OECD Says Countries Must Promote & Protect Global Free Flow Of Info Online; Irony Alert: US Cheers This On

Lessig On The Daily Show: The Corruption And Extortion Of Congress

from the the-money-problem dept

Thu, Dec 15th 2011 3:52am — Mike Masnick

Larry Lessig was on the Daily Show Tuesday night, talking about his book Republic, Lost, which is an in-depth look at the realities of Congress today: the fact that they spend 30 to 70% of their time raising money for the next campaign, and how they choose which legislation to pay attention to based on how it will drive campaign contributions. The key point is not -- as some assume -- that money buys results, but that money buys access and attention, and Congress knows this. So it chooses legislation to focus on based on how it will bring out those interested in contributing to campaigns -- not based on what's best for the public. I've got the videos of the interview emebedded below (though thanks to silly Viacom limitations, you can only watch them if you're in the US; if you want to watch them from elsewhere, hire a lobbyist in DC, I guess).

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: corruption, larry lessig

110 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Marcel de Jong (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:02am

Well, I'm not in the US, and I can watch it from the embeds. It just depends on whether there is a Comedy Central on your tv-set.
Still the limitation is pretty silly, and will only encourage piracy, and Viacom is leaving itself out of the conversation online and is losing potential ad-revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:45am
  
  Re:
  Your logic:
  
  I don't have a Mercedes-Benz; this limitation is silly and only encourages me to go try and abscond with a Mercedes-Benz.
  
  LOL
  
  You're a silly fool, along with everyone else on this site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    You have a truly dizzying intellect...(ala The Princess Bride)
    
    But seriously, how is that comparing apples and oranges? just want to know...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    You don't answer the issue, you simply create a ridiculous analogy. Why is it NOT silly that this video is only available in some markets? The Internet is worldwide. Why impose this artificial scarcity? That is what creates black markets.
    
    Oh and that's what piracy is REALLY about. It's not about stealing, as is frequently stated, it's about loosing control of the market. Pirate create a black market for goods that consumers can't get else where or are more costly than they are willing to pay otherwise.
    
    I use Amazon to buy my MP3s. Why would I do that when I could find all those songs online for free? It's not because I have some high moral values, it's because I feel that market is reasonable. As soon as the market becomes unreasonable (such as artificial scarcity) then people start looking for markets that WILL provide them the goods.
    
    That's NOT new to the Internet. It's the nature of markets and consumers. You can rail against pirate consumers all day long, but the market is the problem, not the consumers. I have no numbers to back me up but I bet most people who were pirating music stopped as soon as legal, reasonable, markets became available (iTunes, Amazon MP3). Prime example.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Colin, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm tempted to mark this "report" just because it's so stupid, I don't think other people should be subjected to it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let's just say that you're an idiot troll, and leave it at that. Thanks for playing. Next.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    1) Not everyone wants a Mercedes (I don't for one)
    
    2) Everyone could buy a Mercedes in their country, because in every country there are dealerships that sell Mercedes cars. So the only limitation is money, which leads me to the next point.
    
    3) You are comparing apples with concrete walls.
    A free (ad-supported) video stream is something COMPLETELY different from a $$$$$$$ car.
    Thank you for playing, you don't even qualify for a consolation price, now beat it.
    
    Let me reiterate my point:
    People can discuss videos from for instance the Daily Show, and other people want to watch it, by limiting their potential audience, Viacom is missing potential ad-revenue. And they are pushing people towards less-than-less-than legitimate sources, where people can watch it without ads and without other interruptions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was about to ask if you had a couple of brain cells to rub together and the same number of synapses that would enable you to get from brain to typing fingers but, essentially beat me to it.
    
    I was kinda thinking that banning your trolls but then thought about it for a moment then realized that you're doing more damage to SOPA and so-called IP laws than this and a thousand sites like it ever could by merely pointing out a few facts.
    
    With that in mind, and keeping in mind that you're more the second part of being an AC than the first, I thank you very much for your contribution to the cause. You're invaluable. Just not to the cause you think.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 15 Dec 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    What you said and what Marcel said aren't even remotely close to one another.
    
    What he said was more akin to:
    
    I want a Mercedes.
    I can't get a Mercedes because they won't offer them in my town. (Or they do have them, but you can't get a test drive, you can only lease and not buy, and you have to call this special 1-800 number every time you want to drive the car).
    I'd rather just buy my car, but I guess I'll just go to the next town over where they have tons of them they are just giving away.
    
    And even that is a poor comparison, unless you have some mystical mechanism for magically reproducing a Mercedes while leaving the original intact in the owners garage.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Machin Shin, 15 Dec 2011 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    No my logic is more something like this.
    
