UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online
from the regrettable-indeed dept
Via Glyn Moody, we learn that the UK government has responded to a question about how the Digital Economy Act might increase the price of internet access. The government's response? Yes, the Digital Economy Act might price poor people out of the internet, and that's "regrettable," but somehow necessary. Huh? So it's more important to protect the profits of a few obsolete record labels, than to help get more people connected to the internet? Remember, this is the UK, where it's already been determined -- by the music industry's own numbers -- that the music industry has grown quite a bit over the past few years. So there's no need for the Digital Economy Act to help the music industry. The only parties it really helps are a few record labels who refuse to adapt to the changing market. So, the only clear meaning of this statement from the government is an admission that protecting some obsolete businesses is more important than getting poor people online.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: connectivity, digital economy act, lobbyists, poor, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BUTCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
:-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably worked for you in Junior high, but in the real world people ignore you when you talk like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- Make your food.
- Make your cloth.
- Keep your garden.
- Keep your house.
So they are in a great position to screw people who make money, without the poor there would be no services or products the rich could use or buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So should David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Clegg is on the right side of this one, however, not understanding that a free market means NOT cosying up to big business hampers his classical liberal credentials. Just has the same misunderstanding hampers Cameron's conservative credentials.
They would be absolutely aligned on this one but for a basic misunderstanding of economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Internet can also make it easier and cheaper for them to find a job. Time is worth money and if they have to waste time (and need to pay for transportation) to locate, go to, and wait in line at a job center, that creates economic inefficiency for them and the economy as a whole (now, you may argue that paying for such transportation creates jobs, but the government paying for people to dig holes and cover them back up also creates jobs. Job creation is not an end in itself, aggregate output is).
The Internet can also make it easier and cheaper for them to find doctors when they get sick, find the right doctors, find information that they need to identify and treat their illnesses, and find all sorts of other useful information in less time creating all sorts of economic efficiencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Internet is also a great educational tool, with things like Wikipedia giving them all sorts of information with well documented references, free educational Youtube videos on all sorts of topics, and a better education can help them find better jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How to plant vegetables, how to produce or manufacture things, that knowledge for poor people can and will enhance their lifes without the need of assistance from the government hence without the need for tax payer money to be spent on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This confuses me. What exactly is obsolete about content investment? Increasingly, record labels sign artists to 360 deals in which they are involved in their artists' touring, merchandising, endorsements, personal appearances, etc. Plus, the label promotes artists online, on TV, and on radio. They sell their artists' music online at different locations, and in stores all over the country.
So what exactly is outdated about the labels' businesses? Record labels sell limited edition merchandise, and have for years. They sell deluxe digital and physical albums. They arrange meet-and-greets at concerts that they sell to fans at a premium price.
Sure, artists can become successful without labels, but does that automatically render labels outdated? That's just competition. When labels are driven out of business by non-signed artists who make it on their own I will agree that record labels are outdated. Until then, suggesting that labels are outdated seems like a poor characterization of the current situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was trying to figure out why this was considered an either / or choice. Internet access isn't a necessity. It's a service, like cable TV or a cell phone. If you can afford it, you have it. If you can't afford it, you don't have it.
The content industry in the UK is big business, and represents a good number of jobs in a country that has it's fair share of unemployment and difficulties over the last 25 years or so. The government is interested in keeping those jobs in the UK, keeping those people employed, and making sure there is a reasonable environment for content producers to work in.
There is no choice between the poor and the content producers. They aren't running in and stealing the bangers and mash of the poor people's tables and shipping it off to starving record execs.
The increased protection for content producers is a direct result of rampant piracy. If you want to find out who is adding cost to the internet connections, ask the pirates. Without piracy, there would be no need for this extra government action.
Cause and effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Government imposed monopolies aren't a necessity.
Try finding a job these days without the Internet. Good luck.
"It's a service, like cable TV or a cell phone."
Government imposed monopolies are a privilege and shouldn't be allowed to interfere with an ISP's right to provide a service without having to spend tons of money on enforcing some monopoly privileges.
"The content industry in the UK is big business"
Yeah, so?
"and represents a good number of jobs in a country that has it's fair share of unemployment and difficulties over the last 25 years or so."
