The Bush Justice Dept. should investigate the record industry for pricefixing and other antitrust violations. This is because:
1. All evidence indicates they're guilty; and
2. They give lots of money to Democrats.
Take it away, Mr. Ashcroft!
PS: Check out the MPAA, too.
Learn how to use the phone & copier system the first day. Be nice to all secretaries, mailroom people, etc. Never go anywhere without a clipboard or other work-related object in your hand.
"Rational thought is pretty rare these days, even in prestigious universities. We live in the TV age now, and people think by linking images in their brains."
Truer every day. Just see the Moon Hoax thread...
Compulsory licensing is a great idea. Here are some others:
1. An "alternative minimum royalty" of 10% of gross sales, with no deductions. Call it the "Artists' Minimum Wage." Remember, this is all about protecting artists -- just ask the MPAA.
2. A Justice Department investigation into record industry price-fixing and other antitrust violations.
3. A "loser pays" provision in which defendants in infringement cases can present to the jury an argument that the case was brought in bad faith, in which case the plaintiff loses and must pay the defendant's legal fees.
They need to be hit with a few class-action lawsuits for fraud. Then they'll straighten out and fly right. Right now they rest assured that most people will just give up and go away. Give 'em a good lawyerin' and they'll quit that...
Actually, the right to physical property *was* considered a natural right. Intellectual property was not. It also was not protected at common law. My point, however, was not that intellectual property is always bad -- it's not. It was merely that it's not always good, and that its legitimacy depends on whether it's returning benefits to society. Many pro-IP types say dumb things suggesting that the IP is a right guaranteed by the constitution, when actually all the Constitution does is empower the Congress to create IP interests where doing so seems like a good idea. And even then, those interests are placed under severe constraints.
WE have patents & copyright because James Madison convinced Thomas Jefferson that even though monopolies were evil, in this one case the evil was outweighed by the value of the innovation it fostered. There's no natural right to intellectual property -- in every case it hinges on whether it's worth it for society. If it's not, then it shouldn't exist.
In fact, it has the easiest-to-grok-instantly user interface of any program I've ever used. Sonic Foundry's Acid is almost as good. My theory: these programs have to be comprehensible to musicians, so they *have* to be easy to use...
He should push for repeal of DMCA, have DoJ argue that it's unconstitutional. Why not? Hollywood and the record industry hate him and give lots of money to the Democrats. He could split off some civil libertarians and cut down on the revenue stream for the Democrats all at once.
Yeah, the story on DARPA's research into "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the lame movie) style powered armor was also cool. Still some power storage problems...
Nanotech isn't just science fiction anymore! People are just beginning to notice. First application -- probably synthesizing experimental pharmaceuticals in small lots for testing.
Another good book on this subject (and it's actually published) is Dr. Helen Smith's "The Scarred Heart: Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill." It has results from a nationwide survey, and much of what the kids say there overlaps with the Hellmouth story. Based on its Amazon rank, it seems to be selling fairly well. She has a website, too, at violentkids.com
Well, he's better than Gore on the drug war, IP misuse, and some other issues. But he says nothing about encryption, and his comment on how rich people are rich because they've rigged the system shows that he doesn't know much about how the economy works.
Not that rich people don't try to rig the system, and sometimes even succeed, but they usually do so AFTER they get rich. See, e.g., the MPAA and RIAA.
Robert Heinlein said it best: for all its problems, politics is the only way to get things done that doesn't involve breaking heads. And if you leave it to the crooks and empty suits -- which is what we have done -- the results are disastrous.
BTW, Heinlein's book "Take Back Your Government" is still in print, and surprisingly useful 50 years after he wrote it.
The real threat isn't Napster -- it's MP3.com. It's full of great independent artists, and you can buy their CDs for 6 or 7 bucks. Take that, Sony! Check out:
http://www.mp3.com/wildclam
http://www.mp3.com/ngm
for a couple of examples. (or click on the URL above!)
I think that *everyone* should be able to eavesdrop on the government, but not the other way around. Radical proposal? Sure, but doing things the other way hasn't worked out, has it?