    There is a guy who put in a well and is charging $50 for a gallon jug of water. On top of that he tells you that you cannot put it into any other jugs it has to stay in the original. You cannot share with your friends and at any time he has the right to take it back. You also are only allowed to drink it, using it for any other use is against the "licensing". Yes, he has had to work to find the right spot for the well and to put it in and pipe it to his plant and fill the jugs. I will not deny that. He has had to work hard to get this water but he is very restrictive about it.
    
    Now, off to the side of this though I find a guy who has tapped into the side of the water wells pipes and is offering free water you just have to come up and use the tap. He is not providing you a jug or anything. He is just offering free water.
    
    In this case I would skip paying the $50 for a jug of water and get it for free because the guy selling it is ripping people off. If the guy selling it would offer it for say $5 a jug and not restrict how I use it then I would pay. Instead though I will just go get it from somewhere else that is offered in a form that makes sense. The water is not limited other than by the guy limiting his sale of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:04am

so what's new? typical politicians. not interested in the people they're supposed to be representing, only interested in big corporations that can keep them in the life style to which they have become accustomed (have everything, give fuck all!) the only way to change things is by the way people vote. that is an absolute quagmire. how can anyone sort out who is best to vote for when they all lie through their teeth? when as soon as they get into office, what was said previously, goes straight out the window? politicians need to be made more accountable for their actions and should definitely be investigated when the public interests are put lower than anything and everyone else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:53am
  
  Re:
  Additionally you can't vote for someone who is QUALIFIED for the position, you can only vote for those who want the position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Worse, if you don't have money to start with you can't get into office. Maybe at the local level, but even then you have to be pretty well connected.
    
    That, to me, suggests our government (in the US) is not "for the people, BY the people" any more.
    
    Not sure how it's ever going to be fixed when the ones who CAN change it are the ones benefiting the most from the status-quo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Smaller parties at the local level help alleviate the problem. The fundamental change is to try to change the voting system we have in place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:02am
  
  Re:
  They aren't only interested in "big corporations", they are also interested in campaign contributions from Unions, PACs, deep pocketed billionaires, etc... Who determines what is in the best interest of the public? We may have completely different view on how best to spend tax money. Personally I think the government needs to get out of the welfare business, this should be left to private charities. I also think the government needs to get out of social engeineering business (encouraging people to have more kids by offering a child tax credit, giving tax credits for mortgage interest, etc...) Do you have a different view of what is in the best interest of this country?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    "they are also interested in campaign contributions from Unions, PACs, deep pocketed billionaires"
    
    and foreign governments.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      AIPAC is investigating you for anti-Semitism right now...
      
      (And now, me too)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:12am

You can watch them in Germany.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirion, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:20am

Actually, I can watch Comedy central online just fine (Russia). Although it's probable sole exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:20am

Every US citizen needs to ask themselves a couple of very simple questions:

1. Why is Google the most upset entity about a bill that targets foreign pirate sites?

2. Who PROFITS from piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:27am
  
  Re:
  1. Why is Google the most upset entity about a bill that targets foreign pirate sites?
  
  It doesn't just target pirate sites, it can be used to target any site.
  
  2. Who PROFITS from piracy?
  
  Lawyers and Lawmakers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    There is a reason he is an anonymous coward.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Obviously the pirates profit by viewing material to which they do not hold a license. Obtaining a service without paying for it is a gain and a gain is a profit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - el_segfaulto (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And if I have cable but want to watch the few shows that are worth watching on my own timetable without paying my company's DVR extortion? The vast majority of TV pirates have already paid in one way or another.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Get a VCR, DVD recorder, etc... You can try to justify your illegal downloads anyway you want but there are legal means to accomplish what you are doing illegally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And if my DVR (or other options) fail, as mine did this summer and you miss an episode of your favorite show...? I guess you are just S.O.L.? Have to wait until the season is out on DVD/BR?
        
        It's not a piracy issue, it's a supply and demand issue. You want to control the supply and not give any flexibility at all, then why are you complaining when the people who demand your goods find a different method of obtaining them.
        
        I'm not say that justifies piracy, but that your actions, through inaction or deliberate artificial scarcity create the piracy market in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You can try to justify your illegal downloads anyway you want"
        
        While I don't download illegally, even if I did, I don't need to justify those actions just like I don't need to justify drinking water. There is absolutely nothing wrong with copying and there is no need to justify doing something that's not unjust.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Machin Shin, 15 Dec 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would just like you to explain how it should be illegal for me to download a copy of something I already paid for. If a show came on cable and I was not able to record it then me downloading a copy from someone who did record it should not be illegal. I paid for the service I simply was not able to catch the show when it was on. This is hardly "stealing", unless you would consider it stealing to go to the store and buy a candy bar only to forget it at the check out then come back later and pick it up. You paid for the candy bar already, you simply forgot it at the store.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So it's the people DOWNLOADING that are at fault for all of this! Gee, didn't know that.
      
