I'm not entirely familiar with copyright, but isn't that something that attaches automatically? I think that's what happens with written works, especially if it's posted to the Internet. Maybe it's different with images or commercial uses, or maybe I'm just wrong altogether.
Good thing this is an AC post...
Yes, but it's more a matter of being able to prove, to a Court's satisfaction, that you are the legal copyright owner. If you file, that's a lot easier.
I found this out first hand when I took a former employer to court and tried to get a other former employees to back me up.
Less of a problem than you think. I was one of those ex-employees in a case against one of my former employers, and while I was perfectly happy to testify (said employer was a crook) my willing cooperation was not necessary. The attorney told me that while he definitely appreciated my attitude, he was going to send me a subpoena anyway. So, it doesn't really matter if your friends (ha, ex-friends now I imagine) wanted to testify or not: if they get a subpoena they show up in court, or face the consequences.
By "intended purpose" you mean, of course, the exact same purpose it's always used for
No you stupid fuck. No wonder the world is falling apart, with such poor powers of reasoning and observation. How in the world did we ever form civilization?
I'd go even further back. How did we ever form multicellular organisms?
Face it, the guys collecting "evidence" probably don't know what a cable modem is, they just grabbed anything that looks computerish. And if they did know, they'd probably take it anyway just to make it harder for him to get back online and post about their activities. My first impression of this is that those cops are dicks, but it'll be up to the courts to make that official.
I get worried whenever an autonomous body takes it on itself to be an arbiter of public morals, and even the courts refuse to step into the fray.
Well, sure... that always happens when the government happens to agree with what that autonomous body is doing, and is perfectly happy to let said body take the heat.
Oh yeah, that same traitor who sold missile technology to China, later sold to N. Korea, then exported to the mideast for use against Israel. Hmmmmmmm.
Not to mention gave our entire patent library to the Chinese. As a patent holder myself, that really pissed me off.
Of course, the pattern of giving away our candy store to Red China goes way further back than that. Given how widespread this form of treason has become, since at least Nixon's time, one wonders what, exactly, China offered in exchange. What did they do that so many of our elected, unelected and corporate officials so easily sold us out. People, please read for yourselves about the how the transfer of commercial and military technology to China began, where it's going, and who was responsible for it.
I guarantee that a. the hairs on the nape of your neck will stand up and b. the pedestals you've put some of your political heroes upon won't seem so high anymore.
It would destroy their economy to do so... Reminds me of a quote about the definition of allies being two nations with hands so deep in each other's pockets that they cannot fight.
Ah... when, exactly, did China become an ally??? We are beholden to a hostile wannabe superpower who most definitely is not an "ally". Unless some dramatic changes to their governmental system occur (as in, a revolution) they never will be either.
The Chinese are investing heavily in African states, so those dollars are being spread around, despite US indifference to third world issues. In fact there seems to be more non-western investment in the third world than ever. Only to be expected, really. Then in 20 or 30 years, the west will be wondering where it all went wrong.
I'm not necessarily sure that investment is the proper term. My girlfriend is Nigerian, for example, and the Chinese have set up a huge operation there to market goods to wealthy Nigerians. The goal seems to be the same as it is here in the U.S.: extract the maximum wealth out of the foreign population while giving very little in return. Matter of fact, by providing mass quantities of cheap manufactured goods, they're eliminating any incentive the local economies might have for developing such capabilities themselves. One might wonder what China's ultimate intentions are, by effectively limiting the economic development of other nations. Brazil, at least, seems to have some ability to keep the Chinese (and the U.S., for that matter) at bay: say what you want about protectionism, but they're keeping key industries alive.
Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by U.S. "indifference to third world issues" given that the United States gives more away in foreign aid than any nation in history. Whether we're doing any better for those countries' long term outlook than China is a matter of debate. But "indifference" isn't really accurate.
But apart from that you're happy with wiping out your country's economy and permanenty damaging its economic prospects? Look, protectionism on the face of it seems like a good idea. In practice it's the worst idea possible.
No. I see you're one of those people who sees protectionism in black and white: free trade good!, protectionism bad! As always, it's not that simple and I think you probably know that. There is a difference between a limited degree of protectionism whose only purpose is to keep domestic manufacturing from disappearing entirely, and punitive tariffs.
