100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 --- This is not "evidence" of counterfeiting, just as BritneySpearsToxic.mp3 is not evidence of copyright infringement.
Music has always been made from algorithms, even if those algorithms happen to be fuzzy or distorted at the edges. Was true for Mozart, is true for any pop genre today, or any indie music for that matter. It's sound wave frequencies, there's an element of mathematics. But just because mathematics can model every sound ever made doesn't necessarily mean mathematics will lead musical innovation. Regardless, there is a formulaic algorithm element foundation to all music, and scientific mathematical analysis of music has been going on for a lot longer than a decade. It's no different than that are "rules" of grammar in writing, with foundational construction elements.
Is there anything more formulaic, more static an algorithm, than a 4 or 5 member band with drums, bass guitar, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, and lead singer?
There has been an explosion of musical instruments, an explosion of musical references and phrasings, that can be combined in many more complicated subtle and outrageous ways. And the new sounds haven't found their way to the mainstream yet, because, the artificial restricted competition of the music industry is pushing mostly pure formulaic algorithms from Top 40 to so called indie. Innovative cutting edge music is more nomadic, more gypsy wild, whether its classical or rock and roll. And consumer feedback suggests the mainstream music "product" is a very tired algorithm.
I wouldn't be worried about mathematical algorithms writing new music anymore than I would be worried about mathematical algorithms writing new Shakespearian novels. But both are indeed theoretical possibilities. You can run super computer combination programs of all symbols, letters, musical notes, and they likely could very well stumble onto some very good small pieces of quality which could serve as further building blocks for artistic expression, but I don't see whole novels or whole concertos being written by pure combination programming anytime soon.
Yes, we are the cusp of Disc Jockey Super Competition. DJs used to be the Gatekeepers. But that role faded fast when Clear Channel owns the bulk of Top 40 radio stations across the USA, and the same set lists play on repeat 90% of the time for 90% of the big market big stations.
You go out to a dance club, and hear music you have no idea who the artists are. That will change. And there will be new money and new fame for new talent, for new different artists and new different gatekeepers.
Those pushing Payola music will have their clocks cleaned by those pushing new raw talent not inhibited by restrictive play lists. Sure, some Payola music is good, but some of it is just old model artificial scarcity pushing of tired formulaic drivel.
I never understood why information in the music industry is so far in the dark ages. It's not at all easy to even know the name of the artists and songs which are playing on the radio. How many times have you heard a good song and it takes listener effort to discover who the artist is? You see tons of internet threads asking for help finding the artist/song with "...lyrics...".
You've DEMONSTRATED nothing. Your example consists of a single trade.
No, it consists of absolutely every single trade which can possibly occur.
So, to use your model, suppose that person 1 buys all kinds of things from person 2, but person 2 purchases far less from person 1.
*BUYS* is just another word for *TRADE*. No EXCHANGE, no BUYING, no SELLING, no TRADING, occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. Person 1 doesn't trade ANYTHING to Person 2 and vice versa unless what is received in return is valued MORE than what is given away in exchange. It doesn't matter what the goods exchanged are. Nobody voluntarily moves item A (A = absolutely everything which can be and is traded) from Person 1 to Person 2, or voluntarily moves item B (B = absolutely everything which can be and is traded) from Person 2 to Person 1. My DEMONSTRATION holds for absolutely every single trade which has ever occurred, which will ever occur, and which can possibly ever occur. Your objection is as absurd as if you were to object to Newton's Law of Motion by stating he only demonstrated the law of motion for "apples" and not "feathers", or "computers" weren't around when Newton demonstrated his Law of Motion so that Law of Motion doesn't apply to "computers". No, it's UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE. And it would be absurd to hold otherwise.
Person 1 ends up sending a giant chunk of his income to person 2 each year. Soon, person 1 has to borrow money to keep up his rate of consumption - a lot of money. Person 1 goes broke and ends up living under a bridge.
Person 1 doesn't send a giant chunk of his income to Person 2 each year unless what Person 1 receives in return from Person 2 is WORTH MORE than the income Person 1 trades away. It doesn't matter what the goods exchanged are: they are independently extrinsically subjectively valued. Doesn't matter if it's a hard commodity like oil, paper "money", or credit promises. None of that is exchanged, none of that is accepted by another party unless it's by definition worth more than what is given away in exchange.