      Put another way, it's the market that is responsible for this.
      
      I have another fine idea for you then. Rather than just muck about with the side effects how about doing away with the free market altogether? That should work! No pirates then.
      
      Oh, wait a second. Aren't SOPA and PIPA already trying to do that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe if society educates the people and lets them know that downloading pirated content is illegal, and then show them that people are being prosecuted for that illegal activity it will lessen the effects of piracy to the point that the **AAs don't feel like they are being fleeced. If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm completely fine with educating all of the people that downloading this content is illegal.
        
        As long as we also educate them on the scum suckers who pay to influence elected officials to make unharmful activities illegal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Maybe if society educates the people"
        
        The people you want to 'educate' are society. By 'society educate the people' what you mean is, 'maybe if the failure IP extremists indoctrinate the public' ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bengie, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Maybe if society educates the people and lets them know that downloading pirated content is illegal"
        
        You need to read up on what society actually is. Your ignorance is overflowing.
        
        Society is an implied social contract that is for the benefit of EVERYONE. Laws are suppose to be for the benefit of society. Laws that do not benefit society are illegal themselves.
        
        Copying content, in and of itself, is not illegal. The primary owner of ALL content is society.
        
        P.S. What society wants is not always what's best for society, which is why we have copyright in the first place, which is why we have public school, infrastructure, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What society wants is not always what's best for society"
        
        But who is in a better position to know and advocate for what's best for society; government, industry, or society?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copy protection laws should not intended to re-direct profits or to prevent people from benefiting from works. They should be intended to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts. They should intended to expand the public domain so that more people can freely benefit from more content. That their primary focus has been perverted into a tool for profits is more reason I want these laws abolished. Abolish intellectual property. I don't care about your stupid profits and I hope you go bankrupt.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copy protection laws should not be intended *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gotcha. If someone walks by a radio playing someone elses CD it's a profit, and that's piracy and that's bad/end of times/etc.
      
      And reall, you guys wonder why no one takes you seriously. Go pound sand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:27am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 15th, 2011 @ 4:20am
  ?????
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:28am
  
  Re:
  1. because it doesnt
  2. really nobody does. there's not much money to be made in internet piracy. the amount of money spent pretending there is a piracy "problem" vastly overshadows the amount of money people have made in profits from piracy.
  
  but dont let reality get you down, just go make up more bullshit! its fun! and they pay you for it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    2. The pirates profit by viewing content for which they would normally be required to pay. If I would normally pay for something but then obtained the item for free I gained by not having to pay for it. That money can then be spent on something else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kevin H (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How does this apply when I go over to a friends house and watch it? I didn't pay for it, my friend did. What if he lefts me borrow the movie and I can watch it at home?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You assume that an illegal download = a lost sale.
      
      You assume that people should be required to pay to make copies of something. No one is entitled to the privilege of denying others the right to copy.
      
      You pretend that copy protection laws should be about forcing people to pay to benefit from content. The ultimate objective should be to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts, not to prevent people from benefiting from free content. The objective should be to expand the public domain so that there is ultimately more free content for people to benefit from. If these laws are to exist they should only exist and be enforced to the extent that they serve that ultimate purpose. But our current copy protection laws, with insane lengths and constant retroactive extensions, do not serve that purpose. and if the public doesn't get anything in return for the cost of abiding by, policing, and enforcing these laws then why should they expend any efforts into abiding by those laws?
      
      This is one reason I want these laws abolished. They are no longer about serving a social benefit, they are about serving the sole interests of copy protection holders. They have been perverted from a tool to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts into a tool to stifle competition and generate more profits. I don't care about your stupid profits and I hope you go bankrupt. Abolish intellectual property.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'll admit to profiting off of piracy. I paid my mortgage payment the other day with a hard drive full of movies. I bought my breakfast at Starbucks this morning with some mp3s. Their payment options are very convenient. You walk in, plug in your device via USB, and upload the pirated content to their hard drives and then order what you want.
      
      "If I would normally pay for something but then obtained the item for free I gained by not having to pay for it. That money can then be spent on something else."
      
      So you accept that it's okay to pirate things you normally wouldn't pay for?
      
      What about things you couldn't normally afford? If you assume 1 song = $1 on itunes and each song is about 3 MB in size, my hard drive could store more than 40 million songs, but I don't have $40 million to buy that many mp3s.
      
      Your definition of profit by not spending money only works if you could actually afford and would actually waste that much money buying that much content. I doubt most pirates can afford the retail amount of the content they download.
      
      They also can't convert that piracy into more money. They aren't buying Starbucks coffee with mp3s. Anything they pirate, anyone else can pirate also, so the value is all specific to the individual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:30am
  
  Re:
  Every US citizen needs to ask themselves a very simple question:
  
  WHY are you passing a law that will only benefit a small subset of society and destroy the rights of a much larger subset of society (i.e., all of it) in the face of massive opposition?
  