The purpose of IP shouldn't be to ensure jobs, that's the purpose of things like communism. The free market is perfectly capable of creating content without IP. If content can be created without IP (which it can) then the purpose of having jobs to begin with (to create goods and services) has been served. If it puts some content creators out of business then that will drive them towards more relevant jobs, jobs that are marginally (though not necessarily absolutely) more important than the job of creating content. It's not the governments job to direct what the free market needs. For example, there is only so much food that can be produced in a market at any given time and that amount of food is influenced by the amount of labor that goes into creating food. If the government directs more people to produce content through various free market distortions that means less people will work to produce food (since people only have so much time in a day to do work and there are fewer people producing food) and less food will be produced. The free market is best at determining the marginal value of everything and how much of each thing should be produced, not the government.
"The government is interested in keeping those jobs in the UK, keeping those people employed,"
It's not the governments job to protect your job for you. This isn't communism and communism doesn't work.
"and making sure there is a reasonable environment for content producers to work in."
A reasonable environment doesn't require government imposed monopolies. In fact, such is an unreasonable environment. A reasonable environment requires things like labor laws that ensure the safety of its citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The internet is a trillion dollar market worldwide and it enables more people to make a living an in turn creates more wealth, which cannot be met by one single industry like the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You still need Internet for it. Sure, there are free Internet venues around, but that doesn't mean you don't need an Internet. and making the Internet more expensive could mean fewer free Internet venues as well, which could make it more difficult for poor people to get a job as well, especially in low income areas that could have a more difficult time paying for bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are way too focused on the "getting a job" part
For instance, you can use it to learn new skills. A lot of what I know I learned online.
You can use it to communicate with like-minded people. Amongst a thousand other things, it can be used to create jobs (for instance, a few like-minded people get together and create a new business).
You can use it to reduce your costs, by finding information on cheaper bargains.
And this is only a small fraction of what the Internet enables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also think there is a difference between getting free music over the air and having to find a job center to get free Internet services at. They aren't done in the same manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That decreases wealth production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Our job centre certainly doesn't have public internet access. The library does, but I don't think all the people on jobseekers would fit in there and get anything useful done in the allotted hour. Plus, there is a difference between being able to email an application and being able to spend the day searching for jobs online. Also, some applications are done through websites, especially ones with timed tests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People are full of bullshit about 'comntent production doesn't need IP'. These are NEVER people who make a living from running a busienss that creates content. Just leechers and thieves trying to justify their own tight-assness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Los Angeles Times: California visual effects firms facing a bleak landscape
The true face of unemployment in that industry is that the CEO is outsourcing everything he call while trying to keep control of imaginary goods that he alone profits from.
I wish piracy hurt sales I really do those people don't deserve a dime, they are the true thieves not people sharing, they are the ones that put people on the street on the cold not sharing loving people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those who say that content production needs IP aren't the ones producing content, they're the ones with control over content that others have made. You simply have no evidence to support the claim that IP helps content creation, the only reason it's so hard not to create IP controlled content outside the Internet is that big corporations wrongfully control all the information distribution venues outside the Internet and they lock independents outside the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the only reason it's so hard not to create IP controlled content outside the Internet is that big corporations wrongfully control all the information distribution venues outside the Internet and they lock independents outside the market
Would you care to explain this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're not different in a way that requires IP.
"Would you care to explain this one?"
Most artists have made most of their money through things like concerts. Traditionally, artists would pay radio station broadcasters to play their songs in exchange for the publicity they get from having those songs well known and they would make their money through other things. Having your song played on the air was considered a privilege, the popularity alone was worth it because having fans means you can make money. To allow a hand full of corporations to control such information gateways and decide what gets played and what doesn't (and to decide that only content that they 'own' gets played) is wrong. It deprives the public out of the music that could otherwise have been created and distributed under permissible licenses which deprives us out of aggregate output in favor of having to pay monopoly prices for content and monopolies are bad for the economy and only good for monopolists.