Suppose we have a foreign nation who is deliberately subsidizing their manufacturing in order to sell goods at below our domestic manufacturer's costs. In addition, they're doing this with the express purpose of wiping out our own manufacturing base. Let's further suppose that our government failed to enforce the laws already on the books designed to prevent this very activity... would you consider that a reasonable example of "free trade"? Good business? Or would you consider that a hostile, destructive action? No, I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about Japan. They went after our domestic suppliers of basic electronic components, rapidly put them out of business, and then walked the supply chain until they'd wiped out manufacturers of virtually all commercial electronics. Fortunately, Japan is a small nation, but at that they did substantial damage.
Moving forward a couple decades, we see that China has taken a page from Japan's book, but is going after everything at the same time. All of it, from Christmas tree bulbs to avionics. Everything that we used to make they now make for us, and here's the danger in all this: we can't make it for ourselves anymore. It's an incredible onslaught, unprecedented in the history of Mankind, and the reality is that unless our government does something, we will become so dependent upon China that they'll be able to walk in and take us over without firing a shot. Do you realize that Americans no longer even make their own clothing? No? I have news for you: the giant textile mills back east are lying fallow, huge empty buildings with broken windows, the machines that used to put the shirts on our backs sold off to China for pennies on the dollar. And that's only one of many industries that were deliberately destroyed by China, which (in case you've forgotten) is a hostile totalitarian state. Maybe you think that's a good thing... I don't. The Founders didn't either: they wanted us to be free and independent. The two are inextricably interlinked. If you believe otherwise you're ignoring history.
The solution is not to raise tariffs because that has all kinds of long term problems for us.
The solution is to raise the standard of living in china because that has all kinds of long term benefits for us.
Maybe... but it's the short term consequences that are the current problem. It's all fine and dandy for you to talk about how wonderful the U.S. will be once China deals with it's own pollution and wealth-disparity issues (which, by the way, they show no sign of doing.) And perhaps you'll be proven right. History is not on your side, though... quite the opposite. Your belief (for that's all it is) is driven by the same sort of pained hopefulness that typifies those who believe that a "service economy" is a viable substitute for an "industrial economy." It's not, never will be, and it's time we as a nation woke up to that fact and got back to work.
Furthermore, I guarantee that if you had seen the devastation that Japan and China have wrought in our manufacturing sector (aided and abetted by our own shortsighted, greedy, corrupt leaders to be sure) that I have in the past thirty years... well, you'd feel very differently. We were the nation that made everything for everyone, and we enjoyed the fruits of that status. Then we let a few political and corporate thugs throw all that away... and for what? I'll ask that again: for what?
Even if you're right, don't forget that China is grabbing an exponentially-increasing share of global resources, and worse yet, is going to be competing with the remaining industrialized nations for what's left. Ultimately, there's going to be very little good coming out of China's rapid advance to a high-tech, heavily-militarized nuclear-capable superpower for anyone but China.
Regardless, we have some serious near-term consequences to deal with... like surviving long enough for China to become the kind of civilized high-technology Utopia that you seem to think they want to be. Personally, I think you're giving them way too much credit, but whatever.
regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending).
That's not really true. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 had a lot to do with it, and it did so by making the market freer. In essence, it repealed portions of the original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was put in place to limit some of the banking practices that contributed to the Great Depression. At least, that's how I understand it... anyone who knows better feel free to correct me.
Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire, and it didn't work. Look, like it or not we need the institution of government and the corporations that provide goods and services require regulation. The people that run them have demonstrated unequivocally that they cannot be trusted with our lives or livelihoods without some form of governmental controls in place.
We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.
And keeping that work in China signals to all Americans that "you will not be able to earn a living doing mindless work".
Presently, a lot of Americans are laboring under the delusion that they should somehow get a house, car, TV, medicine, and internet in exchange for installing wingnuts all day on an assembly line.
High-sounding but irrelevant verbiage having no bearing on the facts. I mean, how grandiose you are in dismissing one simple fact: working our manufacturing economy was how Americans managed to have a standard of living envied by most of the world. How do you think wealth is created? By magic? Hardly: it's by building and selling things to other countries, it's called trade. The fact is, we've been doing a lousy job of that for the past thirty-odd years and that's why our standard of living is dropping and unemployment is increasing. Suppose we took your idea to its logical conclusion, and ended up with an entirely automated production system with no need for people at all. We'd all be unemployed at that point. No thanks. Fact is, there are millions upon millions of people that are perfectly happy installing wingnuts for a living, and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with that. Sure, in your idealized world we'd all live up to our "full potential" (whatever that is) but the reality is, most people are all they're ever going to be.
