Most of the population probably didn't want the DMCA. And yet it's still the law.
Apparently the DMCA was pushed through using a very similar secretive forum-shopping campaign acta's proponents are currently undertaking.
They were laughed out of congress in the US and world-wide, so they took it to the international level, where they also met massive resistance. They kept shuffling it from organization to organization, until eventually they buried it deep enough to pass without the "negative input" of stakeholders like the developing world or the elected representatives of the governments they were coopting.
My guess is this agreement will either have to be ignored by most legislatures, or the DMCA and the constitutions of the western world will be looked upon as quaint.
But the MAAFIA pay politicians via campaign contributions like Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton to pass the DMCA and Tipper Gore put warning labels on certain music CDs and video games.
And they also pay campaign contributions to orrin hatch, ted stevens, sensenbrenner, bush, cheney.
for an organization the size of the air force, and with the mandate it has, there is nothing laughable or overly ambitious about say, creating and implementing your own supersecure protocol, and supporting it within its subnet
and, if successful, watch it leave its military surroundings, be adapted by universities, then corporations, then the general public
The general public will never adopt a protocol which removes the freedom of the internet from the internet at the behest of government and corporate fatcats.
Yes, the competence of joe sixpack user is quite negligible, but joe sixpack does not develop and launch public apps, nor does joe sixpack fuel early adoption.
real, technical users understand what those new "subnets" mean, and will not touch them with a 10 ft pole, unless of course it is to design a tool to tap into those subnets and convert them to normal, free, internet packets with impunity. (hint: subnet may be locked down, but internet still allows you to spoof source!)
This protocol may have its place among the upper echelons of big business and the military, but if a large enough subset of the public touches it, it will be compromised and destroyed.
The government seems to think it's safe picking on small "minority" groups, or those marginalized by a self-interested press (run by copyright cartels).
This will come around to bite them. Pennies add up to a dollar, and small minorities add up to a large segment of the population.
When enough people feel disenfranchised, then connect with one another, things will get really nasty and unstable in the western world. (seems like a win-win opportunity for various "terrorist cells", leverage the populations of the western world against oppressive corporations and war profiteers, remove them from power, and get a huge collective "thank you" when it's all over... shame they don't take a more nuanced outlook in this regard)
SSL encrypted accounts on offshore usenet services should provide the user's fill of illicit files without providing an identifiable IP to (insert enforcement company here).
The only thing visible to the ISP is an encrypted bulk transfer.
The public adopted BT pretty easily enough, there are much friendlier newsreaders.
With this law, if your internet is cut-off, then you can't do anything about it. Oh, my bad, yes you can contest. But if you do so and can't convince the judge that you're innocent, then you face a fine of 300000Ã and 3 years of prison. And of course, everyone who use your connection are impacted, you have to continue to pay for your lost connexion, and you are referenced in a database so that every ISP knows that you can't subscribe to an internet access.
And this is why there are NO isp's raising holy hell right now.
They're being handed an out-and-out license to commit en-masse consumer fraud, with severe penalties to anyone who attempts redress.
Why do I get the feeling this will not pass muster under the current french constitution?
Nazi-douchebag Sarkozy had his government use "emergency" procedure to pass it, so it will only be discussed once in each chamber. Of course, just the mere fact that they claimed it to be an emergency is yet another proof that those assholes are just doing Vivendi's bidding.
This bill is being rammed through faster than the patriot act on 9/12..
This WILL become law, and when it does I expect a great wave of refugees to come spilling into germany, britain, and quebec.
I am really afraid of DRM giving Silverlight power and more distribution (and vice versa). While Flash has (or will have?) DRM capabilities too, another "competitor" on the DRM market could really make things even worse than they are.
On the contrary, more "competition" in the DRM realm is the best way to make things better than they are.
competing formats == more people frustrated and screaming "why the hell isn't this working" at the top of their lungs.
Of course, base silverlight without the DRM packages will work just fine at doing that. In fact, that's my guess at why it "meets their requirements".
Nothing makes a more "secure" drm than a codec and playback system with arguably the lowest market penetration and adoption rate as of this post. Security by obscurity at its best.
In the mean time, there's a better competitor to netflix for those who want their full HD movies in a watchable, savable, and compatible format.
In regard to his ability to uphold the constitution, a comment was made on NPR that, if elected, he would be the first constitutional scholar to be president since the beginning of our nation's history.
Assuming the radical groups don't hijack an M1 tank and flatten his motorcade immediately upon inauguration, he should make an excellent president.