It is much easier for an artist to make money (ie: have people buy stuff that they sell, give them donations, attend concerts, pay them to perform, get autographed items, etc..) if they are well known and it's easier for an artist to be well known if their music is more widely distributed. But those who wrongfully control the information distribution channels (outside the Internet) almost ensure that most content that is distributed along those channels is controlled or 'owned' by a hand full of big corporations (ie: those that represent the RIAA and MPAA). That makes it harder for independents to get their music content known and to make money. A few corporations wrongfully control an overwhelming majority of media distribution channels like television stations and cableco providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, you may say that we elect our officials, but when we elect them we elect them to act in our best interest, not in the best interests of big corporations. If they are going to sell our rights to broadcasting spectra, which denies us the free market capitalism necessary to individually freely use that spectra however we feel, then they should do so in our best interest. There should be rules to ensure that the public interest is served and granting a monopoly on both broadcasting spectra and content is unacceptable. Monopolized content on monopolized spectra displaces permissibly licensed content making the distribution, and hence the creation, of such content more difficult. At the very least they should deny monopoly privileges to content on monopolized spectra by ensuring that all content on such spectra is permissibly licensed or in the public domain to freely record, copy, and redistribute.
As far as government imposed cableco monopolies, these are simply unacceptable. They make it harder for independent television stations to get their stations on cable without going through monopolist cableco providing gatekeepers and that makes it more difficult for them to exist. Granting a monopoly on both content and cableco infrastructure serves to ensure that most content on cable television is controlled or 'owned' by a hand full of corporations, again, artificially making content more expensive and reducing the size of the public domain (or the availability of permissibly licensed content).
Though, thanks to the Internet, there is now a lot of content released under CC licenses, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong for the government to grant monopolies on broadcasting spectra and the use of cableco infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your point would be stronger without misusing that term
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can talk about displaced or lost sales, diverted revenue and all that, but when it comes down to it, online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anyone anything.
It is anti-piracy measures that cost. And the argument usually is that the cost of anti-piracy measures will be more than balanced by the increased revenue caused by the decrease in piracy (if any). But this decision is up to the individual copyright owner (or in some cases, their trade body that has just hired a fancy new "content protection officer" who needs to justify his salary). Any copyright owner can spend as much on anti-piracy measures as they want to. There are very few places where there isn't *some* kind of measure that can be taken; (in the UK, for example, there is already a law that makes copyright infringement actionable... but for some reason, no one uses it. Why? Because copyright infringement isn't causing enough of a problem for it to be worth the effort).
In this case, what we have is precisely content owners (or their trade organisations) running in and stealing the bangers and mash off the poor people's and shipping it off to (hardly starving) record execs. The DEA (or IOC measures at least) are anti-piracy measures. There is nothing in them that copyright owners can't do already. What the DEA does is make ISPs pay for some of this, to make it cheaper for copyright owners (or their agents). The ISPs then have to pass the costs on to their subscribers.
This legislation is designed to make it cheaper for the large copyright owners (and their agents; i.e. the BPI, FACT, MPA, NLA et al.) to implement anti-piracy measures by passing the cost onto normal people (including the poor) because they don't want to pay for them themselves. Of course, the aim of the measures is to get "the people" to may more for content - so "the people" (poor or rich, although I imagine the rich don't care so much about filesharing) are being forced to pay so that they can pay the record execs more...
How is that remotely logical or fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hah, well when you frame the issue like that...
You lost me when you said "piracy doesn't actually cost anything." It's awesome that you don't have to include any evidence to back up such an extreme claim. Score! So here's my rebuttal: piracy costs trillions every year in lost revenues, and leaves millions of artists homeless every year!
How is that remotely logical or fair?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, your ice cream shop is paying zero for production, becaus you are just copying someone elses work. Thus you have an unfair advantage and have disincentivised the product of the very product you are now selling.
You freetards really should read some under-fives books on basic economics before you spout this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if I had an automatic ice cream replicator that cost me nothing to produce Ice cream and it drove you out of business, there is nothing wrong with that either. Copying other peoples work isn't wrong regardless of the cost of doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the founding fathers note, government imposed monopolies are an artificial privilege, one that requires an institute (like the government) to implement, my ability to copy is a right, one not requiring an institute to implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can state that online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anything because there is no logical way it can. How can person A, by copying a file from one location to another (i.e. a "file-sharing website" to their hard drive) cost some person or company B (who doesn't pay the bandwidth for that website) money?