Open your eyes, and dispense with the notion, nay, the fiction, that a nation can be an industrial superpower without the industry. People with blinders on call that a "service economy" but it's really a synonym for "third world hellhole." Now, it may be that you're willing to live in some socioeconomic armpit (my girlfriend came from one: I could let her tell you what that means) but I'm not. Let me tell you, I've spent thirty years as an engineer working in our industrial sector, and we need it.
China may be willing to accept pollution (for now) but that doesn't mean that you must accept pollution in order to have an industrial base. We cleaned up our act and still managed to become a superpower. So can they, and eventually the cost of Chinese-made products will increase to reflect that. So the question is: will we still be around, or will we be just another third-world country ripe for the plucking?
You decide. But at this point in history, there's only one way to create wealth, and you don't do it by not working. Robots may be more efficient at manufacturing some products than human beings, but keep firmly in mind that civilization does not solely revolve around manufacturing trade goods efficiently. People have to figure in there somewhere. That's China's biggest problem right now: their people are little better than organic robots. In any event, if you look at efficiency as the only reason for industry, then you're no better than the typical American CEO slimeball that sold his own people down the river for a quick buck.
Sanctions against China are way overdue. Our gov't and big businesses are just feeding that monster.
That won't happen until (and if) we get our own manufacturing base back on track and can wean ourselves off the Chinese tit of cheap imports. That, or grow some balls and raise the tariff structure to prevent the destruction of our remaining domestic industries. I don't see that happening in the near future: the Feds are too corrupt at this point and don't really care about our future (or even, I'm convinced, understand why a dependent cannot ever be a truly free nation.)
Right now, any noises we make towards sanctions are just that: noise. All they have to do is threaten to send fifty or sixty million "refugees" here and that's that.
Obama does not make it harder for industry insiders to influence government by having them occupy various influential positions within the government.
You mean like putting RIAA lawyers into the second and third highest positions in the Justice Department?
Honestly, I find this to be one of the most unnerving acts of the current Administration. I absolutely do not want anyone who is on a first-name basis with the rest of the RIAA crowd anywhere near the Justice Department. People have to understand that influence can be subtle. A handshake, a phone call, a word put in the right ear... I don't care what rules Obama puts in place, these two attorneys should never have been appointed. The potential for corruption and malfeasance is too great. Why Obama couldn't see that is beyond me.
I'm presuming that this is some form of political payback. After all, there are plenty of other deserving attorneys who would have been better candidates, and I can see no other reason why ex-members of the RIAA (of all organizations) would have been selected. This really does not smell right to me at all.
People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.
Of course, if we Americans would eat less crap, eat more healthy foods, and got out and exercised now and then, we'd extend our lifespans by a considerably greater amount.
Effective lawyers often come with baggage, although I'd rather he appointed some ACLU heavyweights.
On the other hand, if you look at the nature of the corporations they previously served, these individuals' ethics were already in question. That should have been enough to disqualify them. Baggage is one thing, but these people have a history of twisting the law around their middle fingers, disrespecting the Court system, and unnecessarily damaging a lot of people in the process. Had they been honorable men they would have put a stop to it, or resigned. That they did not is a clear indication that they are not honorable, and have in no way earned their current positions.
Furthermore, looking at the cases in which they're choosing to intervene (given that there are certainly more substantive cases they could spend our money upon) I'm taking the view that their "baggage" is actively influencing their present behavior. How else could that be, given that after starting their new jobs they immediately began carrying on the RIAA's program? Is that even legal? Seems to me an investigation is in order: I, for one, would like to know for whom they really work. If it's not us they should be fired on the spot.
I'll bet the champagne was flowing freely at RIAA headquarters when Obama's appointments were announced.
Could be you're both right. It just depends upon whether he's more likely to be bumped off by a disgruntled member of We the People who used to have a good job and now can't get one, or some large organization that is afraid he'll hit them in their wallet. Either way, he's making enemies and it looks like he's going to keep it up.
