They recycle the numbers every year for both houses. I was once looking for S. 759 ("The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001") and kept getting other bills instead...
Interesting. I was surfing around and I saw an article mentioning something to that effect. Basically it said that the ratio of constituents to representatives has grown WAY too high, so that not only are individual voices drowned out, but even certain groups.
I'm starting to think that there's simply too much power in Washington. What do they care what 250,000 people scattered all over the country think? For any one federal politician, that's nothing more than noise. I'm wondering if maybe we need a strengthening of the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. A state politician (esp. in Silicon Valley) would certainly care what we geeks think.
What can we do about this? Maybe another Blue-Ribbon campaign for a federal law to protect our digital rights/fair-use rights? Push for a Constitutional Amendment barring the federal government from getting involved? (Yes, I remember the ERA and just how hard it is to get one passed). IMHO there needs to be a Simple, Clear Message(tm) that everyone can grasp. And it needs to be put in everyone's face so they can't ignore it (like a blue ribbon campaign). I have a web site. I'd put a ribbon graphic up.
Yikes. Every time I get a call from my father suggesting Oracle stock, I procrastinate, and they take another hit. It's getting like Qwest with these people. It's a tempting buy, but...where's the bottom, already?
I sent AGFA an email on that web page. I'm a senior SW developer in their industry and I will make my displeasure known to my company and our customers.
I broke out the CC and sent $100.00 to the EFF. AND IT FELT GOOD.
I've already sent a letter to Sen. Santorum on the whole DMCA/SSSCA issue and only got a wishy-washy letter in response. Are you listening, Rick? Because YOUR NEXT VOTE FROM ME IS RIDING ON THIS!
I said it before and I'll say it again. Contracts that force artists to sign exclusive distribution deals should be made ILLEGAL. Incentives in contracts for de-facto exclusive distribution should be made ILLEGAL. The reason is that all distributors demand such contracts, and they make it clear to artists (that includes musicians, writers, and even game companies) that if they don't go for the contract their product will wither on the vine because all of the other distributors will demand the same thing.
What we need is for the distribution industry to becom cutthroat. Instead of a few big-time moguls, we need smaller distributors from inside the US and offshore to be able to approach a content CREATOR and say, "Hey! We can make you a better deal than Vivendi/Sony/whoever! We have lower costs than them, and can sell your work at a better price, which will mean more sales for you!" The manufacture and sale of content needs to become commoditized. Instead of being forced to buy, for example, Metallica CDs at the price set by an oligopoly, it would be really cool to see the right to produce and sell x units traded on an open market. Only those distributors that controlled their overhead would get the chance to make and sell content for the content creators, and consumers would see better prices. And, most importantly, it puts the artists in a much better bargaining position vis-a-vis the distributors, instead of the serfdom they enjoy now.
I'll say this loudly and repeatedly so that it sinks in...
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Again?
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Got it???? The burden of proof is entirely upon Vivendi to demonstrate that BNetD pirated their source code. Not the other way around. Frankly, if their claim isn't true, then I seriously hope the BNetD people slap them with a slander lawsuit. Hard.
I am so sick of what our society has turned into. Someone makes an accusation, and like little chickens with their heads cut off we run around chatting the latest gossip, all the while assuming, even hoping, that it's true, just to make our day more interesting. Anyone can make an accusation. Until Vivendi produces an actual smoking gun, Blizzard has LOST me as a customer.
You know, I'm getting really tired of EVERY FREAKING WEBSITE UNDER THE SUN wanting my personal information. Not just government web sites, but just about everything else nowadays.
- Want news? Tell us who you are so we can send you spam.
- Want to try a free demo? Tell us who you are so we can send you spam.
- Want to buy our product? It only costs $XXX.XX but you have to give us your personal information if you want it to be activated.
Blah, blah, blah. How about a web site that links to other web sites in various categories that DO NOT demand personal information (including email)? And a "hall of shame" of sites and products (or vendors) to avoid.
- The IRS can force me to get a MS Passport only when they outlaw PAPER.
Of course the major reason all of this is happening is piracy. I submit that piracy isn't the cause of the problem, but a reaction to the fact that content simnply costs too much. We all know what happens when you are a content producer (e.g. musician, writer, software producer): to get your product distributed, you have to sign a contract with a distributor that grants them exclusive rights and lets them have the lion's share of the revenue. Distributors all consider this standard, and they also know that content producers have no choice but to to acquiesce. Anyone following the Bioware/Interplay fiasco knows what the game software industry is like--about the only way for a content producer to make any money anymore is to find a buyer for their company. It's the same with books and music. Ultimately the problem is that distributors with exclusive agreements are local monopolies, with the ability to charge a price far above where the supply and demand curves meet. The result is either abstention from buying their products or piracy. If music CDs cost $100 a piece, let's face it--NO ONE would buy them legitimately. At $22 a piece the effect is the same, just not as severe.
My suggestion is to CHANGE CONTRACT LAW. Exclusive distribution arrangements and incentives should be classified as anti-competitive and make illegal. The incentive, from a content producer's standpoint, should always be in the direction of more distributors. Smaller distributors should be able to cut costs and undercut their competition by offering a producer's product to the consumer at a better price, thus garnering greater sales and revenue for the producer and themselves. Some distributors will survive, but the ones that don't suddenly start paying attention to their cost-revenue curves won't--just like in any other industry. The only real danger would be if distributors tacitly agreed not to "go after" each other's clients, but I feel that any distributor that didn't take every aggressive measure to undercut its competitors would quickly find itself sued by its stockholders. Greed will always be there, the trick is to make it work FOR the consumer instead of against it.
