True, but nonetheless, there are true indies out there not affiliated with the majors. Saddle Creek, Sub Pop, Matador, Epitaph, Fat Wreck, Jade Tree are just a few off the top of my head.
Subsidiaries of the Big 5 make for an enormous portion of that list.
The real indies do still need your support though.
RIAA is disproportionately controlled by the Big 5 labels, despite the large membership including dozens of indie labels, few of those labels have anything to do with what RIAA says or does. Furthermore, many of those labels are members of RIAA more to gain legitimacy and access to basic distribution channels etc - not to fight your digital rights.
We'd be much better off boycotting the Big 5 of the music industry - Sony, Warner, EMI, BMG, Universal, and leaving indie labels and musicians that need every last bit of support alone.
CN's successful block of late night animation for adults, Adult Swim, will air five times per week beginning Sunday, January 12, 2003. Airing from 11 pm to 2 am, ET/PT, Sunday to Thursday, the block will offer the hit series Futurama, quirky original animated series including Home Movies, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, and stunning action/anime series such as Cowboy Bebop and InuYasha.
And to think, CN used to be the Hanna Barbera and Hanna Barbera Imitators Network.
Wow. This is gonna be awesome. Not just Cowboy Bebop. Not Just Aqua Teen and Sealab (both brilliant!), But now Futurama, Home Movies, Trigun, Reign... whats next, are they going to buy syndication rights to The Critic? it's the only thing I can think of to make CN better. That or a Freakazoid revival. Just for nostalgias sake. I loved that show.
What does it matter which law enforcment agency they used?
The corruption inherent in the SS being involved here is worrying. Basically, it implies that RIAA, and by extension businesses in general, have serious undue influence on our government. Furthermore, why were RIAA officials TAKING PART IN THE RAID?
It seems to me more corrupt than it should perhaps. The appearance of corruption should be as if not more of a concern for our government. It is not enough to be pure, but it must also seem pure.
The United States Secret Service is mandated by the U.S. Congress to carry out two distinct and significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service is responsible for: the protection of the President, the Vice President, and their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; the investigation of threats against these protectees; protection of the White House, Vice President's Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and security design, planning, and implementation at designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service is also responsible for the enforcement of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States, investigation of financial crimes including, but not limited to access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud, telecommunications fraud, and computer based attacks on our nation's financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.
I don't see anything there about IP law, Fraudulent CD's, or other Piracy or theft laws. The Secret Service protects the president, and investigates Counterfeit CURRENCY, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and other Financial Crime Thats why they are part of the Department of the TREASURY
So what were they doing at RIAA's latest Bust exactly? Though the Register did get the SS's role wrong, they were right in presuming that they really shouldn't have been part of this bust.
Some of us want to play games that don't involve a first person perspective and blowing things to bits. Games that involve wider strategies, or more detailed plot structures or charachter development or improvement. Some of us just don't have the 1337 5ki11z to be good at FPS, ans prefer strategy or role playing games.
Actually, it sounds to me like the Post Office is competing with UPS & Fed Ex - in order to compete, they have to be competitive. That happens by offering nice contracts for cheaper shipping. The trade off is they get LOTS of shipping.
Why is everyone so quick to cry monopoly? I'm one of the most anticorporateist types I know, but just because a company is big, has large market share, and deals with goverment agencies (especially ones that compete directly with private industry) does not make it a monopolist.
sigh, my response to that is "so what".
If his support os from the poor and there are more poor voters, the candidate will win no matter how much money he raised.
Why assume there are more poor people voting? You attempt to add an irrelevant factor and claim this somehow justifies you.
As for 'forced registration'... I registered to get my drivers liscense and was NOT required to register to vote. Placing the forms together is a convenience. Not a mandate.
Or does FFX-2 give off the appearance of square catering (more than usual I know) to the 15 year old set? First direct sequel. Features the eye candy female charachters. Wearing skimpier than ever clothing...
No, Squares not juvenile... not at all... They haven't lost their ability to be affecting and innovative. They'd never sell out like those BMX XXX guys.
Maybe I'll just wander over into this corner and cry for my broken memories.
In Japan, the Wonderswan has been mounting some sort of challenge to the Gameboy for a while. But the GBA just about killed it, and it looks like Sony will pull it's support from the system soon - possibly in order to develop a handheld of it's own.
Shame too that the Wonderswan never made it here. It has an EXCELLENT library of upgrades of some classic early golden age RPG's.