  But, then again, the average US citizen probably doesn't even have a clue about what SOPA is. And the SOPA supporters use that to their advantage. Ignorance is such a powerful weapon...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Will, 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    what do you mean why are WE passing a law, putting this on any US citizen is as ignorant as our lawmakers(you know the ones who represent us...who by the way dont always act on OUR beliefs)
    
    anti american bigotry due to our politicians is getting on my fucking nerves, stop watching tv and believe that shit, news flash...we arent like that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:36am
  
  Re:
  "Who PROFITS from home taping?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:44am
  
  Re:
  1) Because they can
  
  2) the non-MAFIAA people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:56am
  
  Re:
  Society profits from piracy as piracy is just copying culture, which is ours in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:55am
    
    Re: Culture
    ^This^ is the right idea.
    
    Though I admit it is not this simple.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:08am
  
  Re:
  1) Google is not the only one upset about SOPA/PIPA. Neither are they the most upset about it. Pretending that Google is the only one upset is a nice deflection that supporters of SOPA/PIPA have built up for themselves. It hasn't worked yet, except maybe for a completely lopsided and biased Congressional review panel. However the public at large is not convinced.
  
  2) No one any more. With the amount of free ways to infringe copyright, why would anyone pay for it? Criminals have moved on to high profit black market goods like drugs for their primary source of income.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anonymous, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    that being the case, if any legislation is required, it should be targeted at that, not just at everything at random as SOPA/PIPA does, just to protect the entertainment industries. IF there is a big copyright infringement problem, it should be tackled in the correct way. make sure that there are a lot more legal ways to get movies/music/games etc at sensible prices, DRM free, in the formats that customers want, when they want it. ensure material is released everywhere at the same time, that legally bought material can be backed up by the purchaser to enable the same thing from having to be bought again and again because the disks fail and most importantly, COMPETE with so-called 'piracy'!
    i am still waiting for the next industry that thinks it is entitled to have special laws written and introduced, just as the entertainment industries do, to protect their particular corner of the market. what excuses would be used to stop that happening, when so much is being done for one particular sector?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Edward Teach, 15 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Clearly, the point of insinuating that Google Corporation is most upset by SOPA/PIPA because Google Corp profits from "piracy" is just to get that idea into the pool of common knowledge. Once some concept gets into that pool, it's impossible to argue against it. Anytime someone comes up with proof, a thousand people with 6th-grade educations will shout him or her down.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  Completely off topic. Are you a bot or just a troll?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can't it be both?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ooo! TrollBot! Can't the ACs be known as TrollBots from now on?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    In my undergrad days I took a few classes in AI development. Its comments remind me of a poorly programed / trained AI that just sort of spouts random gibberish.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  1. Who cares? not me.
  2. I do, I get to watch the movies right away instead of being bombarded by ads and warnings, I get to watch it wherever I want, I get to listen whatever I want wherever and whenever I want without the clicking sounds of the watermarks, I get to read things in any place, anytime in any device, I don't have to have a dongle, or keep typing long strings to activate anything, I don't need to care about not being able to update something because my authenticating code was flagged as invalid even though it came from the original box.
  
  Every consumer PROFITS from piracy is just wonderful.
  Plus "content owner" could become something like a Dodo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    If "content owner" becomes like the dodo, so does content. Unless you like watching home made videos of mnudane crap. The end game for content ownership is the end game for content. Trust me none of of wants that. People enjoy watching movies like Inception, Avatar, etc.., if content ownership dies who will make those movies? Who will spend the money required for the special effects, the set designs, the actors, the cameras, etc... The answer is of course - no one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, this is the problem with you people. You literally cannot see any middle ground between home videos and multi-million dollar corporate productions.
      
      One of the many reasons why your arguments fail - there's a massive middle ground that's being unaddressed by your very thought processes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is it that people are pirating? The big Hollywood movies. There is nothing that prevents someone from creating a big Hollywood-type movie and releasing it under Creative Commons licensing, however this doesn't happen because these movies are produced as investments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And still more movies get made and still more money is taken at the box office.... funny that!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's odd I listen/watch non-traditionally 'owned' content all the time. Not pirated items, but new content created well and professionally by people ENABLED by technology like bit torrent, YouTube and other common pirate scapegoats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you're saying you don't watch mainstream movies? That's your preference, but if you look at the content most often viewed it is big budget Hollywood movies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I never suggested I did, simply that there ARE alternatives today and there WOULD be tomorrow. They might not be the giant 3D super special effect driven movies of today, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
        
        Alternately maybe people will just find something else to do. Plant a garden, do volunteer work, spend quality time with the family, etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Think of the poor big-shot movie maker? What is (s)he to me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is a 'risk' I'm more than willing to take. My right to freely copy is more important to me than your privilege to prevent me from copying and my right to freely copy is more important to me than whatever content results from restricting that right. Content will be created without IP laws. Abolish intellectual property.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The end game for content ownership is the end game for content."
      