That's what a trade deficit is, since you seem to have a poor understanding of the concept.
There is no "trade deficit". This has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. It is impossible for you to show a single example of any "trade deficit" created anywhere. All trade increases wealth without exception (the only reason it occurs in the first place), and all the goods which exist before the trade exist after the trade (nothing disappears from any trade). Item A ends up in Country 2, and item B ends up in Country 1 (no matter what those items are, they are subjectively positively valued), and both those items are more valuable there in their new places of possession by different persons then they were before they were traded there. You'd have to be a stupid ass moron to think you incur unlimited trade deficits because you don't sew your own clothes, grow your own food, build your own computers, build your own house, create your own energy, etc. No, dumb fuck, trading for stuff you don't create yourself through the division of labor increases your wealth!
Stop and *think* for 1 second! If immediately after any trade occurred you artificially forced the reverse of that trade, the reverse of that "buying", the reverse of that "selling", the reverse of that exchange, no "trade surplus" or "trade deficit" would occur. You would simply make both Person 1 and Person 2 less wealthier (because by definition Person 1 values Good B more than Good A, and by definition Person 2 values Good A more than Good B), BUT THE EXACT SAME GOODS WHICH WERE TRADED WOULD STILL EXIST!
I expect the union bosses (the government) to look out for my interests whenever possible. That might take lots of forms, including the limitation of trade.
That is never looking out for the citizens as a whole interests, because it only causes the society (a
It's nothing to do with "opinion". I already DEMONSTRATED this multiple times.
1.) Every trade merely moves goods from one person to another person. The same goods which exist before the trade exist after the trade. All things which are traded are independently extrinsically subjectively valued, whether they are hard commodities, "money", or anything whatsoever.
2.) All trade only occurs because that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. All trade creates positive wealth for all parties to the trade. B is preferred to A for Person 1 and A is preferred to B for Person 2. If in fact it was not so, if B was not preferred to A for Person 1, or if A was not preferred to B for Person 2, trade would not occur in the first place.
So where is there any "deficit" from any trade? There is NONE. So admit it, claiming a "trade deficit" is false because no such thing exists.
This DEMONSTRATION qualifies me for one of the most important Nobel Prizes in Economics ever, as we see that mass ignorance of talk from the mainstream media to the halls of academia about "trade deficits". As there is no such thing, my DEMONSTRATION enlightens, and if followed with cause the eradication of poverty through the eradication of inefficient wasteful poverty causing government interference with free trade.
It's tight, it's rigorous, it's simple, it's on par with Newton's Law of Motion or Copernicus' demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
I've yet to hear you repent your original error of your false claims of "job loss" and "trade deficits" caused from trade.
You are confusing government regulation of commerce between banned things and things which do exist and are commonly possessed by the masses. If you want to talk about the markets for cocaine and nuclear weapons, that doesn't apply to normal things which are already possessed by the masses. Prohibiting or restricting trade of those items is causing poverty WITHOUT exception.
I've not at all contradicted myself. It still stands that there is no such thing as a trade deficit or job loss caused from trade, no matter what the goods exchanged are, no matter where the individuals trading are. The other replies are immaterial to the fundamental, IRREFUTABLE, DEMONSTRATED, conclusion that there is no such thing as a "trade deficit". You've certainly gone far out of your way to avoid admitting what you originally wrote was false.
Walmart isn't trading cocaine or nuclear weapons, so those points are immaterial to the original quote of your I excerpted where you claimed Walmart was contributing to a non-existent fairyland "trade deficit". But sure, there can be legitimate government regulation of commerce of some *things* (not circumstances); but none of those instances would ever apply to things you are allowed to buy from Walmart.
That's not an EXCEPTION to economic law. That's a personal subjective valuation imposed on others, which if they were intending to use nuclear power for peaceful means, is by definition causing them to be poorer.
Not to mention, the "bad thing" which you are against (like cocaine), would BY DEFINITION already exist for it to be traded in the first place. Trade merely transfers things to different persons. The same goods which exist before the trade, exist after the trade. There's no absurd "deficit". Though net wealth is by definition greater after trade than before trade. Trade creates wealth. The division of labor is trade. Restricting or eliminating trade only results in caused poverty, because by definition your personal subjective valuations are not the personal subjective valuations of those who by definition prefer A to B and B to A when A is traded for B.