Humm, so a candidate's popularity has no impact on his ability to raise money and garner general votes?
The problem with a statement like this is that we all don't have X amount of money to give to candidates. If a candidates popularity is among the wealthy, he will recieve far more financial support than if his support is from among the poor.
Votes should be the ONLY arbiter of political success. When we allow our system to be modified by a form of 'vote' that in which one persons voice is worth more than anothers, it is an insult to our democratic principles. People used to go to jail for voting multiple times. Now they just get to hang out with the newly elected Mr. Senator.
Also note, when the general USA public percieves the political system to be "corrupt" they stop voting. Have you looked at any voter turnout numbers lately?
Are you serious? Extend Market theory to elections?
NO! Our government is the last place we want to be determined by capitalist principles. This is a democratic republic.
Not an Oligarchy.
Market Leader != Monopoly.
Yes, Amazon is the king of online shopping sites. But Amazon is far from a monopoly. Amazon faces a good deal of competition in most markets, not only from other websites, but also from Brick & mortar stores. If you think that Amazon isn't competing with the bookstore down at your local mall, think again. Until that local bookatore closes, along with B&N.com Amazon will have competitors. Amazon is far from a monopoly - just a very successful store.
This proposal is rife with Loopholes.
2) There are no limits to contributions, but they must be from registered voters.
This alone is dangerous. Basically, what you're saying here is Bill Gates can give 3 million dollars out of pocket, instead of letting Microsoft do it for him. Great. Noone will have any idea what Bill Gates Wants, no matter how clear M$'s objectives are.
4) Corporations and unions may not direct or command any employee, member or executive to contribute to any political organization or campaign.
Wow. thats going to be effective. There are laws against this already. But that doesn't stop it from happening. ALL THE F*CKING TIME. Corporate Bundling - read up on it.
5) Registered voters may join an association of other registered voters for the purpose of pooling funds.
You mean like... UNIONS? Basically, what you propose is groups like the NRA, NARAL, and the AFL/CIO's various Political Action Committees (PAC's). PACs are at the center of much of this controversy in the first place because of their undue influence.
This won't piss off anyone with an interest in the system. In fact, it's very similar to the recent sham of a CFR bill recently put into the Colorado state constitution - in fact, that last part was put in, basically word for word - Small Donor Groups are now part of CO State law. Congragulations!
What will piss off anyone with an interest in the system is a proposal for public financing. You've got two models to choose from.
1) Clean money model - under this system, once a candidate recieves X number of qualifying donations of 5 or 10 dollars from voters in his district/state/relevant area, and agrees to accept NO further campaign contributions, that candidate has his campaign funded completely by the Gov't. The advantage to this system is that it completely removes barriers to entry, eliminates corruption, AND the appearance of corruption, and creates a system of campaign funding which encourages candidates to run clean - Because no candidate wants to appear corrupt.
The alternative is
2) A Matching Funds system such as that used in NYC which states that once candidates agree to a spending limit, they will recieve a certain amount of money to match all private donations. Under NYC's system, donations under 500 dollars by 4 to 1. The effect this has is that it drowns out individual donors by overwhelming candidates with public matching funds, thereby allowing voters to support their candidate, while still not recieving special favors for having done so. Spending Limitations can be removed/modified when a candidate is faced with an unusually well financed candidate and is being horribly outspent (as was the case with Marc Green Vs. Mike Bloomberg).
Correction. You cannot buy an ad mentioning the name of a candidate.
You have every right to buy an ad saying "SUPPORT PRO CHOICE CANDIDATES" or "VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS" etc.
just don't mention a candidates name.
Just because the folks giving the obscene amounts of money are non profit orgs (still technically corporations), doesn't make it anymore right. Nor does it make it right when Corportations give. But don't blame campaign finance laws for this. Instead blame broadcasters that fail to use airtime in the public interest as they are REQUIRED TO. Blame Candidates so desperate to win that any attack ad will do, no matter how manipulative and vicous. And blame voters who refuse to do some research, because MTV has prepared them to have everything delivered on a silver platter.
We need public financing. And we need it bad.
I'd suggest a site that's set up, and able to fax letters to congress, a site similar to digitalconsumer.org for example. And tell everyone you know, your mother, grandmother, E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E you know to go there, get the info, and do their part. I can get at least 10-15 people off the top of my head who'd be happy to do this.
www.congress.org has exactly that implemented and waiting for all of you to write congress and STOP THE BRIBES. Money != Speech.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a damn shame the games blow. The first one had quite a bit of potential.