We've tried this system; that's how art was funded prior to the invention of copyright in, what, the 18th century? The problem with this system is that it encourages funding of a few big name artists while everyone else struggles to get noticed. The resulting body of artwork lacks diversity and tends not to challenge the status quo for fear of offending the people holding the purse strings.
On the other hand, this is the Internet Age, where no-one is necessarily beholden to a large publisher anymore. Sure, if you're trying to get a major motion picture produced it's a different story... but the ability to sell one's work directly to the consumer is available to everyone. That aspect of modern society alone really obsolesces much of current copyright law.
Also no screenwriters will EVER SHOW ANYBODY THEIR WORK. Why would you shop around a screenplay if the first person who likes it and has 100 million dollars just goes ahead and makes it?
Well, now that's just bizarre. There are other legal methods to protect one's creative works, you know, like non-disclosure agreements and so forth.
$1 is a minimum dollar amount required to trigger "consideration" aspects of law
Yes, minimum legal remuneration. I had Westinghouse's lead patent attorney offer to buy the rights to a patent for some work I did for them. He offered one dollar, the reason being that the manager of the division for whom I did the work was supposed to have had me sign a blanket assignment of all patent rights to Westinghouse... but didn't. Needless to say, this upset the legal beagles, who tried to schmooze me into signing away my rights for a dollar. It was pretty funny, actually. He tried to sell me on the idea that Westinghouse preferred all the rights to "be under one roof." I said that was a great idea, but that I preferred my roof, and told him that I would happily assign the rights to Westinghouse for a reasonable fee. I never heard back from him, so I guess he didn't consider it that important.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely familiar with copyright, but isn't that something that attaches automatically? I think that's what happens with written works, especially if it's posted to the Internet. Maybe it's different with images or commercial uses, or maybe I'm just wrong altogether.
Good thing this is an AC post...
Yes, but it's more a matter of being able to prove, to a Court's satisfaction, that you are the legal copyright owner. If you file, that's a lot easier.
I found this out first hand when I took a former employer to court and tried to get a other former employees to back me up.
Less of a problem than you think. I was one of those ex-employees in a case against one of my former employers, and while I was perfectly happy to testify (said employer was a crook) my willing cooperation was not necessary. The attorney told me that while he definitely appreciated my attitude, he was going to send me a subpoena anyway. So, it doesn't really matter if your friends (ha, ex-friends now I imagine) wanted to testify or not: if they get a subpoena they show up in court, or face the consequences.
No you stupid fuck. No wonder the world is falling apart, with such poor powers of reasoning and observation. How in the world did we ever form civilization?
I'd go even further back. How did we ever form multicellular organisms?
Face it, the guys collecting "evidence" probably don't know what a cable modem is, they just grabbed anything that looks computerish. And if they did know, they'd probably take it anyway just to make it harder for him to get back online and post about their activities. My first impression of this is that those cops are dicks, but it'll be up to the courts to make that official.
I get worried whenever an autonomous body takes it on itself to be an arbiter of public morals, and even the courts refuse to step into the fray.
Well, sure ... that always happens when the government happens to agree with what that autonomous body is doing, and is perfectly happy to let said body take the heat.
I wonder if I'll have any trouble registering my medical site about puss?
If you're talking about "pus", probably not. If your site is into pussy, I'll bet these guys will block it.
The IEDR's reasoning is that the words 'porn' and 'pornography' are offensive and immoral.
I'm not sure "reasoning" is the correct word here.
Oh yeah, that same traitor who sold missile technology to China, later sold to N. Korea, then exported to the mideast for use against Israel. Hmmmmmmm.
Not to mention gave our entire patent library to the Chinese. As a patent holder myself, that really pissed me off.
Of course, the pattern of giving away our candy store to Red China goes way further back than that. Given how widespread this form of treason has become, since at least Nixon's time, one wonders what, exactly, China offered in exchange. What did they do that so many of our elected, unelected and corporate officials so easily sold us out. People, please read for yourselves about the how the transfer of commercial and military technology to China began, where it's going, and who was responsible for it.
I guarantee that a. the hairs on the nape of your neck will stand up and b. the pedestals you've put some of your political heroes upon won't seem so high anymore.