      I don't know how many times I have to point this out but I'll try again.
      
      Humans have been creating "content" since time immemorial. Lots and lots of it.
      
      And, about the same time we started to figure out agriculture we invented writing. Then it became easier to create content. We shared that content without IP laws. Agriculture spread, but also so did the stories we told around the fire in the evening, they were expanded, added to and shared. All without IP laws. We built things like pyramids and temples then because we could communicate things like mathematics and architecture. All without IP laws.
      
      We invented stuff, lots of stuff. From simple plows to what's arguably the first analog computer in antiquity -- the Greeks, if you need to ask. We figured out that the world was round without having to go into space to actually look at it. We developed laws, wrote and duplicated scrolls of fiction, non-fiction, histories and plays, all without IP laws.
      
      A small group of weirdos called The Hebrews wrote down their stories, the basis of an insignificant collection of those stories we call The Bible. All without IP laws. Another fella came along, not quite agreeing with his religious peers. sought to reform things and was executed for it because the authorities couldn't figure out another way to deal with non-violent dissent and Christianity was born from the stories told about him. Another guy came along who didn't like how Christians and Jews were applying their faiths in his area, wrote it all down and Islam was born. All without IP laws. (For which Jews, Christians, Muslims, followers of the Buddha, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, followers of Confucius and and countless other faiths and variations are very, very grateful.)
      Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese and others developed many goods and products, many methods of doing things and wrote about them making them available to others and that was shared. All without IP laws.
      Music, plays, stories, dances, instruments, naval architecture and the basis for everything we do today were first developed without IP laws and freely shared. All without IP laws. The telescope appeared. Without IP laws.
      
      The point is that "content" not only existed but it flourished in the absence of what we call IP laws for the simple fact that we humans are an intelligent, curious, creative and endlessly communicative species. We share. It's part of our DNA, if you will.
      
      Our civilization arose from sharing not from hiding behind IP laws.
      
      It's argued that IP laws arose to ensure creative people were paid for their work. To an extent I'll agree with that though if you look carefully at it that wasn't the main goal of copyright and patent laws though they have that effect IF the creative person is smart enough to hold onto their patent or copyright. Maybe.
      
      It certainly wasn't created for the use of mega corporations with tons of money to spend on legislators or political parties to ensure that what, till now, has been somewhat useful in our human quest to share become walled gardens behind legal razor wire so we can't share it and they can continue to earn money off the creations of others. Who they then move heaven and earth to actually PAY.
      
      Finally, isn't the point of "content" to share it? Isn't the point of invention to share a solution to a problem that's been bugging the hell out of the person who invented it to share it?
      
      To rent it, to charge for access to a theatre or multiplex to watch it, to stuff it full of ads in the hope of paying for it, to perhaps get paid for the invention along the way, to lend it, to charge rents for access to it, to lend it? In short to SHARE it?
      
      Why create a story when you can't tell it? Why create a lawn mower if you can't show it to someone and sell them one? (Or exchange it for that really, really fertile ram you've got so my sheep can "be fruitful and multiply".)
      
      There are already criminal laws in place to deal with the vendors of counterfeit and potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals. There are military and security rules in place to govern the supply lines to those organizations. If someone or a group of someones is breaking those rules court martial them, criminally charge them or properly supervise them. (Or for some items stop the stupidity of lowest bid price rules, you get what you pay for, right?)
      Just what, precisely, don't you get about this? And just what exactly don't you get about the uncomfortable fact, for you, that for something like 200,000 years since humans first put stick to clay tablet and invented writing the vast majority of this has occurred without IP laws?
      
      And now, tell me, just what do SOPA and PIPA do to enhance that sharing? Free or for profit? Or enhance security supply lines? Nothing, that's what. My best guess is that it will make it, temporarily, harder until we humans, inventive and creative as we are get around it. Rest assured, we (as a species) will.
      
      And all of this for two, relatively and economically speaking, two very small industries. Call it what you will, bail out or welfare or protectionism. It's all the same in the end.
      
      FOOL.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Guy Thomas (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh my! Where to begin?
      
      I do not pirate content. All the content that I consume I have bought (ex. Cable) is directly from the artists (who I think are the actual content creators if I am not mistaken). Artists that know how to connect with fans and offer their work at an affordable price.
      
      Putting an end to the ability of people to offer innovative distribution mechanisms will just end the ability of people like me to support artists with my purchases. Who is killing the artists now?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really?! No-one would dare make content?
      You, sir/madam, are a fool for believing that.
      