Of course, I'd rather Lara blow anyway.
True, but nonetheless, there are true indies out there not affiliated with the majors.
Saddle Creek, Sub Pop, Matador, Epitaph, Fat Wreck, Jade Tree are just a few off the top of my head.
Subsidiaries of the Big 5 make for an enormous portion of that list.
The real indies do still need your support though.
RIAA is disproportionately controlled by the Big 5 labels, despite the large membership including dozens of indie labels, few of those labels have anything to do with what RIAA says or does. Furthermore, many of those labels are members of RIAA more to gain legitimacy and access to basic distribution channels etc - not to fight your digital rights.
We'd be much better off boycotting the Big 5 of the music industry - Sony, Warner, EMI, BMG, Universal, and leaving indie labels and musicians that need every last bit of support alone.
Yea! Bring Back the Tick!
Spoooooooooooooooooooooooon!
And to think, CN used to be the Hanna Barbera and Hanna Barbera Imitators Network.
Wow. This is gonna be awesome. Not just Cowboy Bebop. Not Just Aqua Teen and Sealab (both brilliant!), But now Futurama, Home Movies, Trigun, Reign... whats next, are they going to buy syndication rights to The Critic? it's the only thing I can think of to make CN better. That or a Freakazoid revival. Just for nostalgias sake. I loved that show.
Is better than what this guy is gonna get.
What does it matter which law enforcment agency they used?
The corruption inherent in the SS being involved here is worrying. Basically, it implies that RIAA, and by extension businesses in general, have serious undue influence on our government. Furthermore, why were RIAA officials TAKING PART IN THE RAID?
It seems to me more corrupt than it should perhaps. The appearance of corruption should be as if not more of a concern for our government. It is not enough to be pure, but it must also seem pure.
From http://www.secretservice.gov/mission.shtml
I don't see anything there about IP law, Fraudulent CD's, or other Piracy or theft laws. The Secret Service protects the president, and investigates Counterfeit CURRENCY, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and other Financial Crime Thats why they are part of the Department of the TREASURY
So what were they doing at RIAA's latest Bust exactly? Though the Register did get the SS's role wrong, they were right in presuming that they really shouldn't have been part of this bust.
The fact that theres too damn many of them.
Some of us want to play games that don't involve a first person perspective and blowing things to bits. Games that involve wider strategies, or more detailed plot structures or charachter development or improvement. Some of us just don't have the 1337 5ki11z to be good at FPS, ans prefer strategy or role playing games.
Thats whats wrong with First Person Shooters.
Criminals use ad banners to find YOU!
Actually, they do that in the US. Some lead offenders go by the names of Gator, Doubleclick, and Clickthrough.
Of course, the bulk of their empire is built on pornography and music theft, but they are always looking to expand.
Actually, it sounds to me like the Post Office is competing with UPS & Fed Ex - in order to compete, they have to be competitive. That happens by offering nice contracts for cheaper shipping. The trade off is they get LOTS of shipping.
Why is everyone so quick to cry monopoly? I'm one of the most anticorporateist types I know, but just because a company is big, has large market share, and deals with goverment agencies (especially ones that compete directly with private industry) does not make it a monopolist.
sigh, my response to that is "so what". If his support os from the poor and there are more poor voters, the candidate will win no matter how much money he raised.
Why assume there are more poor people voting? You attempt to add an irrelevant factor and claim this somehow justifies you.
As for 'forced registration'... I registered to get my drivers liscense and was NOT required to register to vote. Placing the forms together is a convenience. Not a mandate.
Or does FFX-2 give off the appearance of square catering (more than usual I know) to the 15 year old set? First direct sequel. Features the eye candy female charachters. Wearing skimpier than ever clothing...
No, Squares not juvenile... not at all... They haven't lost their ability to be affecting and innovative. They'd never sell out like those BMX XXX guys.
Maybe I'll just wander over into this corner and cry for my broken memories.
In Japan, the Wonderswan has been mounting some sort of challenge to the Gameboy for a while. But the GBA just about killed it, and it looks like Sony will pull it's support from the system soon - possibly in order to develop a handheld of it's own.
Shame too that the Wonderswan never made it here. It has an EXCELLENT library of upgrades of some classic early golden age RPG's.
Humm, so a candidate's popularity has no impact on his ability to raise money and garner general votes?
