E-PARASITE's Sponsor, Lamar Smith, Was Against Massive Regulatory Compliance The Day Before He's For It
from the do-they-even-know-what-they're-doing? dept
Sometimes you just shake your head and wonder. As you now know, Rep. Lamar Smith just introduced the E-PARASITE Act, which puts incredibly massive regulatory compliance costs on large portions of the internet. Perhaps you think that Congress burdening companies -- especially tech companies, which, recent studies have shown, are responsible for much of the job growth in this country -- is par for the course. But, isn't it interesting to see that just the day before E-PARASITE came out, the House Judiciary Committee cleared a bill to try to limit the costs of regulatory compliance. The main supporter of the bill? You guessed it -- none other than the head of the House Judiciary Committee... Rep. Lamar Smith:The bill “is an urgently needed antidote to this anti-democratic sentiment,” Smith said in prepared remarks. “It gives the people’s representatives in Congress the final say on whether Washington will impose major new regulations on the American economy, not unaccountable agency officials.”So, basically, on Tuesday, Rep. Lamar Smith is against damaging regulations that increase compliance costs on the American economy and small businesses. Then, on Wednesday, he introduces a bill that will establish massive regulatory compliance costs on tons of American small businesses. Kinda makes you wonder if he even understands the legislation he's introducing.
Republicans point to a Small Business Administration analysis showing U.S. regulations cost $1.75 trillion to comply with in 2008 (that research doesn’t attempt to calculate societal benefits). House Republicans have focused much of their energy this Congress on regulations, voting to delay and weaken several Environmental Protection Agency rules reducing pollution from sources such as power plants, cement plants and industrial boilers.
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: compliance, e-parasites, lamar smith, regulations, rein
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No it doesn't...
It only makes me wonder who wrote it for him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He saw the light
Its misinformed people like you that allow the politicians to get away with misrepresenting bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
Who knows you may have had a valid.... BLahhhhhhh ha hah ah ha. Sorry just couldnt get through that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
How wonderful! You do the exact same thing that you accuse me of. Thank you for saving me the trouble of pointing out how all of you are acting like willful children by demonstrating it so clearly. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
"Takes one to know one!"
Here's another impression of you:
"Hey, you're taking from me; that's stealing and that's wrong!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
Your mom's been downloaded more times than Avatar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
Wow, that's bitchy.
Very close to - If you dont know I'm not going to tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He saw the light
The first amendment, lets just get rid of it, and force anyone creating content to get government approval. Subject to the whims of the current administration of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
Truth be told, that was sarcasm. If you don't agree with that last sentence, then you should be against this bill. In history every example of peoples rights being eroded, has always led from a republic to an empire, and government imposed censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
You don't have to reverse your opinion here just because it goes against the popular freetard mentality. People will respect you more if you stick with your guns. Don't worry, I'll be right there beside you taking a stand against the others here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
The only question is, are you desperate for attention, or actually believe the shit you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
> > 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments
> but otherwise you're right. Times have
> changed, let's update the constitution to
> reflect that.
You seriously just agreed that we no longer need the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble, the right to address the government with our grievances, and the right to be free from warrantless search and seizure?
That's really the position you've staked out for yourself?
Damn. You may be a totalitarian fascist at heart, but you get points for honesty, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He saw the light
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He saw the light
I wouldn't hate on a guy who can change his mind for the betterment of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He saw the light
Click on 'Report' and move on to real, intelligent discussion.
Don't waste your time on ignorant fucktards like this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
Once he realizes it was just a scam, he'll change his mind again, wait and see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of PARASITES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speaking of PARASITES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6MlwT1lBk0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Welcome friend!!! The LAPD is featuring a new, designer pepper spray this month: Habanero Lime. It goes particularly well with Croc's, dreads and patchouli oil. It's a bit crowded down at Central Booking but we notified the Crips to expect some extra guests bunking in with them. I'm sure they look forward to meeting you and learning about your struggle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Attempts at political expression should be met with chemical weapon attacks and implied jailhouse violence!
Disagree with you? Hah, anyone who would do that is a subhuman hippie rich kid socialist anarchist. We should just shoot them in the head with "safe" bullets, that will be a good example for their friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do not go to the Theater
Do not use ITUNES,NETFLIX, etc
Buy only used physical media from MAFIAA
Problem solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look- if these legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt.