      There are tonnes of people out there making games, music, movies, books and anything in between just for fun.
      
      I have filled a large part of my bookcase with books written by independents, even though I already had the audiobooks for free from Podiobooks.com
      I have a Kindle app full with ebooks written by people that aren't part of some bigwig book publishing empire, but rather publish themselves through Amazon.
      
      I have paid good money for a number of films that weren't released by big Hollywood label X.
      
      I have paid for a fuckload of games using the humble indie bundles and the likes. I have bought a lot of games from GOG.com, that come without any DRM (so they are easily copyable, and I could've just as easily downloaded them from pirate site Y)
      
      But of course, without bullshit copyright enforcement no-one would ever release any content anymore. Really now?!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dev, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:31am
  
  Re: who profits from piracy
  chris dodd
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  You are asking the right question. Why is Google spending tons of and tons of it's own money to aggressively oppose this bill, including what appears to be some high end astroturfing?
  
  The answer lies in the nature of Google. Google is the "get in the middle of things" company. They have been aggressive in pushing against existing copyright laws, they have purchased the poster child of DMCA "content grifters" (YouTube), and have pushed everywhere from images, videos, and news to be allowed to use other people's stuff with impunity.
  
  They create things to get in the middle of. Their push with android (an OS that I really love) is not about getting a great mobile operating system out there, as much as it about getting a Google search bar on every front page of every machine. They want to get in the middle of all of your activities.
  
  SOPA would certainly have effects of that activity, and would likely make some sites that Google currently profits from illegal or too complicated to run. Google would also have to consider the copyright implications of their products (present and future) to assure they aren't breaking the law. Quite simply, the company that turns billions in cash might actually have to spend some of it to comply. That is against their basic policies, because they prefer to automate everything.
  
  Who profits from piracy? Mostly the ad networks, the people who drive the traffic, the people who "get in the middle" of your pirating experience. Google is the ultimate middle man here, so you can see where their bottom line is inevitably attached to "free and open" internet, no matter what that internet is being used for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sounds like the "content industry" missed the boat. Again. And again. Tough noogies!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey... Google pay for bandwidth, web sites and staff to manage them and then they advertise YOUR CONTENT for free!! I don't see any artists moaning about their Youtube pages that have become an extension of their social media! Hell they'll even HELP YOU monetise it and give you a percentage!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    "They have been aggressive in pushing against existing copyright laws"
    
    Good, existing copy protection laws are bad. They last too long for one thing and there are many other things wrong with them. The IP cartels have been aggressive in pushing for worse IP laws despite the fact that our current laws are ridiculously bad.
    
    and if Google really makes all this money from piracy then the problem is with IP holders who haven't made a Google of their own to make money from. If there was really all this profit for Google et al to make then why haven't IP holders done anything to make that money instead?
    
    I know, I know, making money requires effort and IP extremists and government established monopolists like to make money without expending any effort. Who wants to go through the hard work of becoming an engineer and getting the education and background required to build Google? Certainly not lazy IP extremists, they are used to making money without doing much work and making money off of the hard works of others. They use the power of the state to restrict competition through broadcasting and cableco monopolies and through bad laws that enable collection societies to wrongfully deter restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers. With this artificial lack of competition it's now easier for politicians and IP holders to make money off of the works of others. Those who want their works distributed, outside of the Internet (and they are working hard to monopolize the Internet too, with SOPA et al), have little choice but to go through the parasite middlemen who are only artificially needed. That enables them to make all of this money doing little work by scamming the public and the artists out of their hard earned money. It's a win - lose situation, the artists lose, the public loses, and only the parasite middlemen who contributes the least wins.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  > Why is Google the most upset entity about a bill
  > that targets foreign pirate sites?
  
  How do you define and/or measure who is "the most upset"? 'Cause I think I'm just as upset as Google about this SOPA nonsense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:36am

hire a lobbyist in DC, I guess

Or use a US based proxy.

Viacom can't stop the signal any more than SOPA can. Where there is censorship there is always a way around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:03am
  
  Re:
  To be fair, it's in Mike's best interest to not give the trolls any more "you're a pirate" ammo by suggesting circumvention methods to watch the video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be fair, it would be in Mike's best interest to "walk the walk" and stop linking to stuff that can only be seen in the US. He keeps driving traffic to the very companies that are doing what he hates.
    
    It's mind numbing at times to watch him go.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So... which alternative legal source would you suggest for these particular videos? Bear in mind that we have to avoid places like YouTube since the trolls would just attack him for that instead.
      
      If the answer is "there isn't one", therein lies the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul, my suggestion wouldn't be an "alternate legal source", rather it would be for Mike to just stop linking to the very companies that have the policies he complains about. It's call integrity. He knows very well that the videos will be blocked outside of the US for the most part - why post them up? Why give Viacom promotion, traffic, and support?
        