The government has to subsidize farmers, pay them NOT to grow food, and store the excess, including cabbage, because the prices are so low.
If the farmers had to pay a living wage to the food pickers, the price would naturally elevate to the point the government might not have to subsidize them anymore.
Some quotes on the efficacy of the austrian school:
Critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, do not generate testable implications and, so, fail falsifiability.[2][3]
Hayek showed how the business cycle (i.e., the alternation of expansions and recessions) is intimately related to the government manipulation of interest rates, savings rates, and inflation through the central banks' manipulation of the money supply.
And now the truth starts to rear its ugly head. Correlation does not equal causation.
In a free market model, money should work like any other commodity and derive its value from the market itself. Currencies should be present in many competing forms, and its issuance should not a privilege of the state.
We had this in the US (de-facto because the US did not have the infrastructure to mint precious metal into currency into a timely enough fashion). There were horrible local collapses and bank panics back then, and much more frequently. In addition to those collapses, most currencies were not accepted beyond a 50 mile radius from the issuing bank. Really, those currencies suffered back then from the same problem the credit markets are suffering from right now: nobody knows who is backing what, or how secure any of it is.
In fact, the public's experience with those currencies, and the propensity of different banks not to honor them, resulted in extreme skepticism when the greenback was introduced.
In contrast, Chicago school economists (like Milton Friedman, who most people think of when they hear of a free market) advocate government planning and intervention in the form of a central bank, which implies an obstructed economy and not a free market.
It implies government interaction to stabilize an otherwise unstable and volatile free market. Stabilization does not equate to "government obstruction" any more than corporate charters imposing limited liability to investors equates to "government obstruction".
Unlike communists and astrologists, you cannot point to any actual examples of libertarianism actually failing on a large scale in the real world.
Let's see here..
anti-trust law is one.
We had a very long period without the DOJ and FTC watching over companies and mergers like dead relatives.
It led to: the sugar, railroad, oil, etc trusts, which were so abusive even the government officials who slept with them got scared, and passed the sherman act.
Then there was the whole debacle of unregulated pharmaceuticals and food products, which led to a proliferation of lethally dangerous snake oils and the horrendous meat-packing conditions that inspired "the jungle". The government finally stepped in and created the FDA at the turn of the century.
The labor markets were another. Before fair labor laws were enacted, working conditions in the US made malaysian sweat shops look like club med. Sick days meant you got another job, any organization of labor was met with machine gun fire (literally, you can look up various labor massacres), etc etc.
Then there was a hands-off approach to private banking, until the depression. They repealed key regulations put in place since the depression and the credit crisis was the result.
Of course there are other examples going back to roman times. They used to have private fire companies (they really were fire companies! crassus ran one.. you paid him to put out any fires which might occur or he 'supplied' your home/business with fire..'the hard way')
I took a course heavy in stiglitz publications. They included a great number of caveats and qualifiers regarding the assumptions made in the formulation of economic models.
The qualifiers you posted were typical of this.
I merely say not every economics program neglects the propensity of humans in real life. Those which do neglect this do so either out of laziness or political motivation (sourcewatch is particularly harsh on harvard's economics department, and it's faculty's ties to right-wing think tanks, in this regard)
Hayek is one of the best known economists in world history, who won the Nobel Prize for showing how government intervention is responsible for the business cycle.
He received that nobel in 1974. What era was that again? All that proves is the nobel prize is subject to the whims of contemporary politics, not that his work actually had merit.
There was no government intervention in the bank panics of the early 19th century. Heck, there weren't even greenbacks back then. We had cash issued by individual banks.
A quick Wikipedia search will reveal many other noteworthy economists aligned with the austrian school.
Let's not be intellectually dishonest, a quick read of the wikipedia entry on the Austrian school will net this quote:
Critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, do not generate testable implications and, so, fail falsifiability.[2][3]
There's also this one:
the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history
where have I heard that before.... ah yes.. it's tied to pretty much every political ideology i've ever seen, and to religion. I've never heard of mathematicians, biologists, astronomers, etc taking "interpretive approaches to history" because they don't have to. If history does not agree with their conclusions, they modify their conclusions.
That's kind of hilarious. How is any kind of economics not pseudo-science?
Economics is essentially what you get when you take psychology, already something that is somewhat shaky when it comes to science, and then remove all the actual experiments and data.
This is not true of the chicago school (the basis of pretty much every accredited economics curriculum worldwide). Economics is a science firmly based in quantitative analysis and quantitative modeling, unless of course it's the austrian school, which is to economics what intelligent design is to biology.
Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did.
uuh.. I think you need to recenter your views here (please humor me).
First off, hollywood and the MAFIAA are not liberals, they're reactionaries or corporatists. They are pretty far to the authoritiarian right. For reference, please see this political compass
Along this compass, newspapers are slightly within the authoritarian side (they are run by large corporations after all), with fox news on the far right, most of the others clustered in the center, and BBC and CBC on the left.
Slashdot, dailykos, moveon, the NDP, and the ACLU would be placed along a range in the libertarian-left quadrant. (moveon, the ACLU, and the EFF are public advocacy groups. Unlike the news, when they sound the alarm the threat is quite real. When they lose the government gains power it shouldn't have, even if cases of abuse of that power are rare)
Radical Communist Left would be the people's republic of china and the castro administration. The only real difference between this and Radical Authoritarian Right (fascism) is who owns the companies. With Communism, the state runs the companies centrally, while fascist regimes are in bed with CEO's, and allow them to run amok.
So far as american politics is concerned, both parties play the public off one another, making them too busy to see how rigged the system is to prevent parties which truly serve the people from arising. Republicans do the scaremongering, democrats have picked up a new gig dispensing "hope", and the bad policies ratchet with every passing election cycle. (The FEC and the committee overseeing debates are good examples.. equal number republicans and democrats, nader and others never make it into the debates)
From my analysis, corporate conglomerates control enough resources and market power now to rival the power of governments. This is why I don't buy it when ultra-right libertarians and republicans claim the government should just leave them alone. The ideal system would set corporations and governments against one another (smart regulation tied with partial socialization) and toss them in a closet where their thrashing can't hurt the public.
I want to know where his compassion is for people with chronic conditions, or who simply are too old or in too risky a profession.. in regard to healthcare.
"ah, the apathy party, there's something I can get behind!" AP member: "We don't want your kind here" "whatever" *starts to walk off* AP member: "welcome aboard"
Clearly, this is an example of the free market prevailing in the provision of an efficient, secure, neutral, functional, and complete internet to the populace!
If only those other regulations were not getting in the way, compelling sprint to cut cogent off.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the population probably didn't want the DMCA. And yet it's still the law.
Apparently the DMCA was pushed through using a very similar secretive forum-shopping campaign acta's proponents are currently undertaking.
They were laughed out of congress in the US and world-wide, so they took it to the international level, where they also met massive resistance.
They kept shuffling it from organization to organization, until eventually they buried it deep enough to pass without the "negative input" of stakeholders like the developing world or the elected representatives of the governments they were coopting.
My guess is this agreement will either have to be ignored by most legislatures, or the DMCA and the constitutions of the western world will be looked upon as quaint.
But the MAAFIA pay politicians via campaign contributions like Al Gore, Tipper Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton to pass the DMCA and Tipper Gore put warning labels on certain music CDs and video games.
And they also pay campaign contributions to orrin hatch, ted stevens, sensenbrenner, bush, cheney.
They feed both sides through the same trough.
I'm very surprised you didn't mention feinstein.
for an organization the size of the air force, and with the mandate it has, there is nothing laughable or overly ambitious about say, creating and implementing your own supersecure protocol, and supporting it within its subnet
and, if successful, watch it leave its military surroundings, be adapted by universities, then corporations, then the general public
The general public will never adopt a protocol which removes the freedom of the internet from the internet at the behest of government and corporate fatcats.
Yes, the competence of joe sixpack user is quite negligible, but joe sixpack does not develop and launch public apps, nor does joe sixpack fuel early adoption.
real, technical users understand what those new "subnets" mean, and will not touch them with a 10 ft pole, unless of course it is to design a tool to tap into those subnets and convert them to normal, free, internet packets with impunity. (hint: subnet may be locked down, but internet still allows you to spoof source!)
This protocol may have its place among the upper echelons of big business and the military, but if a large enough subset of the public touches it, it will be compromised and destroyed.
I agree.
The government seems to think it's safe picking on small "minority" groups, or those marginalized by a self-interested press (run by copyright cartels).
This will come around to bite them. Pennies add up to a dollar, and small minorities add up to a large segment of the population.
When enough people feel disenfranchised, then connect with one another, things will get really nasty and unstable in the western world. (seems like a win-win opportunity for various "terrorist cells", leverage the populations of the western world against oppressive corporations and war profiteers, remove them from power, and get a huge collective "thank you" when it's all over... shame they don't take a more nuanced outlook in this regard)
SSL encrypted accounts on offshore usenet services should provide the user's fill of illicit files without providing an identifiable IP to (insert enforcement company here).