The problem with a statement like this is that we all don't have X amount of money to give to candidates. If a candidates popularity is among the wealthy, he will recieve far more financial support than if his support is from among the poor.
Votes should be the ONLY arbiter of political success. When we allow our system to be modified by a form of 'vote' that in which one persons voice is worth more than anothers, it is an insult to our democratic principles. People used to go to jail for voting multiple times. Now they just get to hang out with the newly elected Mr. Senator.
Also note, when the general USA public percieves the political system to be "corrupt" they stop voting.
Have you looked at any voter turnout numbers lately?
Are Slashdotters becoming Civilized? Beer is after all the root of civilization.
Are you serious? Extend Market theory to elections? NO! Our government is the last place we want to be determined by capitalist principles. This is a democratic republic. Not an Oligarchy.
Market Leader != Monopoly. Yes, Amazon is the king of online shopping sites. But Amazon is far from a monopoly. Amazon faces a good deal of competition in most markets, not only from other websites, but also from Brick & mortar stores. If you think that Amazon isn't competing with the bookstore down at your local mall, think again. Until that local bookatore closes, along with B&N.com Amazon will have competitors. Amazon is far from a monopoly - just a very successful store.
This proposal is rife with Loopholes.
2) There are no limits to contributions, but they must be from registered voters.
This alone is dangerous. Basically, what you're saying here is Bill Gates can give 3 million dollars out of pocket, instead of letting Microsoft do it for him. Great. Noone will have any idea what Bill Gates Wants, no matter how clear M$'s objectives are.
4) Corporations and unions may not direct or command any employee, member or executive to contribute to any political organization or campaign.
Wow. thats going to be effective. There are laws against this already. But that doesn't stop it from happening. ALL THE F*CKING TIME. Corporate Bundling - read up on it.
5) Registered voters may join an association of other registered voters for the purpose of pooling funds.
You mean like... UNIONS? Basically, what you propose is groups like the NRA, NARAL, and the AFL/CIO's various Political Action Committees (PAC's). PACs are at the center of much of this controversy in the first place because of their undue influence.
This won't piss off anyone with an interest in the system. In fact, it's very similar to the recent sham of a CFR bill recently put into the Colorado state constitution - in fact, that last part was put in, basically word for word - Small Donor Groups are now part of CO State law. Congragulations!
What will piss off anyone with an interest in the system is a proposal for public financing. You've got two models to choose from.
1) Clean money model - under this system, once a candidate recieves X number of qualifying donations of 5 or 10 dollars from voters in his district/state/relevant area, and agrees to accept NO further campaign contributions, that candidate has his campaign funded completely by the Gov't. The advantage to this system is that it completely removes barriers to entry, eliminates corruption, AND the appearance of corruption, and creates a system of campaign funding which encourages candidates to run clean - Because no candidate wants to appear corrupt.
The alternative is
2) A Matching Funds system such as that used in NYC which states that once candidates agree to a spending limit, they will recieve a certain amount of money to match all private donations. Under NYC's system, donations under 500 dollars by 4 to 1. The effect this has is that it drowns out individual donors by overwhelming candidates with public matching funds, thereby allowing voters to support their candidate, while still not recieving special favors for having done so. Spending Limitations can be removed/modified when a candidate is faced with an unusually well financed candidate and is being horribly outspent (as was the case with Marc Green Vs. Mike Bloomberg).
SPOOOOOOOOOOOON!
Correction. You cannot buy an ad mentioning the name of a candidate. You have every right to buy an ad saying "SUPPORT PRO CHOICE CANDIDATES" or "VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS" etc. just don't mention a candidates name.
Just because the folks giving the obscene amounts of money are non profit orgs (still technically corporations), doesn't make it anymore right. Nor does it make it right when Corportations give. But don't blame campaign finance laws for this. Instead blame broadcasters that fail to use airtime in the public interest as they are REQUIRED TO. Blame Candidates so desperate to win that any attack ad will do, no matter how manipulative and vicous. And blame voters who refuse to do some research, because MTV has prepared them to have everything delivered on a silver platter. We need public financing. And we need it bad.
Open Secrets is absolutely the BEST source of information on who has bought who in our political system.
KNOW WHO OWNS YOUR CONGRESSMAN.
The soft money Laundromat over at CommonCause.org also has a good deal of information for the would-be informed citizen.
By Joining one of the many organizations fighting corruption. Thats how. Nothing better than supporting the folks that have been fighting the good fight for years.