Say, invalidation of the underlying IP and reimbursement of the wronged party's legal costs, lost time, etc. Tarring and feathering might be a bit much. Make it optional, with a special jury determination on the question.
If you get one, send a copy to the bar ethics committee in the state from which it is sent. Suggest that, though you are not a lawyer, it appears that the lawyer who sent the letter may be engaging in misrepresentation of the law, or perhaps even extortion. Suggest also that this is bad for the reputation of lawyers in general. Ask that they investigate the matter. Copy that letter to the lawyer from MPAA.
I didn't mean to suggest that those liberal-arts disciplines are NECESSARILY irrelevant. They're actually vitally important. They're just irrelevant the way they've evolved in academia. (See, e.g., anything citing Derrida, Foucault, or Stanley Fish as authority).
As for technology killing people -- I don't think so. Communism and Fascism led to a lot of deaths, produced at varying levels of technology. Non-communist and non-fascist nations at the same level of technology somehow refrained from mass genocide. This is, of course, a point in favor of the importance of things like history, economics and political science -- and maybe even literature -- but remember: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all thought of themselves as poets. Not engineers.
Note, for example, that Time has a story on the return of exorcism this week. Credulity and antirationalism are on the rise.
I blame liberal-arts academics, who are jealous of the strides science and technology have made over the past hundred years while their disciplines -- philosophy, literature, political science, history -- have either been irrelevancies or the handmaidens of mass murder. This has percolated into the general culture somewhat, though the public at large is far more pro-science and pro-technology than the average journalist, pundit, or academic.
You'd think they were, like, SPIES or something.
Really, the fact that we can't trust 'em is going to be a real liability on this issue. As on many others.
Frankly, nobody. Already they can't get anyone interested in buying HDTV. They're gonna kill the industry -- or wind up with a bureaucratically-embarrassing format-flop on their hands. And why is it the government's business to help businesses limit their customers' use of broadcasts? Where does that fit into "the public interest?"
Slashdot Mirror
The Bush Justice Dept. should investigate the record industry for pricefixing and other antitrust violations. This is because: 1. All evidence indicates they're guilty; and 2. They give lots of money to Democrats. Take it away, Mr. Ashcroft! PS: Check out the MPAA, too.
Learn how to use the phone & copier system the first day. Be nice to all secretaries, mailroom people, etc. Never go anywhere without a clipboard or other work-related object in your hand.
This guy sounds like he's cruising for a lawsuit or prosecution for extortion. Can you say RICO?
"Rational thought is pretty rare these days, even in prestigious universities. We live in the TV age now, and people think by linking images in their brains." Truer every day. Just see the Moon Hoax thread...
Compulsory licensing is a great idea. Here are some others: 1. An "alternative minimum royalty" of 10% of gross sales, with no deductions. Call it the "Artists' Minimum Wage." Remember, this is all about protecting artists -- just ask the MPAA. 2. A Justice Department investigation into record industry price-fixing and other antitrust violations. 3. A "loser pays" provision in which defendants in infringement cases can present to the jury an argument that the case was brought in bad faith, in which case the plaintiff loses and must pay the defendant's legal fees.
They need to be hit with a few class-action lawsuits for fraud. Then they'll straighten out and fly right. Right now they rest assured that most people will just give up and go away. Give 'em a good lawyerin' and they'll quit that...
Actually, the right to physical property *was* considered a natural right. Intellectual property was not. It also was not protected at common law. My point, however, was not that intellectual property is always bad -- it's not. It was merely that it's not always good, and that its legitimacy depends on whether it's returning benefits to society. Many pro-IP types say dumb things suggesting that the IP is a right guaranteed by the constitution, when actually all the Constitution does is empower the Congress to create IP interests where doing so seems like a good idea. And even then, those interests are placed under severe constraints.
WE have patents & copyright because James Madison convinced Thomas Jefferson that even though monopolies were evil, in this one case the evil was outweighed by the value of the innovation it fostered. There's no natural right to intellectual property -- in every case it hinges on whether it's worth it for society. If it's not, then it shouldn't exist.