The only thing visible to the ISP is an encrypted bulk transfer.
The public adopted BT pretty easily enough, there are much friendlier newsreaders.
Yep.. newsgroups are suddenly no longer passe'
With this law, if your internet is cut-off, then you can't do anything about it.
Oh, my bad, yes you can contest. But if you do so and can't convince the judge that you're innocent, then you face a fine of 300000Ã and 3 years of prison.
And of course, everyone who use your connection are impacted, you have to continue to pay for your lost connexion, and you are referenced in a database so that every ISP knows that you can't subscribe to an internet access.
And this is why there are NO isp's raising holy hell right now.
They're being handed an out-and-out license to commit en-masse consumer fraud, with severe penalties to anyone who attempts redress.
Why do I get the feeling this will not pass muster under the current french constitution?
Nazi-douchebag Sarkozy had his government use "emergency" procedure to pass it, so it will only be discussed once in each chamber.
Of course, just the mere fact that they claimed it to be an emergency is yet another proof that those assholes are just doing Vivendi's bidding.
This bill is being rammed through faster than the patriot act on 9/12..
This WILL become law, and when it does I expect a great wave of refugees to come spilling into germany, britain, and quebec.
I am really afraid of DRM giving Silverlight power and more distribution (and vice versa). While Flash has (or will have?) DRM capabilities too, another "competitor" on the DRM market could really make things even worse than they are.
On the contrary, more "competition" in the DRM realm is the best way to make things better than they are.
competing formats == more people frustrated and screaming "why the hell isn't this working" at the top of their lungs.
Of course, base silverlight without the DRM packages will work just fine at doing that. In fact, that's my guess at why it "meets their requirements".
Nothing makes a more "secure" drm than a codec and playback system with arguably the lowest market penetration and adoption rate as of this post. Security by obscurity at its best.
In the mean time, there's a better competitor to netflix for those who want their full HD movies in a watchable, savable, and compatible format.
In regard to his ability to uphold the constitution, a comment was made on NPR that, if elected, he would be the first constitutional scholar to be president since the beginning of our nation's history.
Assuming the radical groups don't hijack an M1 tank and flatten his motorcade immediately upon inauguration, he should make an excellent president.
The government has to subsidize farmers, pay them NOT to grow food, and store the excess, including cabbage, because the prices are so low.
If the farmers had to pay a living wage to the food pickers, the price would naturally elevate to the point the government might not have to subsidize them anymore.
Some quotes on the efficacy of the austrian school:
This rings a bell
So does every religion, extremist political ideology, and dingbat fringe cult.
And now the truth starts to rear its ugly head. Correlation does not equal causation.
We had this in the US (de-facto because the US did not have the infrastructure to mint precious metal into currency into a timely enough fashion). There were horrible local collapses and bank panics back then, and much more frequently. In addition to those collapses, most currencies were not accepted beyond a 50 mile radius from the issuing bank. Really, those currencies suffered back then from the same problem the credit markets are suffering from right now: nobody knows who is backing what, or how secure any of it is.
In fact, the public's experience with those currencies, and the propensity of different banks not to honor them, resulted in extreme skepticism when the greenback was introduced.
It implies government interaction to stabilize an otherwise unstable and volatile free market. Stabilization does not equate to "government obstruction" any more than corporate charters imposing limited liability to investors equates to "government obstruction".
Let's see here..
anti-trust law is one.
We had a very long period without the DOJ and FTC watching over companies and mergers like dead relatives.
It led to: the sugar, railroad, oil, etc trusts, which were so abusive even the government officials who slept with them got scared, and passed the sherman act.
Then there was the whole debacle of unregulated pharmaceuticals and food products, which led to a proliferation of lethally dangerous snake oils and the horrendous meat-packing conditions that inspired "the jungle". The government finally stepped in and created the FDA at the turn of the century.
The labor markets were another. Before fair labor laws were enacted, working conditions in the US made malaysian sweat shops look like club med. Sick days meant you got another job, any organization of labor was met with machine gun fire (literally, you can look up various labor massacres), etc etc.
Then there was a hands-off approach to private banking, until the depression. They repealed key regulations put in place since the depression and the credit crisis was the result.
Of course there are other examples going back to roman times. They used to have private fire companies (they really were fire companies! crassus ran one.. you paid him to put out any fires which might occur or he 'supplied' your home/business with fire..'the hard way')
I took a course heavy in stiglitz publications. They included a great number of caveats and qualifiers regarding the assumptions made in the formulation of economic models.
The qualifiers you posted were typical of this.