It can't. There is no logical way that can happen. Now, if you can give any argument to suggest that there is even the tiniest cost of online copyright infringement itself to copyright owners, (as little as 1p a decade), then yes, evidence is needed and so on, but while there can be no cost at all due to basic logic, no evidence is needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like the industry provides "evidence" that infringement actually costs something?
Citation needed. Preferably from a non-invested industry spin merchant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That fantasy would only have a prayer of working if you could apply it to any item that is for sale.
Which you can't.
So, needless to say, epic fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Search for:
- Jamendo
- Arduino
- Makerbot
- Red Hat
- Blender
- Nina Paley
Also see the list of Open Source Hardware supporters who are mostly business people.
So you were saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have to disagree with you there.
It wasn't 10 years ago - it very nearly is now - in 5 years time it will be. The fact is that as more and more activities move online so the extra cost of accessing these things without the internet becomes an intolerable burden if you are poor.
150 years ago electricity wasn't a necessity. It is now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich vs poor
This is the reason Internet access for the poor is considered so important. The poor already have plenty of barriers in their way, without making it more difficult for them to get online, as well.
The entertainment industry already has plenty of laws they can effectively use to battle piracy...they just don't want to have to do all the work themselves.
For those of you who seem to be of the opinion that Internet access is an unnecessary luxury, I invite you to stay offline for a week and see what it's like. Any takers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rich vs poor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rich vs poor
No internet. No email. Cell phone for phone calls only (I could also do this with only a landline). I sometimes do it when I travel overseas and choose not to carry a laptop and don't use my cell phone, or when I am in town on vacation, getting away from work.
Everyone should do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rich vs poor
"Libraries, telephone service, roads, hospitals, schools, etcetera, comprise societal infrastructure; that is, they are necessary for the country as a whole to conduct business, pursue creative endeavours, participate in culture, acquire education, and generally be full members of Canadian society. As a society, we agree that all of these things are for the common good. The benefits flowing therefrom accrue to all citizens, regardless of whether a specific citizen makes direct use of a given resource. For example, someone who doesn't drive nevertheless benefits from roads, because without them there would be no food on the local supermarket's shelves.
Internet service also falls into the category of societal infrastructure. Whether for work or for recreation, in today's world it is nearly impossible to be a full, participating citizen without access to the Web."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL @ elitists
The internet, after all, is a giant public library. Anyone who says that knowledge shouldn't be shared with everyone is dragging the world down, not lifting it up.
P.S. Selfish people (I'm talking to you Dick Chaney) go to hell. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK music industry is worth £3.9 Billion
http://www.itproportal.com/2010/08/04/uk-music-industry-worth-39-billion/
The UK internet industry is worth £100 billion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/28/net-worth-100bn-uk
Crippling a £100 billion industry to save a £3.9 billion industry makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh, and for those willing to argue that music is just a tiny part of the creative industries, well, even if you combined all the UK creative industries, that still only accounts for £60 billion a year.
http://www.creativecoalitioncampaign.org.uk/
(This fact is buried on this page in the "1. What is the DEA?" section.)
Unless I'm bad at maths, that's still £40 billion less than what the Internet brings in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
how does allowing the free regurgitation of old media, and the disincentivising of enw media production create jobs and boost the economy?
go on brainiac, tell us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IP laws can stop innovation by excluding others from doing something, without other to advance the only player in the field is not likely to evolve he has no incentives to produce something new or let others do the same thing in fact you can see companies buying other companies just to get access to technologies that threaten their bottom line and shelve those things.
Free flowing of ideas promote progress through evolution of techniques but it also give everyone a chance to compete inside the market and make money not just a few people.
You think ambulants don't contribute to creation of wealth? you think those people who copy don't finance where they got they copied their products from?
That is how open source works, people give things for free but everyone can make money as an example I saw many tech support people from open source solutions paying to access to people with more knowledge in another words it is a cascade effect, people copy the product do their offerings and go back to the source to stay relevant, the same thing happens with music, bars, stores and even people selling bootlegs are not only promoting but creating a market and thus creating wealth where none existed, IP law instead limit that creation and expansion and thus reduce wealth.