In fact, it has the easiest-to-grok-instantly user interface of any program I've ever used. Sonic Foundry's Acid is almost as good. My theory: these programs have to be comprehensible to musicians, so they *have* to be easy to use...
He should push for repeal of DMCA, have DoJ argue that it's unconstitutional. Why not? Hollywood and the record industry hate him and give lots of money to the Democrats. He could split off some civil libertarians and cut down on the revenue stream for the Democrats all at once.
Yeah, the story on DARPA's research into "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the lame movie) style powered armor was also cool. Still some power storage problems...
Nanotech isn't just science fiction anymore! People are just beginning to notice. First application -- probably synthesizing experimental pharmaceuticals in small lots for testing.
Another good book on this subject (and it's actually published) is Dr. Helen Smith's "The Scarred Heart: Understanding and Identifying Kids Who Kill." It has results from a nationwide survey, and much of what the kids say there overlaps with the Hellmouth story. Based on its Amazon rank, it seems to be selling fairly well. She has a website, too, at violentkids.com
Well, he's better than Gore on the drug war, IP misuse, and some other issues. But he says nothing about encryption, and his comment on how rich people are rich because they've rigged the system shows that he doesn't know much about how the economy works. Not that rich people don't try to rig the system, and sometimes even succeed, but they usually do so AFTER they get rich. See, e.g., the MPAA and RIAA.
Robert Heinlein said it best: for all its problems, politics is the only way to get things done that doesn't involve breaking heads. And if you leave it to the crooks and empty suits -- which is what we have done -- the results are disastrous. BTW, Heinlein's book "Take Back Your Government" is still in print, and surprisingly useful 50 years after he wrote it.
The real threat isn't Napster -- it's MP3.com. It's full of great independent artists, and you can buy their CDs for 6 or 7 bucks. Take that, Sony! Check out: http://www.mp3.com/wildclam http://www.mp3.com/ngm for a couple of examples. (or click on the URL above!)
I think that *everyone* should be able to eavesdrop on the government, but not the other way around. Radical proposal? Sure, but doing things the other way hasn't worked out, has it?
Say, invalidation of the underlying IP and reimbursement of the wronged party's legal costs, lost time, etc. Tarring and feathering might be a bit much. Make it optional, with a special jury determination on the question.
"I don't want no cybersex" is a great song. You can hear it free at: http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/14/mojo_nixon__the _toadliquors.html
If you get one, send a copy to the bar ethics committee in the state from which it is sent. Suggest that, though you are not a lawyer, it appears that the lawyer who sent the letter may be engaging in misrepresentation of the law, or perhaps even extortion. Suggest also that this is bad for the reputation of lawyers in general. Ask that they investigate the matter. Copy that letter to the lawyer from MPAA.
I didn't mean to suggest that those liberal-arts disciplines are NECESSARILY irrelevant. They're actually vitally important. They're just irrelevant the way they've evolved in academia. (See, e.g., anything citing Derrida, Foucault, or Stanley Fish as authority). As for technology killing people -- I don't think so. Communism and Fascism led to a lot of deaths, produced at varying levels of technology. Non-communist and non-fascist nations at the same level of technology somehow refrained from mass genocide. This is, of course, a point in favor of the importance of things like history, economics and political science -- and maybe even literature -- but remember: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all thought of themselves as poets. Not engineers.
Note, for example, that Time has a story on the return of exorcism this week. Credulity and antirationalism are on the rise. I blame liberal-arts academics, who are jealous of the strides science and technology have made over the past hundred years while their disciplines -- philosophy, literature, political science, history -- have either been irrelevancies or the handmaidens of mass murder. This has percolated into the general culture somewhat, though the public at large is far more pro-science and pro-technology than the average journalist, pundit, or academic.
You'd think they were, like, SPIES or something. Really, the fact that we can't trust 'em is going to be a real liability on this issue. As on many others.
Bravo. That's absolutely right.
Frankly, nobody. Already they can't get anyone interested in buying HDTV. They're gonna kill the industry -- or wind up with a bureaucratically-embarrassing format-flop on their hands. And why is it the government's business to help businesses limit their customers' use of broadcasts? Where does that fit into "the public interest?"