[ 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: Re:
Do you not believe in innocent until proven guilty? This bill allows any company to punish\kill off any internet company it doesn't like. If the company complaining is lying, they only get a slap on the wrist, and only if the victim can afford to take them to court.
[ 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:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TL;DR - You got trolled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, just because you post a dissenting opinion, you call yourself a troll?
Typical freetard, drinking the koolaid and calling dissenters like yourself trolls, instead of respecting your own opinion you lump yourself together with those who... uh, something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about tech companies that make their money legitimately but whose business model lends itself to abuse by others? I'm thinking of businesses such as Youtube and Dropbox here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You need to accept reality: If legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt to conducting their business without breaking the law.
If they can't, tough. They die. Someone else will start a website where people can show videos of their skateboarding dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: me on Oct 27th, 2011 @ 11:42am
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00001811&t ype=I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
5. Golf the number of strokes established as a skillful score for any given hole or for a whole course
From my extensive knowledge of golf. I even know what a "niblick" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
You learn something new everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
Every hole on a golf course assumes you need to putts to hole out. Getting on the green while still having two strokes left to par is called a GIR, or Green in Regulation.
Par is figured by how long the hole is, or if there are hazards or turns (doglegs) to make it more difficult. Par, or scratch, will almost NEVER win a professional (or expert) golf tournement. If par was an excellent score for an expert golfer, why the fuck is the leaderboard for a PGA even 30 players deep with folks UNDER par by the end of the tournement?
Par is the average score for an accomplished golfer. Birdie is a good score. Eagle is an EXCELLENT score.
Jesus Christ, Blue Balls, can't you get ANYTHING right???!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
4 : the score standard for each hole of a golf course; also : a score equal to par
— par adjective
— par for the course
: not unusual : normal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf
"A hole is classified by its par, meaning the number of strokes a skilled golfer should require to complete play of the hole.[13] For example, a skilled golfer expects to reach the green on a par-4 hole in two strokes: one from the tee (the 'drive') and another, second, stroke to the green (the 'approach'); and then roll the ball into the hole in two putts for par. This would be termed a 'green in regulation' (GIR). A hole is either a par-3, −4 or −5. Par-6 holes are extremely rare.[23]"
You guys have severe mental handicaps! About 40 points, I'd say. Here's what par means for amateurs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(golf)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
Rep. Lamar Smith is not playing golf, he is playing with peoples livelihood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your use of "par for the course" is wrong.
Do you seriously think that means the same thing as "an excellent score for an expert"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it were effective against actual bad actors, I'd be fine. But it's not. It creates massive problems for tons of legitimate sites. If you can't see that, you're not paying attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick is such a sociopath. Anyone that would just outright LIE like this needs to see a mental health professional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right. Tell me this, Mike. What would be an effective way to combat online piracy that you would approve of? I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're asking the wrong questions. The RIAA/MPAA aren't in the piracy combat business-- they don't need effective ways to combat piracy, unless it will result in a gain in their actual business, selling non-scarce media.
So, the answer to your question is "Stop combatting piracy and focus on giving customers what they want". If you want to prvent mold, you make sure there are no places where mold will flourish. If you want to prevent piracy, you make sure there are no places where piracy will flourish. If I can get what I want, when I want, at a price I feel is fair, then I have no need for piracy. *That* is how you beat piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Offer a service people want, for prices they want it at. If that proves difficult, you can also sell a scarce, (ie: non-infringeable), good using the infinite good as an advertisement, or to build a fanbase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A snippet from that article:
"...the gap between Netflix and BitTorrent use is growing (BitTorrent's share of aggregate U.S. traffic dropped from 21.6 percent in the spring to 16.5 percent in the fall, according to Sandvine), suggesting that people are turning to paid content instead of piracy for online video."
That seems to indicate that if you offer it at a reasonable price in the formats desired, they will come.
But the studios, of course, will kill Netflix eventually with higher and higher licensing fees which will be passed to the customers and drive them somewhere else anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as offering things at a reasonable price goes, sure, I agree. Where I disagree is that it's OK for people to just take what they want if they don't like the price. The whole "non-scarcity" argument is B.S. Just because it's "artificially scarce" is no reason for people to just take it. If you want something, buy it. If it costs more than you want to pay, then don't pay it and don't "steal" it. But blaming companies for others pirating their goods is silly and wrong. I put blame where blame lies--with the pirates.
[ 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:
No, that is just an indication that more and more of the piracy online has shifted off of P2P and onto file locker sites. This is especially true for sites that have an affiliate or referral program, as the truly smart ones not only pirate the content, but attempt to turn it into money.