It would destroy their economy to do so... Reminds me of a quote about the definition of allies being two nations with hands so deep in each other's pockets that they cannot fight.
Ah ... when, exactly, did China become an ally??? We are beholden to a hostile wannabe superpower who most definitely is not an "ally". Unless some dramatic changes to their governmental system occur (as in, a revolution) they never will be either.
The Chinese are investing heavily in African states, so those dollars are being spread around, despite US indifference to third world issues. In fact there seems to be more non-western investment in the third world than ever. Only to be expected, really. Then in 20 or 30 years, the west will be wondering where it all went wrong.
I'm not necessarily sure that investment is the proper term. My girlfriend is Nigerian, for example, and the Chinese have set up a huge operation there to market goods to wealthy Nigerians. The goal seems to be the same as it is here in the U.S.: extract the maximum wealth out of the foreign population while giving very little in return. Matter of fact, by providing mass quantities of cheap manufactured goods, they're eliminating any incentive the local economies might have for developing such capabilities themselves. One might wonder what China's ultimate intentions are, by effectively limiting the economic development of other nations. Brazil, at least, seems to have some ability to keep the Chinese (and the U.S., for that matter) at bay: say what you want about protectionism, but they're keeping key industries alive.
Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean by U.S. "indifference to third world issues" given that the United States gives more away in foreign aid than any nation in history. Whether we're doing any better for those countries' long term outlook than China is a matter of debate. But "indifference" isn't really accurate.
But apart from that you're happy with wiping out your country's economy and permanenty damaging its economic prospects? Look, protectionism on the face of it seems like a good idea. In practice it's the worst idea possible.
No. I see you're one of those people who sees protectionism in black and white: free trade good!, protectionism bad! As always, it's not that simple and I think you probably know that. There is a difference between a limited degree of protectionism whose only purpose is to keep domestic manufacturing from disappearing entirely, and punitive tariffs.
... would you consider that a reasonable example of "free trade"? Good business? Or would you consider that a hostile, destructive action? No, I'm not talking about China, I'm talking about Japan. They went after our domestic suppliers of basic electronic components, rapidly put them out of business, and then walked the supply chain until they'd wiped out manufacturers of virtually all commercial electronics. Fortunately, Japan is a small nation, but at that they did substantial damage.
... I don't. The Founders didn't either: they wanted us to be free and independent. The two are inextricably interlinked. If you believe otherwise you're ignoring history.
Suppose we have a foreign nation who is deliberately subsidizing their manufacturing in order to sell goods at below our domestic manufacturer's costs. In addition, they're doing this with the express purpose of wiping out our own manufacturing base. Let's further suppose that our government failed to enforce the laws already on the books designed to prevent this very activity
Moving forward a couple decades, we see that China has taken a page from Japan's book, but is going after everything at the same time. All of it, from Christmas tree bulbs to avionics. Everything that we used to make they now make for us, and here's the danger in all this: we can't make it for ourselves anymore. It's an incredible onslaught, unprecedented in the history of Mankind, and the reality is that unless our government does something, we will become so dependent upon China that they'll be able to walk in and take us over without firing a shot. Do you realize that Americans no longer even make their own clothing? No? I have news for you: the giant textile mills back east are lying fallow, huge empty buildings with broken windows, the machines that used to put the shirts on our backs sold off to China for pennies on the dollar. And that's only one of many industries that were deliberately destroyed by China, which (in case you've forgotten) is a hostile totalitarian state. Maybe you think that's a good thing
You won't see any buggy whips either.
The solution is not to raise tariffs because that has all kinds of long term problems for us. The solution is to raise the standard of living in china because that has all kinds of long term benefits for us.
Maybe ... but it's the short term consequences that are the current problem. It's all fine and dandy for you to talk about how wonderful the U.S. will be once China deals with it's own pollution and wealth-disparity issues (which, by the way, they show no sign of doing.) And perhaps you'll be proven right. History is not on your side, though ... quite the opposite. Your belief (for that's all it is) is driven by the same sort of pained hopefulness that typifies those who believe that a "service economy" is a viable substitute for an "industrial economy." It's not, never will be, and it's time we as a nation woke up to that fact and got back to work.
