Republican Study Committee Dumps Derek Khanna, Author Of Copyright Reform Brief, After Members Complain
from the not-how-to-attract-the-next-generation dept
We'd heard this last week, but it's now been confirmed that, due to significant lobbying pressure by the entertainment industry and (even more so) the US Chamber of Commerce, Derek Khanna, the Republican Study Committee staffer who penned the first thoughtful policy brief on copyright reform to come out of US government offices in a long time, has been let go from his job. There was expected to be some staff turnover in January, as the new RSC leadership took place, but several Republican members of Congress explicitly asked incoming RSC boss Steve Scalise not to retain Khanna in response to the copyright brief.If this is how the "new" GOP expects to interest young people, it seems to be going about it exactly backwards. Khanna wrote a thought-provoking paper that expressed views that many people believe to be true -- in a voice that is rarely heard in Congress. And, for that, he got fired. While the RSC and various copyright maximalists have been insisting that the paper was not properly vetted, we've had it confirmed that this is simply not true. The paper went through the standard procedure of any RSC brief, and was properly reviewed and vetted. It's just that once lobbyists hit the phones to various members of Congress (friends of Hollywood, mainly), pressure was put on the RSC to retract the document, and to jettison Khanna.
This is not going to interest very many young people, when a thoughtful critique of policy that finally raises issues that concern many leads to the staffer in question getting the axe. Khanna, for his part, has been valiantly continuing the conversation via his Twitter feed, but various lobbyists are now ensuring that elected officials can safely stick their fingers back in their ears.
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: derek khanna, gop, hollywood, rsc, steve scalise
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And use #fixcopyright to continue the conversation.
-Derek
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't matter if he's right not not, he made the party have to scramble and they didn't like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
actually, he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hedy - or Hedly....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
with profits and bribes for all those in power.
Fixed that for you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That goes without saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly! And at least the RSC understands it's time to look at Google and not let them buy the GOP and legislation! Couldn't agree more!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I featured your comment as my blog post title
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Free speech stops at the office door."
"In case you think I am BBC-baiting, I should add that at least the BBC allows challenges to its hierarchy. After the Savile scandal broke, George Entwistle had to go on the Today programme, whose presenters are never happier than when they can tear their managers apart on live radio. When Entwistle implied that the editor of Newsnight had no need to worry about his bosses circling over him like glassy-eyed crows, Evan Davis did what any sensible person would have done and burst out laughing.
Consider how rarely such laughter is heard. One of the least explored aspects of free speech in Western societies is the power of employers to enforce silence. Citizens can go on television — on Newsnight, if you wish — and denounce their politicians. The secret police do not come for them. Yet if they criticise their employers they can expect their managers to demote or fire them. After the great crash of 2007-08, we ought to understand the importance of plain talking in the workplace. Insiders at NatWest knew that Fred Goodwin was leading his bank to ruin. HBOS fired its own risk manager for saying that its habit of giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse was insanely risky. But it is still taken as a given that employees who speak out against public or private bureaucracies have no one to blame but themselves if their career suffers. Confusion persists between the interests of managers — who want to protect their status by silencing criticism — and the interests of organisations, and the shareholders or taxpayers who fund them, which need the freedom to scrutinise rent-seeking or incompetent managers."
(http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4705/full)
Just imagine how many people inside the MPAA want to voice their concerns about the industry's aggressive copyright attacks, but cannot... in case they lose their jobs. And not just those jobs in particular, but possibly any future job in that field of work due to black-balling. These people HAVE to exist, because it CANNOT be the case that 100% of MPAA workers are insane - some must surely see the virtues in tapping into the internet revolution, but are compelled into silence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
Maybe that's what's up with Out of the Blue. His insane comments are doing nothing for his side other than convincing other people to join the other side. Maybe he's one of those who realize that the MPAA is insane, but he can't say so directly for fear of losing his job. So he goes out and posts as much insanity as possible to discredit his own side without looking like he's trying to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
Also, congratulations and thank you. You didn't end with that stupid Streisand Effect link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
But with everything, your spelling is awesome!
So, you want to focus on the morality of who owns creations? Hey Blue, focus on morality! I'm a Creator, so give a crap about me! I surely don't give a crap that you're following me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
You don't focus on those things at all. What you focus on is Mike, being as insulting and rabid as possible, and taking the opposite stance of anything that's said here just because it's said here.
Regardless of that, though, it certainly wouldn't be enough to separate you from both Mike and the MPAA. Both are also very concerned about the morality of ownership and talk about the issue quite often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
What I do know is that for your loathing of corporations, you've never criticised the blatant oversight or overreach by those protectionist organisations.
Logic and principle, my obese posterior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Choose which Mike you're trying to get at!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
These two posts are the closest thing to logic that you've posted in a vary long time and they're not vary logical in themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
I guess that's an easier way to inflate his ego than actually being constructive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Free speech stops at the office door."