File lockers also have the double effect of hiding piracy in general traffic, and lowering overall traffic by getting rid of all of the peering overhead that exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With all the evidence behind, say, the majority of heavy infringers also being the heaviest consumers, the increase in revenue as you drop prices or go to a pay-as-you-want scheme, the increase in sales of a book as you make a free version availible, etc., I'm tempted to think that if you can't make infringement work for you, then you wouldn't be able to make work, anyways
But I'm glad that you admit it works for some people.
Other note: "So sell it to them at the price they want to pay (usually $0)", is something that we usually find is false. Everyone and their dog knows how to download [insert popular musician/band here]'s songs, yet they still sell plenty of copies. Sure, the price is very low, very close to $0, but then a vinyl disk actually did cost $10 back in the day to make and a virtual copy now costs as close to $0 as any good you're ever going to sell.
[ 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: Re:
Evidence shows two things:
1) They do not consume nearly so much of a product that they cannot 'pirate' (easily). This is very clearly seen in the sales of manga & anime related merch to over here for a particular series as soon as there is any fan translation. . . said merch including DVD's & manga.
2) They would not consume nearly so much, and pay for even less, if they could not 'pirate'.
For a lot of them, as well, cutting off their infringement, if it could so magically be done, wouldn't make them pay more . . . they already spend as much as they are able to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I already spendy a healthy portion of my budget on entertainment related products (books, vinyl records, movie tickets). I currently pirate music and movies first, then buy the stuff I like.
For music, being unable to pirate would mean finding fewer new artists to enjoy, and thus spending no money on them (because I haven't listened to them) and just enjoying what I already have.
Not being able to pirate movies would mean watching fewer movies, because I could only rent every so often from the store. And I would probably never buy any. So I would spend less on movies, too.
See how both of us are worse off in this situation? I get less media, you get less money. Its lose lose. Why would you want this to happen?
Actully, I would not be much worse off, because
I would probably spend more time reading books from the library and playing with my dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They could embrace new distribution methods and channels by removing arbitrary release windows and partnering with online retailers.
They could abolish policies that attempt to create artificial scarcities and begin to connect with their fans.
Just a few ideas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While your position is perfectly reasonable, ethical, and consistent, it doesn't really help anyone. Scolding pirates doesn't get them to stop, and it certainly doesn't get them to start spending more money. Rather than spending time on piracy and whether people should do it, Mike is focusing on trying to help content producers make money.
As freak asked, is your problem with piracy moral or economic? Would you have the industries continue fighting piracy even if shifting tactics to accommodate it would earn them more money? I think most people on this board are approaching it as a business question, rather than a moral one, so if you have the opposite perspective that could result in a lot of miscommunication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you've missed the hundreds (maybe thousands) of Techdirt posts where Mike has already answered that question. (How you managed to comment on those posts without reading them is still a mystery that science has yet to answer.)
You combat piracy by giving people a reason to buy, offering goods and services that they want that are convenient and reasonably priced. Basically everything the legacy industries can't seem to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you are doing to say "rap blogs", well, they can still exist. They just won't be able to stick pirated remixes on a file host and link to them, and act like they don't know what it is. So perhaps they are bad actors after all, right?
If you are going to day "user contributed content sites", I would say all they need to do is be able to know who is contributing the content, and to provide that information based on DMCA complaint or legal action, rather than being obstructionist or offering "anonymous" accounts to allow contributors to hide. Otherwise, perhaps they are just bad actors.
File lockers? Well, considering that they make their money by breaking larger, DVD sizes files into multiple pieces, and then severely limiting download abilities unless a user pays for a membership to "download the files", knowing full well that most of the content in these files are DVD rips, well, perhaps they are just bad actors.
So, can you please give me some examples of truly above board sites that would be hurt?
[ 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:
It's no different than the child at the beach trying to stop the ocean with a sand wall. You could use every grain on the beach to build your wall, the next morning, the beach will be relatively flat again. The day after that you won't even know a wall was built. It's an exercise in futility, carry on but don't expect those with an ounce of common sense to agree with your actions or abide by them even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Says the Anonymous Coward. You're cool with being anonymous here though, right? Anonymity is only for "honest" people or something? And a new, rather sweeping piece of legislation would never be used to start chipping away at anonymity online, whether it's at a so-called "rogue" site or maybe just some site that the government or its connected industries just don't care for.