        Oh wait, it's because one of their shows put one of his idols on the air. At that point, all sane judgement goes out the window and we fawn over the product of the evil companies we hate the other 364 days a year.
        
        "If the answer is "there isn't one", therein lies the point."
        
        Indeed. It's just too bad that you missed it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If there's useful information on a network I normally loathe I'll link to it or embed it. Even if it's Fox. For Viacom.
        
        It's the information that's important not the medium. And I can find these legally quite easily if it comes to that. Or on YouTube or somewhere else if it doesn't.
        
        To turn Marshall McLuhan on his head there are times when it's the message that's more important than the medium.
        
        Those of us outside of the States go through this all the time so it's no biggie.
        
        It does show the stupidity of national/regional licensing mind you. If Viacom were interested in promoting the show they'd come to a revenue sharing deal with The Comedy Channel in Canada, in this case, If my IP geo-locates to Canada then the Canadian targeted ads and revenue from that go to The Comedy Channel. Simple. Not even much of an accounting problem these days to do that. It's all completely automated if you need to ask.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's not linking to them to support them, he's linking to them to criticize them. It's easier to criticize them if we have the original source and it's not Mike's fault that others can't view them but at least those who can may.
        
        "To be fair"
        
        No, that's not fair. If the objective is criticism then linking to the original source is useful towards that objective.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He knows very well that the videos will be blocked outside of the US for the most part - why post them up? Why give Viacom promotion, traffic, and support?
        
        link
        
        Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. � 106 and 17 U.S.C. � 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
        the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
        the nature of the copyrighted work;
        the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
        the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
        The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
        
        --------------------------------------------
        
        Any other questions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, you think that Mike's point would be better made by ignoring the sources he's allowed to link to, rather than linking to them and demonstrating how their self-imposed restrictions cause them to lose viewers? Sorry, but I disagree. The way to make a point is not to pretend that the things you dislike don't exist.
        
        "one of their shows put one of his idols on the air."
        
        Is it at all possible for you to write something and not make ad hominem attacks, making yourself look like an asshole? On the rare occasion you have an actual point, this would help get it across.
        
        "Indeed. It's just too bad that you missed it."
        
        No, you just seem to have a different opinion. However, I'd say it's you whose missing the point actually being made - as normal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:44am

VPN
Why don't you mention VPN? Get rid of geoblocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:50am

I have to admit, this was better when Colbert report was talking about SOPA. Colbert kinda ganged up on the opposition in a way if I remember correctly.

Oh yeah, I remember now. If you're against SOPA, you're a pirate even if you never pirated anything.

I don't have cable TV, but I usually watch online at official TV channel websites. I don't pirate, but I'm still 200% against SOPA because it can affect legitimate websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:57am
  
  Re:
  You do realize that Colbert's onscreen persona is that of a right-wing talking head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: Understand Parody
  Steven Colbert is a Parody. When he makes a statement like "If you are against SOPA, you are a pirate" he is making fun of people who actually subscribe to that line of thinking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re: Understand Parody
    One of the most humorous things about Colbert is when someone does not realize it is sarcasm, parody, satire, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Samuel Abram (profile), 18 Dec 2011 @ 3:18pm
    
    Re: Re: Understand Parody
    Also, keep in mind that on the Colbert R�port, you heard that the reports of billions of $$$ in losses from piracy were bogus. That was the only place in the US Mainstream Media (albeit on a comedy show) where the bogus piracy loss numbers were called out as bogus. If Stephen Colbert was really pro-SOPA, he would have probably only talked about the (fake) billions of dollars lost to piracy without mentioning that the numbers were fabricated.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:16am

To the proxy's therefore making geo-blocking pointless, so ive heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aikoaiko2, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:20am

You want to send a message, join my one man movement and only vote for non incumbants. Don't worry about party, just vote no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:46am
  
  Re:
  Dont worry you are not one man in that idea. That is my plan as well. Keep shuffling the deck and maybe we'll start getting people in office who actually care about the people. I'm probably dreaming but short of building a rocket to take me off this planet, I have to have hope that it'll get better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Eileen (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    This won't really work, because the two parties are very similar (in actions, ignore the words).
    
    What needs to happen is SERIOUS campaign reform, and I mean publicly funded elections. You get your allotted money and TV time and that's it. No more fundraising.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Get the damn money out.
      
      If your Rep is spending even the low end of 30% time hustling a buck, they are not, and cannot, be representing the people of their district.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:28am

"So it chooses legislation to focus on based on how it will bring out those interested in contributing to campaigns"

So that's why Congress is so obsessed with copyright. We're in a middle of a terrible recession, war, terrorism, the destruction of our civil liberties, but yet Congress and the Senate are obsessed with protecting dead business models?