OMG, OMG, OMG! It's a CONSPIRACY! Quick, put on the Tin Foil Hats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm loving the fact that the Republicans had it blotted from history, one more nail in their coffin as they alienate even more people who may actually have voted for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beware the party purges.
It comes off as communist.
Don't toe the line: get purged.
I can't see how anyone that leans libertarian can't be turned off by the kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Beware the party purges.
No, it comes off as authoritarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And use #fixcopyright to continue the conversation.
-Derek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The internet is just a fad, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's a rock star to the "break the internet" crowd. Maybe Mike can help him sell t-shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hats off to Derek.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://does.dc.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://does.dc.gov
I would guess that he'll be able to find employment pretty damn quickly. Unlike you, his skills aren't obsolete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh wait, you don't pay people.
Hmmm. Maybe ask your boss at Google if he can get a position there. Y'know, lobbying for them in an official capacity instead of doing it under the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, why bother? Look I do like Mr. Khanna maybe writing a few articles, but really? Do you have to go and say Mike works for Google? *smacks head* Why do I feel like our society is falling into stupidity faster than I fear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I do. You see, once in a while it's good to spread some truth around here.
Listed as an "employee":
http://t.co/EfO7ZM7P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't really care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have not, and do not, work for Google. That commenter is simply lying. What he's referring to is a Google disclosure that they give some money to CCIA (as do dozens of other companies) and we've done some work (all publicly disclosed) for CCIA at times. That work represented a tiny fraction of our income anyway.
Separately, Google has also sponsored some events we've hosted, again, for not very much money, though he hasn't referred to that. Other companies have also sponsored our events, though our events don't make us that much money to date.
There's a weak attempt to suggest that I'm in Google's pocket, despite the fact that I regularly criticize the company for practices I disagree with. The whole thing is silly and easily proved false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But yes I know that you don't work for Google. I'm just saying to the AC that I don't care that his statement is the truth. It's false all the way. I do like to apologize for me saying that you work for them (at least I am honest about what I say).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geeze. In your desire to lie and defame, you can't even get the categorization right. I am not listed as an employee because I've never been an employee for Google, nor do I work (or have worked) for Google.
Keep trying though! It's great to see you run around like this trying to distract in an attempt to avoid the actual point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmm... No Google money, there. At least no proof of it. You'd have to find out if the CCIA's commision was ordered before or after Google was a member, and then prove that Google was the majority investor in that study. Good luck.
In the future it behooves you to understand what you're reading so you don't look like a slimy, bald-faced liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And to Mike, I say: keep up the good work.
Where is your rant now?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll also make sure to keep the word going! You're an awesome person and I applaud your brilliance! Really, thank you very much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I'd say we should be about fixing the law, i.e. abolishing copyright.
You cannot fix an instrument of injustice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man#Arguments
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few... They... consequently are instruments of injustice ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, at least he had the nerve to actually speak up. I hope his future will be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like a zombie or corpse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RSC is also on Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it hasn't.
Mike Masnick just loves to make things up. Pull stuff right out of his ass with no reputable citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's say you come home from work only to find your house is now a pile of smouldering debris. Standing outside the house, not far, is a man who is known to be an arsonist and who has vowed revenge on you for some reason. He looks like he's been in a smoke-filled area. At his feet are a few bottles, labelled "High Flammable Liquid". In his hand is a box of matches. Now, no-body saw this man commit the deed, but using logic, we can infer and say that it's extremely unlikely, just short of impossibility, that this man is innocent.
Same thing goes for the entertainment industry. Sure, there's no smoking bullet proof, but they have the means, motive and opportunity. They have the means, enormous influence over law-makers. Motive, to want any discussion of weakening copyright law squelched. Opportunity, the entertainment industry has tons of lobbyists.
That means that, barring evidence to the contrary, it's pretty much a given that Hollywood was involved in this in at least some way. Or are you going to now say Hollywood wouldn't have done anything about the brief, anything at all, to ensure that any talk of copyright reform would be silenced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apply the razor
It basically states that the simplest explanation is probably correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apply the razor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I'm convinced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... seems legit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simply shocking!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Simply shocking!!!
Dude, you just don't get it. Mike isn't a journalist. He's just a guy that does journalism. Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well yeah, he's said so himself many times. What was your point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sound familiar? These are the exact same talking points you guys love to drudge out every chance you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hooray for the AC!!
If you excuse me, I need to go hit my head against something hard.
[ 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:
That's a lie.
And you're pathetic for defending this douchebaggery simply because you're addicted to content and don't want to pay for your fix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a lie.
Just a tip: as it appears you're not aware, most Congressional offices employ staffers. Many of those staffers do not necessarily share the viewpoint of certain legacy industry lobbyists concerning copyright -- even if their bosses toe the line. Some of those staffers might just possibly be willing to reach out and share information about who reached out to whom concerning a certain report.