... well, you'd feel very differently. We were the nation that made everything for everyone, and we enjoyed the fruits of that status. Then we let a few political and corporate thugs throw all that away ... and for what? I'll ask that again: for what?
... like surviving long enough for China to become the kind of civilized high-technology Utopia that you seem to think they want to be. Personally, I think you're giving them way too much credit, but whatever.
Furthermore, I guarantee that if you had seen the devastation that Japan and China have wrought in our manufacturing sector (aided and abetted by our own shortsighted, greedy, corrupt leaders to be sure) that I have in the past thirty years
Even if you're right, don't forget that China is grabbing an exponentially-increasing share of global resources, and worse yet, is going to be competing with the remaining industrialized nations for what's left. Ultimately, there's going to be very little good coming out of China's rapid advance to a high-tech, heavily-militarized nuclear-capable superpower for anyone but China.
Regardless, we have some serious near-term consequences to deal with
regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending).
That's not really true. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 had a lot to do with it, and it did so by making the market freer. In essence, it repealed portions of the original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was put in place to limit some of the banking practices that contributed to the Great Depression. At least, that's how I understand it ... anyone who knows better feel free to correct me.
Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire, and it didn't work. Look, like it or not we need the institution of government and the corporations that provide goods and services require regulation. The people that run them have demonstrated unequivocally that they cannot be trusted with our lives or livelihoods without some form of governmental controls in place.
We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.
Oh, not to mention the risk of provoking a war with China; and if you think that's going to be an easy fight, I have more bad news for you.
Right, which is why I said, "I don't see that happening in the near future."
And keeping that work in China signals to all Americans that "you will not be able to earn a living doing mindless work".
Presently, a lot of Americans are laboring under the delusion that they should somehow get a house, car, TV, medicine, and internet in exchange for installing wingnuts all day on an assembly line.
High-sounding but irrelevant verbiage having no bearing on the facts. I mean, how grandiose you are in dismissing one simple fact: working our manufacturing economy was how Americans managed to have a standard of living envied by most of the world. How do you think wealth is created? By magic? Hardly: it's by building and selling things to other countries, it's called trade. The fact is, we've been doing a lousy job of that for the past thirty-odd years and that's why our standard of living is dropping and unemployment is increasing. Suppose we took your idea to its logical conclusion, and ended up with an entirely automated production system with no need for people at all. We'd all be unemployed at that point. No thanks. Fact is, there are millions upon millions of people that are perfectly happy installing wingnuts for a living, and there's not a goddamn thing wrong with that. Sure, in your idealized world we'd all live up to our "full potential" (whatever that is) but the reality is, most people are all they're ever going to be.
Open your eyes, and dispense with the notion, nay, the fiction, that a nation can be an industrial superpower without the industry. People with blinders on call that a "service economy" but it's really a synonym for "third world hellhole." Now, it may be that you're willing to live in some socioeconomic armpit (my girlfriend came from one: I could let her tell you what that means) but I'm not. Let me tell you, I've spent thirty years as an engineer working in our industrial sector, and we need it.
China may be willing to accept pollution (for now) but that doesn't mean that you must accept pollution in order to have an industrial base. We cleaned up our act and still managed to become a superpower. So can they, and eventually the cost of Chinese-made products will increase to reflect that. So the question is: will we still be around, or will we be just another third-world country ripe for the plucking?
You decide. But at this point in history, there's only one way to create wealth, and you don't do it by not working. Robots may be more efficient at manufacturing some products than human beings, but keep firmly in mind that civilization does not solely revolve around manufacturing trade goods efficiently. People have to figure in there somewhere. That's China's biggest problem right now: their people are little better than organic robots. In any event, if you look at efficiency as the only reason for industry, then you're no better than the typical American CEO slimeball that sold his own people down the river for a quick buck.
Sanctions against China are way overdue. Our gov't and big businesses are just feeding that monster.
That won't happen until (and if) we get our own manufacturing base back on track and can wean ourselves off the Chinese tit of cheap imports. That, or grow some balls and raise the tariff structure to prevent the destruction of our remaining domestic industries. I don't see that happening in the near future: the Feds are too corrupt at this point and don't really care about our future (or even, I'm convinced, understand why a dependent cannot ever be a truly free nation.)
Right now, any noises we make towards sanctions are just that: noise. All they have to do is threaten to send fifty or sixty million "refugees" here and that's that.