How hard is to understand that muppet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It cripples aggregate output. The whole purpose of having industry to begin with is to create aggregate output. The whole purpose of IP was not to help industry, but to put more things into the public domain.
"how does allowing the free regurgitation of old media, and the disincentivising of enw media production create jobs and boost the economy?"
Allowing the regurgitation of old media is the whole purpose of having IP to begin with, to increase aggregate output by putting more things into the public domain. and this doesn't create disincentive to create new media production, it creates more incentive to create new media because it encourages businesses to keep making new media to make money instead of perpetually making money off of old media that was created a long time ago. It also encourages people to make media with less unnecessarily repetitive content that old media has already created, which encourages the expansion of knowledge instead of the recreation of old knowledge that is simply inaccessible. It allows people to build on each others work as well.
"create jobs and boost the economy?"
Job creation isn't an end of itself. Simply digging a hole and filling it back up is a job but the purpose of jobs is to create aggregate output, not simply to have jobs for the sake of having jobs. You really should consider taking an Econ 101 course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How does protecting IP cripple the Internet business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tragedy of the anticommons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like when people try to build a new railroad, in the U.S. that is impossible without eminent domain procedures, in the same way if every bit of information is owned and must be paid for it becomes to expensive to consume anything and thus contracts the creation of wealth an example of that is the early internet where metered internet was the rule and people didn't develop anything, it exploded and expanded geometrically creating multi billion dollar companies after flat plans won the day.
To much fragmentation in ownership is as bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It shrink the creation of wealth, it odes not creates incentives to produce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Necessity will drive people to shift their focus to free alternatives because they are more useful and create wealth for a lot more people then just a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no proof that protecting one would "cripple" the other. What proof do you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
MPEG LA Announces Call for Patents Essential to VP8 Video Codec
Basically they want anyone who has a patent that could be used to block VP8 and are asking others to come forward, is that free market? is that capitalism? nope that is anti-competitive behavior fueled by anti-competitive legislation that interferes with progress.
What patent thicket means?(rhetorical)
See also the tragedy of the anti-commons(Wikipedia: Tragedy Of The Anti-Commons)
Yes there is ample proof that protecting that imaginary property would harm not only the internet but it is harming the tech industry as a whole already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When the people who owned the GIF format decides to get snippy, JPEG and PNG filled the hole.
There is, again, little indication that patents do anything other than encourage people to find alternate (and often better) solutions. I guess for those people who are stupid enough to bang on the locked door forever and feel trapped, it would be bad. The rest of us just go out the large open patio doors next to it and keep moving onwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many ways are there to make a drop down menu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and
otherwise implementations of this specification where such license applies only to those patent claims, both
currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by
implementation of this specification. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to
the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
alleging that any implementation of this specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or
inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under the License for this specification
shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can also go to chillingeffects.org and see the data showing that most of the DMCA's are from companies trying to stop other companies from doing something, also as collateral many people have their pages removed and that infringes on people's right to free speech and due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Proof is not required - it is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the poor
But they are actually mostly saying "pay a bit extra so rural residents can be subsidised".
That pisses me off. I mean, I'd love to go and live in a idyllic lakeside setting but there's a price to pay for that. Getting internet/electricity/water/buses/garbage collection to a place in the middle of nowhere costs money.
I put up with urban living to get access to those things in an easier/cheaper fashion.
Having said that, it has reached the point where internet is a necessity though, because there are things that cost way more if not bought on the net, services that without the net can only be accessed withj a lot of time consuming cross town travel, etc.
If a poor person has to pay significantly more for a rail ticket because they have no net access, that is going to just widen the gap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your system is not completely free market. Likewise other countries are rarely totally socialist. China for example - although officially communist for many years - has never had a proper public health service.
You got where you are not because of your capitalist system but rather in spite of it, relying heavily on aspects of your system that are not free market.
On the other hand I remember a Polish friend (brought up in the days when they were allegedly communist) saying how appalled he was to see the level of poverty that existed in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor people..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw the mafiaa
i only buy used physical media.
more BS from big content and now it will hurt the poor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Free Market Capitalism but Oligarchy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Free Market Capitalism but Oligarchy
The "natural" progression of this subversion of the capitalism is it's rejection at the ballot box leading to National Socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]