I merely say not every economics program neglects the propensity of humans in real life. Those which do neglect this do so either out of laziness or political motivation (sourcewatch is particularly harsh on harvard's economics department, and it's faculty's ties to right-wing think tanks, in this regard)
Hayek is one of the best known economists in world history, who won the Nobel Prize for showing how government intervention is responsible for the business cycle.
He received that nobel in 1974. What era was that again? All that proves is the nobel prize is subject to the whims of contemporary politics, not that his work actually had merit.
There was no government intervention in the bank panics of the early 19th century. Heck, there weren't even greenbacks back then. We had cash issued by individual banks.
A quick Wikipedia search will reveal many other noteworthy economists aligned with the austrian school.
Let's not be intellectually dishonest, a quick read of the wikipedia entry on the Austrian school will net this quote:
There's also this one:
where have I heard that before.... ah yes.. it's tied to pretty much every political ideology i've ever seen, and to religion. I've never heard of mathematicians, biologists, astronomers, etc taking "interpretive approaches to history" because they don't have to. If history does not agree with their conclusions, they modify their conclusions.
That's kind of hilarious. How is any kind of economics not pseudo-science?
Economics is essentially what you get when you take psychology, already something that is somewhat shaky when it comes to science, and then remove all the actual experiments and data.
This is not true of the chicago school (the basis of pretty much every accredited economics curriculum worldwide).
Economics is a science firmly based in quantitative analysis and quantitative modeling, unless of course it's the austrian school, which is to economics what intelligent design is to biology.
I say there still is a complete halt.
I can't get a consolidation on my private student loans. (well there's one provider with predatory variable rates)
Scholars would support Goldberg in certain respects. He is correct that many fascists, including Mussolini (but not Hitler) started as socialists -- though almost none started as liberals, who stood for representative government and mild reformism. Moreover, fascism's combination of nationalism, statism, discipline and a promise to "transcend" class conflict was initially popular in many countries. Though fascism was always less popular in democracies such as the United States, some American intellectuals did flirt with its ideas. Goldberg quotes progressives and liberals who did, but he does not quote the conservatives who also did.
uuh.. I think you need to recenter your views here (please humor me).
First off, hollywood and the MAFIAA are not liberals, they're reactionaries or corporatists. They are pretty far to the authoritiarian right. For reference, please see this political compass
Along this compass, newspapers are slightly within the authoritarian side (they are run by large corporations after all), with fox news on the far right, most of the others clustered in the center, and BBC and CBC on the left.
Slashdot, dailykos, moveon, the NDP, and the ACLU would be placed along a range in the libertarian-left quadrant. (moveon, the ACLU, and the EFF are public advocacy groups. Unlike the news, when they sound the alarm the threat is quite real. When they lose the government gains power it shouldn't have, even if cases of abuse of that power are rare)
Radical Communist Left would be the people's republic of china and the castro administration. The only real difference between this and Radical Authoritarian Right (fascism) is who owns the companies. With Communism, the state runs the companies centrally, while fascist regimes are in bed with CEO's, and allow them to run amok.
So far as american politics is concerned, both parties play the public off one another, making them too busy to see how rigged the system is to prevent parties which truly serve the people from arising. Republicans do the scaremongering, democrats have picked up a new gig dispensing "hope", and the bad policies ratchet with every passing election cycle.
(The FEC and the committee overseeing debates are good examples.. equal number republicans and democrats, nader and others never make it into the debates)
From my analysis, corporate conglomerates control enough resources and market power now to rival the power of governments. This is why I don't buy it when ultra-right libertarians and republicans claim the government should just leave them alone. The ideal system would set corporations and governments against one another (smart regulation tied with partial socialization) and toss them in a closet where their thrashing can't hurt the public.
but ... I used to get that urge every day in school ... without the movies
which urge?
I want to know where his compassion is for people with chronic conditions, or who simply are too old or in too risky a profession.. in regard to healthcare.
"I promise to tax group plans out of existence!"
hurray?
"ah, the apathy party, there's something I can get behind!"
AP member: "We don't want your kind here"
"whatever" *starts to walk off*
AP member: "welcome aboard"
"no risk capitalism" as the result of government policy is called "corporate welfare".
I bought a GPS unit a couple months ago.
quote my mother: "Everywhere I go that stupid woman keeps badgering me"
me: "I'm going to marry her!"
Clearly, this is an example of the free market prevailing in the provision of an efficient, secure, neutral, functional, and complete internet to the populace!
If only those other regulations were not getting in the way, compelling sprint to cut cogent off.