... because I'm just that much better than the competition of primitive quacks in academia. :P In the meantime I might as well rip, humiliate, and embarrass those who are wrong and in my way by strict DEMONSTRATION (as opposed to petty B.S. statistical mathematical masturbation pretending to ... who knows).
I'm also convinced that enormous technological breakthroughs in physics and biology will proceed from this recognition in economics. But then I'd justly award myself the Nobel Prize in Economics for the next 50 straight years
It's a scientific economic LAW, not a matter of political expediency, which is why it's TRUE WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Newton's laws of motion don't operate differently when cocaine is being shipped rather than bananas being shipped. The only reason any trade whatsoever occurs is because simultaneously Person A values Person B's good more than his own AND Person B values Person A's good more than his own. It doesn't matter what the goods are. That's why all trade occurs. And there's never any deficit ever from any instance of trade.
All the mainstream media talk of "trade deficits" is exactly as if they were talking about the sun revolving around the earth when we see it rise in the east in the morning and set in the west in the evening. It would be nothing less than pure ignorance.
Cocaine might be subjectively regarded as "bad", but so might laundry detergent be subjectively regarded as "bad" if people started snorting laundry detergent. Drug users send information to non drug users. That's why you might see Darwinian evolution of the drug dealers that don't do really bad drugs like heroine or crack. And there's no limit to "bad behavior" you can ban. How about banning skateboards and bicycles because kids might do stunts with those items leading to severe injury like paralysis and/or death? Absolutely everything can be abused. Gasoline, household chemicals, automobiles, airplanes, computers, guns, staples, power tools, telephones, and on and on and on.
That said, neither would I be in favor, at this time, of everybody having free trade access to nuclear weapons in their backyards. But these are exceptional "mass destruction" things, which can be regarded as clear and present threats to safety, not typical everyday commodities which should not be part of political manipulation to cause net poverty while a few benefit short term from monopolies and artificial scarcity. No tariffs or NAFTA-MANAGED political interference on steel, lumber, wheat, corn, cotton, etc. If you are already allowed to possess something, instituting trade restrictions and interference on those things is causing net poverty without exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
And though you may decry the Chinese condition, those workers are willing voluntarily better off by having those manufacturing jobs options than they are not having them. Only free market competition (and Unions can be a form of free market organization, just as college degrees are nothing more than Union Cards) can bring about a better deal. And to the extent any Chinese laborer can quit or choose not to work in a job, that is a 100% free market decision. Let's not pretend they are worse off than wandering primitive tribes hunting food 100k years ago, or an actual slave population being whipped en masse.
And you have a personal choice, and so does everybody else, to not trade with Chinese labor by not trading with Walmart. But the minute you take away people's choices through government interference, you are attacking the freedom of others and causing poverty, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Every trade tariff, every trade embargo, is an act of violence on the freedom of your fellow citizens. If you think a deal is bad, start your own business and offer a better deal. You *can* compete on more than just price. It's up to you to convince people to voluntarily boycott Walmart; don't make enemies by using or advocating for political interference.
And still, remember, there is no such thing as a "trade deficit", the primary, DEMONSTRATED, point of this argument. "Trade deficit" is absurd contradictory made up baloney which shows lack of enlightenment and economic education. If you understand and agree, then my job is done. And that error is made at least several times per day at this site, and you are far from the first I've called out on it.
I believe you are generally correct. Professional sports athletes generally get about 50-60% of revenues as salary, and they don't have building maintenance, stadium construction, field upkeep, or marketing costs deducted from their paychecks. The music industry is just mobbed up, has mafioso contracts and elements. And competition is severely limited, with 3-4 Family Bosses, I mean corporate CEOs.
But 30 years ago, professional athletes weren't making the kind of money they do today. What changed? The Union, free agency, 20-30 competing bids (teams), and shorter term contracts.
You don't correct for lack of freedom by taking or further limiting the freedom of others away through unnecessary government interference which causes poverty. If you disapprove of Walmart's business methods, then don't shop there. That's a free market choice to shop, or not shop, at Walmart. And there's no "trade deficit" caused from shopping or not shopping at Walmart.