Maybe some anonymous account is linking to articles that show Business A in a bad light. Or telling people how to email-bomb customer service because of an ignored issue. Or simply ranting about a poor quality product or service. And just like that, someone exercising their free speech has just had their personal info turned over to the offended business under some other pretense.
Or maybe someone pisses off the government with some lengthy rant and (because they have NEVER done anything like this before) the offended party (DHS, ICE, etc.) decides, what the hell, we've already got our foot in the door, and pressures the site owner to ID this anon account in order to charge the ranter with some extrapolation of another existing, vaguely written law (say, the PATRIOT Act).
But, no, that's cool. Anonymity should be done away with. It's obviously turned the internet into a den of thieves and whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It really doesn't matter here because I am not adding anything other than my own words. I am not uploading a file for sharing, or anything like that.
The rest of your post is a paranoid rant. Anonymous won't be gotten rid of for places like this - it should be however trashed when it comes to adding content to a site. The site owner should always know who is adding to the site, track them, and be willing to give that information to any reasonable legal action WITHOUT objection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So text isn't content? Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I'd still make that claim. The lead-in sentence just wouldn't "pop" as much. I have a named account but I don't spend my time decrying the anonymity of others.
The rest of your post is a paranoid rant.
We'll see. I see a lot of stuff happening already that I would have called myself "paranoid" for envisioning 10 years ago.
Anonymous won't be gotten rid of for places like this
It's already gone. ICE will move on an IP address and those are collected with every comment, whether you sign a name to it or not. If someone wants that info, it's already available.
The site owner should always know who is adding to the site, track them, and be willing to give that information to any reasonable legal action WITHOUT objection.
I'm cool with that if the site owner states that up front. I would imagine incoming traffic will decrease immensely.
CLF
You fuck lions? You're one up on me, dude. I just tame them. I call them "land sea lions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what?
http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/21st_amendment_final.html
You mean they repealed that? Well consarnit! I was all ready to head down to the local speakeasy this weekend. Just don't tell Rex Banner that I'm the Beer Baron, k?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you look at it overall, the government succeeded very well in bringing order and regulation to an industry that had a wild west mentality before that.
Welcome to the future. It is somewhat more regulated, for your safety and enjoyment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glad those guys in DC are on top of that!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Mafia activities were restricted until 1920, when they exploded because of the introduction of Prohibition.[7] An example of the spectacular rise of the Mafia due to Prohibition is Al Capone's syndicate that "ruled" Chicago in the 1920s.[7] Similar scenarios occurred in other US cities as Italian gangs fought each other and other ethnicities for control in the lucrative bootlegging rackets. Victorious factions would go on to dominate organized crime in their respective cities, setting up the family structure of each city. Despite alcohol production and consumption being made illegal, there was still a high demand for it from the public. This created an atmosphere that tolerated crime as a means to provide liquor to the public, even amongst the police and city politicians. The high demand and consumption made bootlegging the most lucrative crime and turned local criminal gangs into large crime syndicates. While illegal stills were used to make alcohol, most of the country's illegal alcohol was imported from Canada."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe. But the profits skyrocketed. Nothing makes something more profitable for the purveyors than having it outlawed. See also: The Drug War.
So, piracy may be "marginalized." But those hated pirates who are already profiting from this will presumably see an exponential increase in their profits. That'll show 'em!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are dumber than half a dog.
Prohibition made it possible to profit, massively, by breaking the law. It did not make it harder to profit while breaking the law. Rather it took law abiding citizens and turned them into potential criminals overnight.
The same will happen here. This will move underground, harming many legitimate businesses and people, and 'piracy' will still happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see no evidence of Mike whining, but I do see plenty of evidence of you whining about Mike's position on this bill. It's just that your whining has assumed the form of insults and overconfident assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
Understand it? What makes you think he's even READ it?
These guys just push whatever the industry lobbyists hand them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood accountant: Studie show we will loose money on this film.
Hollywood exec: WE ARE MAKING THIS MOVIE!
Hollywood accountant: I'm telling you we will lose money.
Hollywood exec: NO we will not.
Hollywood accountant: How?
Hollywood exec: We Will sue people who don't watch it.
Hollywood accountant: You can't do that.
Hollywood exec: Then I will buy some politicians to make new laws.