Obama does not make it harder for industry insiders to influence government by having them occupy various influential positions within the government.
You mean like putting RIAA lawyers into the second and third highest positions in the Justice Department?
Honestly, I find this to be one of the most unnerving acts of the current Administration. I absolutely do not want anyone who is on a first-name basis with the rest of the RIAA crowd anywhere near the Justice Department. People have to understand that influence can be subtle. A handshake, a phone call, a word put in the right ear ... I don't care what rules Obama puts in place, these two attorneys should never have been appointed. The potential for corruption and malfeasance is too great. Why Obama couldn't see that is beyond me.
I'm presuming that this is some form of political payback. After all, there are plenty of other deserving attorneys who would have been better candidates, and I can see no other reason why ex-members of the RIAA (of all organizations) would have been selected. This really does not smell right to me at all.
Now, I don't like this shit at all but aren't a lawyer's ethics just right when he/she does her best to pursue the interests of his/her client?
Nope. It's not that simple, and if it were, nobody would be complaining about any of this.
People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.
Of course, if we Americans would eat less crap, eat more healthy foods, and got out and exercised now and then, we'd extend our lifespans by a considerably greater amount.
Effective lawyers often come with baggage, although I'd rather he appointed some ACLU heavyweights.
On the other hand, if you look at the nature of the corporations they previously served, these individuals' ethics were already in question. That should have been enough to disqualify them. Baggage is one thing, but these people have a history of twisting the law around their middle fingers, disrespecting the Court system, and unnecessarily damaging a lot of people in the process. Had they been honorable men they would have put a stop to it, or resigned. That they did not is a clear indication that they are not honorable, and have in no way earned their current positions.
Furthermore, looking at the cases in which they're choosing to intervene (given that there are certainly more substantive cases they could spend our money upon) I'm taking the view that their "baggage" is actively influencing their present behavior. How else could that be, given that after starting their new jobs they immediately began carrying on the RIAA's program? Is that even legal? Seems to me an investigation is in order: I, for one, would like to know for whom they really work. If it's not us they should be fired on the spot.
I'll bet the champagne was flowing freely at RIAA headquarters when Obama's appointments were announced.
I swear Obama is trying to get assassinated.
Maybe he's trying to NOT get assassinated.
Could be you're both right. It just depends upon whether he's more likely to be bumped off by a disgruntled member of We the People who used to have a good job and now can't get one, or some large organization that is afraid he'll hit them in their wallet. Either way, he's making enemies and it looks like he's going to keep it up.
and might be another example of an exotic hadron containing charm quarks.
And that, my friends, is why I'll stick to software engineering, thank you very much.
We've tried this system; that's how art was funded prior to the invention of copyright in, what, the 18th century? The problem with this system is that it encourages funding of a few big name artists while everyone else struggles to get noticed. The resulting body of artwork lacks diversity and tends not to challenge the status quo for fear of offending the people holding the purse strings.
On the other hand, this is the Internet Age, where no-one is necessarily beholden to a large publisher anymore. Sure, if you're trying to get a major motion picture produced it's a different story ... but the ability to sell one's work directly to the consumer is available to everyone. That aspect of modern society alone really obsolesces much of current copyright law.
Also no screenwriters will EVER SHOW ANYBODY THEIR WORK. Why would you shop around a screenplay if the first person who likes it and has 100 million dollars just goes ahead and makes it?
Well, now that's just bizarre. There are other legal methods to protect one's creative works, you know, like non-disclosure agreements and so forth.
$1 is a minimum dollar amount required to trigger "consideration" aspects of law
Yes, minimum legal remuneration. I had Westinghouse's lead patent attorney offer to buy the rights to a patent for some work I did for them. He offered one dollar, the reason being that the manager of the division for whom I did the work was supposed to have had me sign a blanket assignment of all patent rights to Westinghouse ... but didn't. Needless to say, this upset the legal beagles, who tried to schmooze me into signing away my rights for a dollar. It was pretty funny, actually. He tried to sell me on the idea that Westinghouse preferred all the rights to "be under one roof." I said that was a great idea, but that I preferred my roof, and told him that I would happily assign the rights to Westinghouse for a reasonable fee. I never heard back from him, so I guess he didn't consider it that important.