Yes, this is definitely the word on the street. The RIAA has zero evidence of any infringement whatsoever. Nothing but empty claims or screenshots of titles. All defense attorneys, and Judges, need to be made aware that there isn't any hard evidence to any of the RIAA claims. That's why the DEA cannot arrest people for offering to sell drugs, but must actually by drugs to prove a crime has occurred. They are basically suing people who have list names of similar titles to the RIAA catalogue with no proof of actual content. This should probably be enough for a class action lawsuit to get all settlements returned with treble damages, and is just another RICO predicate violation in an an enormous list of RICO predicate violations for the RIAA.
This division of labor increases net society wealth. The division of labor occurs solely through free trade. Imaginary international borders are immaterial to the real wealth increasing benefits of trade.
People who talk about "national trade deficits" are morons spewing false negatively connoted propaganda. If you were to prevent or by force reverse the trades which resulted in the alleged "national trade deficit" you would solely be *causing* net world poverty, causing the world to be less wealthier, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
You are exactly right. And this is very similar, if not exact, to what exists on the music channels on Comcast cable. Song plays, lots of info about the band, info about the song, related info, pictures, videos, etc., on the right 10-20% of the column, or on the bottom 10-20% of the row. You can rotate adds in that space. Make it free on demand, and you can undercut 100% of the profit Clear Channel makes from selling advertising. Let individual fans create personal DJ lists, pre-game mixes, etc. You have perfect record keeping of songs played. Bands could get their own advertising cuts by listening to their own songs.
If it was done correctly, back when the labels could have worked with one big site like Napster, revenues and profits probably would have exploded (the industry certainly would have been more valuable than Google). But the executives were total greedy short sighted idiots.
But even though the industry could have been more valuable than Google plus Clear Channel plus maybe even Disney, they would have blown that too, by instituting stupid adds that overdid advertising fatigue, or requiring listing and tracking of personal information to sell to marketers. If you could have also been able to download the tracks for reasonable prices, $0.10 for older content, $0.25 for newer content, the industry could have been more valuable than Google plus Clear Channel plus Disney plus Comcast. Net sales likely wouldn't have merely doubled or tripled, but multiplied times ten. Every movie, every television show, could have had links to websites in the credits where you could download the songs. Now you are talking price and convenience that can compete with free file sharing, as you have guaranteed content and level of quality to go with ease of acquisition. You could have had real music channels, showing local and national live concerts, history channel type documentaries, blah blah blah. You could have bought bulk credits for say $10 or $100 to deduct from your accounts rather than charging hundreds of $0.10 or $0.25 transaction charges to the credit card.
Bands could have uploaded their own stuff, or hired a marketing company to tailor their offerings, and word of mouth free market marketing would have brought in many more billions than the industry ever made at their peak. It's just that the industry wouldn't have been able to shut out competition from non-RIAA labels and independent artists. And the marketing and promotion function of the traditional record companies would have been eliminated, hence destroying these dinosaur middlemen anyway.
But that's likely what the model will somewhat evolve to. Though the greed of spamming annoying advertisements would constantly threaten its viability, checked to some degree by advertising free file sharing. But the market will eventually get their, and both fans and artists will be liberated.
Who is responsible for the original massive invasions of privacy? Who is blind and stupid that they cannot even realize how they massively invaded and enabled further fascist invasions of personal privacy with paved precedence? Dumb socialists. So take your phony privacy pretension elsewhere. And may many more leftists like Eliot Spitzer suffer their just desserts.
I'm no troll. You're just upset that I pointed out your hypocritical lies.
Your government doesn't know how much money you make and take deductions directly from your paycheck? That's 100% pure invasion of privacy which fools like you wholeheartedly embrace. So stop bitching if the government (any government anywhere in the world) reads your email. It's extremely minor in comparison to the government reading your paycheck stubs, and taking deductions before you ever even touch that money. You don't believe in due process, you don't believe in privacy. So stop lying, you dumb socialists.
It's the mother load of irony of ironies when leftists complain about government collecting private data. These are the people, the socialists, who started the whole thing. They aren't serious about phony beliefs in privacy until they start advocating against the government collecting tax data, until they start advocating a repeal of big government socialist welfare programs and the taxing methodologies.
Seriously, WTF, they are going to bitch about the government reading their email, but want to mandate the government have access to your bank accounts and paycheck stubs? Give me a break. I've never seen a thread of more hypocrisy than this one. If we can get a new McCarthyist movement to punish some leftists for "bad behavior" (just like Eliot Spitzer) than it's just desserts.