They know that the RIAA and MPAA are more then willing to write huge checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:36am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

Larry @ Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Losten Pace, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:53am

Devalue congress
Since the government now is largely in every nook and cranny of our businesses and lives, it's hardly surprising that one of the best investments you can make is in government.

If you want to get special interests out of government, get government out of our special interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:54am

Politicians No Longer Work For the National Interest
For the Republicans -> Welfare for the corporations is "GOOD"; welfare for the poor is "BAD"

Obama promotes unfunded "Bread and Circuses" to solicit votes to get re-elected. Furthermore, he claims that Congress is "do nothing" yet he himself postpones critical decisions to some vague post-election future date.

Our civil liberties are being incrementally diminished in the name of this or that "war". Along this line, Judge Napolitano (Freedom Watch) just reviewed the growing militarization of local police. One instance being the recent acquisition of a surveillance drone by Houston Police department that included footage of police dressed in full military attire. Seems that the US is descending into an Orwellian "1984" police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:12am
  
  Re: Politicians No Longer Work For the National Interest
  yet he himself postpones critical decisions to some vague post-election future date
  
  While I think it was pretty weak of him to postpone the decision of the XL Pipeline, to call it a "critical" decision is a bit blown out of proportion. Even if it creates the 20K jobs Keystone claims it will, many of those will be short term and it's not like they'll start working tomorrow if it's approved today.
  
  Still you are right, that he's being quite wishy washy about the decision. It's going to piss off people on way or the other, but he doesn't want to risk pissing off people that would potentially contribute to his reelection campaign.
  
  As the original article states, this is the problem. Make a choice that is right for the country (whatever it may be) not for what is right for your campaign account.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: Politicians No Longer Work For the National Interest
  Not that it justifies this kind of political behaviour just about every president in my memory has done this as they start to prepare to run for a second term.
  
  It's often in the second term when they don't have to worry about re-election that real stuff starts happening because they aren't essentially on the campaign trail for 4 years.
  
  And the best way of telling, in a parliamentary system, that an election is near is when the governing party and Cabinet start to defer things like crazy.
  
  Though we don't have term limits in Canada the best way to tell that a Prime Minister is in his last term is when really important stuff starts to happen that they might pay for at the ballot box, Say the repatriation of Canada's Constitution and the Charter of Rights when Trudeau pulled that one off. Then he retired.
  
  His party lost the following election and badly. Less because we were mad at him than it quickly became obvious to us that his successor just didn't have it. Kinda a middle-left Michelle Bachman.
  
  It doesn't make things any better or justify that behaviour in any way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:01am

The interview is available on Usenet http://binsearch.net/?b=the.daily.show.2011.12.13.hdtv.xvid-fqm&g=alt.binaries.multimedia&p= teevee%404u.tv+%28teevee%29&max=250
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trails (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:08am

For the canucks
http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=99085
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:28am

Vote the blank

Write in "None of the Above"

Show them how we REALLY feel.

I don't vote the "lesser" of two Evils, I write in None of the Above,

VOTE THE BLANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:44am

Another thought
Maybe we could get a federal law passed that makes it illegal for Senate & Congress to consider or pass laws about things that affect less than 1% of the population of the United States.

This would immediately cut down the amount of useless legislation which is bandied about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
  
  Re: Another thought
  Watch this >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc it's only an hour long but Larry Lessig will explain why Senate & Congress will never do anything but maintain the status quo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff, 15 Dec 2011 @ 7:57am

none
Awesome. Gotta love Lessig. Very cogent, and hammers those who need to be hammered!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 8:29am

I think there are people who go into congress thinking they can make a difference but once they get there they realize that it's impossible to actually make a difference without gaining political leverage. You can gain leverage by gaining power through chairing critical commities, but to get appointed to those commities you have to prove yourself by getting re-elected. That is where the corruption starts, campaign funding requires contributions.

Ultimately what this country needs is campaign finance reform. Limit campaign contributions to a very small amount, per person, corporation, organization or other entity (say $1000). There will be lawsuits about limiting free speach (the campaing contribution itself being the speach), but it really is the only way to stop the organizational funding that is happening and corrupting the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Ahh, the old red herring of campaign finance reform. Yes, let's allow the very people guilty of such corruption to write their own regulations. Yeah, that'll go well for everyone. Oh, wait, maybe just for the corrupt lobbyists and politicians.
  
  The only viable solution is to decentralize government power back to the state and local levels. Power is much harder to buy when it is spread out evenly among a large number of people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Planespotter (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    It isn't... At local levels it is very easy to buy power and influence. I've read of companies who threaten to close whole factories unless they receive tax breaks, or unless the state/county/city/town spend vast somes on infrastructure that only benefits them.
    
    Watch the Lessig @Google video on Youtube, whether you are left, right, centre the Senate and Congress of the US is broken and you all know it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]