Slashdot Mirror
They recycle the numbers every year for both houses. I was once looking for S. 759 ("The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001") and kept getting other bills instead...
http://www.constitutionparty.com
I've always voted GOP before, but I find that I agree with EVERYTHING I saw on this website...
WC
- Yes, we here in PA are weird...what of it? :)
I'm starting to think that there's simply too much power in Washington. What do they care what 250,000 people scattered all over the country think? For any one federal politician, that's nothing more than noise. I'm wondering if maybe we need a strengthening of the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. A state politician (esp. in Silicon Valley) would certainly care what we geeks think.
What can we do about this? Maybe another Blue-Ribbon campaign for a federal law to protect our digital rights/fair-use rights? Push for a Constitutional Amendment barring the federal government from getting involved? (Yes, I remember the ERA and just how hard it is to get one passed). IMHO there needs to be a Simple, Clear Message(tm) that everyone can grasp. And it needs to be put in everyone's face so they can't ignore it (like a blue ribbon campaign). I have a web site. I'd put a ribbon graphic up.
Yikes. Every time I get a call from my father suggesting Oracle stock, I procrastinate, and they take another hit. It's getting like Qwest with these people. It's a tempting buy, but...where's the bottom, already?
Wow, I've always voted Republican but damn if I'm not starting to like this guy. Now if only Curt Weldon would see the light...
I sent AGFA an email on that web page. I'm a senior SW developer in their industry and I will make my displeasure known to my company and our customers.
I broke out the CC and sent $100.00 to the EFF. AND IT FELT GOOD.
I've already sent a letter to Sen. Santorum on the whole DMCA/SSSCA issue and only got a wishy-washy letter in response. Are you listening, Rick? Because YOUR NEXT VOTE FROM ME IS RIDING ON THIS!
Grrr. I think I'll go bite someone.
WC
I said it before and I'll say it again. Contracts that force artists to sign exclusive distribution deals should be made ILLEGAL. Incentives in contracts for de-facto exclusive distribution should be made ILLEGAL. The reason is that all distributors demand such contracts, and they make it clear to artists (that includes musicians, writers, and even game companies) that if they don't go for the contract their product will wither on the vine because all of the other distributors will demand the same thing.
What we need is for the distribution industry to becom cutthroat. Instead of a few big-time moguls, we need smaller distributors from inside the US and offshore to be able to approach a content CREATOR and say, "Hey! We can make you a better deal than Vivendi/Sony/whoever! We have lower costs than them, and can sell your work at a better price, which will mean more sales for you!" The manufacture and sale of content needs to become commoditized. Instead of being forced to buy, for example, Metallica CDs at the price set by an oligopoly, it would be really cool to see the right to produce and sell x units traded on an open market. Only those distributors that controlled their overhead would get the chance to make and sell content for the content creators, and consumers would see better prices. And, most importantly, it puts the artists in a much better bargaining position vis-a-vis the distributors, instead of the serfdom they enjoy now.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Again?
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
Got it???? The burden of proof is entirely upon Vivendi to demonstrate that BNetD pirated their source code. Not the other way around. Frankly, if their claim isn't true, then I seriously hope the BNetD people slap them with a slander lawsuit. Hard.
I am so sick of what our society has turned into. Someone makes an accusation, and like little chickens with their heads cut off we run around chatting the latest gossip, all the while assuming, even hoping, that it's true, just to make our day more interesting. Anyone can make an accusation. Until Vivendi produces an actual smoking gun, Blizzard has LOST me as a customer.
Cheers,
WC
You know, I'm getting really tired of EVERY FREAKING WEBSITE UNDER THE SUN wanting my personal information. Not just government web sites, but just about everything else nowadays.
- Want news? Tell us who you are so we can send you spam.
- Want to try a free demo? Tell us who you are so we can send you spam.
- Want to buy our product? It only costs $XXX.XX but you have to give us your personal information if you want it to be activated.
Blah, blah, blah. How about a web site that links to other web sites in various categories that DO NOT demand personal information (including email)? And a "hall of shame" of sites and products (or vendors) to avoid.
- The IRS can force me to get a MS Passport only when they outlaw PAPER.
Cheers,
Wind
Of course the major reason all of this is happening is piracy. I submit that piracy isn't the cause of the problem, but a reaction to the fact that content simnply costs too much. We all know what happens when you are a content producer (e.g. musician, writer, software producer): to get your product distributed, you have to sign a contract with a distributor that grants them exclusive rights and lets them have the lion's share of the revenue. Distributors all consider this standard, and they also know that content producers have no choice but to to acquiesce. Anyone following the Bioware/Interplay fiasco knows what the game software industry is like--about the only way for a content producer to make any money anymore is to find a buyer for their company. It's the same with books and music. Ultimately the problem is that distributors with exclusive agreements are local monopolies, with the ability to charge a price far above where the supply and demand curves meet. The result is either abstention from buying their products or piracy. If music CDs cost $100 a piece, let's face it--NO ONE would buy them legitimately. At $22 a piece the effect is the same, just not as severe. My suggestion is to CHANGE CONTRACT LAW. Exclusive distribution arrangements and incentives should be classified as anti-competitive and make illegal. The incentive, from a content producer's standpoint, should always be in the direction of more distributors. Smaller distributors should be able to cut costs and undercut their competition by offering a producer's product to the consumer at a better price, thus garnering greater sales and revenue for the producer and themselves. Some distributors will survive, but the ones that don't suddenly start paying attention to their cost-revenue curves won't--just like in any other industry. The only real danger would be if distributors tacitly agreed not to "go after" each other's clients, but I feel that any distributor that didn't take every aggressive measure to undercut its competitors would quickly find itself sued by its stockholders. Greed will always be there, the trick is to make it work FOR the consumer instead of against it.