Hollywood accountant: Oh OK, you can do that. Let's green light this puppy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As you sow, you shall reap. You sowed like crazy, now you can enjoy the harvest of fine laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny indeed. The haircut looks like something he gave himself. The prison-issue shirt will like be of better quality than the one he wore in the video. And woe unto Masnick if he ever gets tossed in a cell. A soft, doughy, mama's boy like that won't last 5 minutes. I can just hear him whining about his civil rights, the Constitution and his free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You just hate the fact that other people have rights, too. Even people you clearly hate. If only someone could change that, like say, I don't know, a government willing to play errand boy for certain industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choked on the 1.75 TRILLION figure.
So I looked this up (you can skip to my next para):
http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/853/2016
"The report divides federal regulations into four categories: economic, environmental, tax compliance, OSHHS (occupational safety and health, and homeland security). The estimate of economic regulations is obtained by regressing the Regulatory Quality Index on gross domestic product per capita, and includes labor market economic regulations that were included in the workplace regulation column in previous reports. Second, gaps in the baseline are filled with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates. The costs of workplace regulations are based on the updated estimates from the study by Joseph Johnson (2005). Homeland security cost estimates are based on OMB reports, as are environmental regulations estimates. Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation. The allocation of costs across employment classes was made possible by use of Census data published by the Office of Advocacy."
Picking most likely inflation point: what's meant by "tax compliance" and where is it from? -- "Tax compliance costs, finally, are based on the 2005 report from the Tax Foundation."
So what's that? -- Appears to be a lair of neo-cons!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html
"Scott A. Hodge is president of the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is recognized as one of Washington's innovative thinkers on tax policy, the federal budget and government spending. Over the past 20 years Scott has been a leader in many successful efforts to change public policy. During the 1990s, he led the campaign to include the $500 per-child credit and capital gains tax cuts in the Contract with America. These tax cuts were the eventual centerpieces of the 1997 tax bill and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003." -- He's also big in Heritage Foundation.
Sum: yeah, I'd agree too much regulation, but behind the SBA report is rabid corporatism with hard-core fascist motives.
As for Mike's main thrust: Yawn. It's not even contradictory for the particular politician, they're always for big business, element in common here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Choked on the 1.75 TRILLION figure.
Careful blue, you're making sense!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congressmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congressmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congressmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Al, thank you for your service and I'm sorry to hear about your injury. But know that there are many who also served (including me) who are on the other side of the debate from you. Like you, I volunteered to serve. Like you, my opinion has no special status owing to my service.
[ 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:
[ 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:
I just thought it was gratuitous to mention your fighting for other's freedom in this context, as though it implied a special status to your point-of-view. And regarding rights, I see "freedom" as a basket of rights (assembly, speech, redress, etc) Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.
Anyway, I do genuinely honor your service to this country. I wish more people who run around quoting the Constitution and demanding their "rights" had a more personal stake in securing those rights. And I respect your opinion. I just do not agree that having served is any more meaningful in this discussion than being left-handed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he doesn't care what the legislation is and doesn't have to understand it. he probably has ex-MAFIAA and ex-RIAA employees on his staff to explain it all to him. the fact that what he gets told is a load of b/s is irrelevant. if there is any impact from the bill that would adversely affect him, he will get work-a rounds anyway. his main concern is getting the 'campaign contribution'. however, the complete 'about turn' in opinions, within 24 hours, is rather damning for him, isn't it? at least, i hope it is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We bought and paid Congress
Regards,
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dropbox might be required to request more stringent identification for those that use their services. Big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for Dropbox, I see no reason why I should have to provide more information than what Dropbox itself chooses to request of me. They shouldn't be required to demand such information, especially since the IP addresses they collect are already enough to trace infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If legacy tech companies have to make money based on infringement, then they need to find a new business model and adapt to conducting their business without breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Such a classy fellow, aren't you?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What gives you the right to snoop into my private data to see if it might be infringing?
Simple question.
[ 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:
We're making progress.
"Going from free-for-all to managed containment is, and always has been, the goal since the dawn of copyright."
This is ahistorical horseshit, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only dishonest person in this discussion is you. And you know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are on some heavy duty stuff...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just spit coffee all over monitor - thanks - that was hilarious!! Care to share the name of this magical technology?
please keep Viacom vs. YouTube in mind, you know - where Viacom couldn't even keep track of what was and wasn't authorized, then Viacom dropped some of the files from the case because they (were) found out later that THEY actually posted the files themselves.
If you have the magic bullet, please present said bullet!
I want to invest in the company who produces it so I can be rich too, because there are so many sites that will be forced to use it! It's a guaranteed best seller!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]