:)
Just saying. Information you may wish to pretend doesn't exist, quite often does exist and may be shared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Big fucking deal.
Bottom line: You have no reputable citation to post, and you're too much of a slimeball to admit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And tell you what, if you can't provide anything to back up your claim that Mike is lying, I'm going to repeat asking you the same thing about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and speaking of lies...
I don't download any music/movies illegally and never have. Never. I buy CDs (still!) or buy stuff direct from artists or indie labels all the time. Just today I bought two albums from an indie label in NY and am enjoying listening to them as we speak. I also have a Spotify premium account.
I pay all the time and I do not infringe, because I don't think it's right.
But, you know, facts -- not your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... And I'm not getting into a discussion about what I do about the stuff that I get. If you want to paint me as a freeloading pirate that can't afford the stuff I can get for free online, go right ahead! If you want to believe that I'm some junkie that downloads items left to right without handing over my hard-earned money to every creator out there, go right ahead! If you want to believe that all of Mike's articles is douchebaggery, go right ahead!
I know I can't defend everyone because I don't have the knowledge needed to really defend these people. At least I'm free to admit that I'm not suited to do that. But I do like to speak my mind and say what I believe needs to be said because I got my own opinion and I want to say it!
If you don't like what I say, then fine! I don't have to respond to your comments as well. Nobody is going to stop us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you can't even see the huge irony in complaining about Mike not citing sources, and then making a claim you have zero chance of providing any proof for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it's just my sociology studying, but the groupthink here is marvelous. I'm not completely unconvinced that this isn't some sort of Petri dish to see just how many logical knots a group can tie itself into when fed fascist net-utopian propaganda. This place is very much like an alternate version of Fox News; it even has its own Tea Party in the rabid group of zealots like DH, Marcus/Leigh, Heph, PaulT, and a cluster of other misguided minions.
They think they fight for the internet, but what they're buying into is the belief that economics is a science, which it's not. It's a value system. It's a value system that has been tearing the globe apart for more than 30 years. Wall St. and Silicon Valley are the same thing now; Wall St. invested in and tore apart the land; then they invested in and tore apart the global labor market; and now they're investing in and tearing apart "computers" and turning the internet into something very different from the working market that it could be just so that the key big players in Tech can keep their massive slice of pie at the expense of the rest of humanity.
And the idiots here are blaming Hollywood?! You can see they're serious in this belief, the people here honestly think that Hollywood has greater control of government than the oil companies, than Wall St., than the pharmaceuticals, than the food congolmerates, than Google, Microsoft, Apple, and the rest of the MASSIVE companies that make up the "tech sector" (a Wall St. designation, it should be pointed out). They gobble up reports from conservative think tanks on a daily basis, and never connect the dots. "It's those big bad millionaires in Hollywood, not the BILLIONARES who run everything else that are wrecking everything!"
Watching the foundation crack and crumble is going to be interesting. I hope all the suffering that follows will be worth that rip of Game of Thrones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What suffering?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chris Dodd publicly threatend to stop sponsoring people for not passing SOPA. Are you blind as well as stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Moreover, I know that economics is not a science. Neither is Sociology. And groupthink isn't a sociological phenomenon: it's a psychological phenomenon. Just because it happens in a social context doees NOT mean that sociological models apply.
And we don't blame Hollywood, per se - we blame the trade unions (sorry, "trade organisations") that keep trying to funnel money from imaginary uses and into their pockets constantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Simply shocking!!!
If Mike had no credibility, your masters wouldn't be paying you to dilute the discussion here with your nonsense. Be thankful or fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm simply disgusted by what a lying sociopath Mike Masnick is and have every intention of making sure people know the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm simply disgusted by what a lying sociopath Mike Masnick is and have every intention of making sure people know the truth.
You have the truth? Thank god! Do enlighten us, but make sure your "truth" is served without citation and with a chock full of ad-homs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless, you pay yourself in...you know, pats on the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know that just makes it worse, right? If you're going to come here every day to spit venom and lie, you should at least be getting a few bucks for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know what happened. I know what happened. Multiple publications have confirmed the same thing, which we also heard directly from multiple primary sources. He was pushed out, in large part after lobbyists reached out to key RSC members, mainly Marsha Blackburn, and complained about the report. Since she's been a long term water-carrier for the RIAA... look what happened next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Post a reputable citation or STFU.
[ 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:
Oh, the irony. It hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Post a reputable citation, Masnick, or STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, there's your problem. You've confused 'reputable citation' with 'crazy, made-up idea'. No wonder you're confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what's with the quotations on "entertainment industry?" I... *growls* I can't think of anything to describe this level of stupidity. It's driving me mad trying to come up with an response to say "YOU'RE BLIND!"
And you're an idiot for trying to tell Mike to shut up on his own site. At least he has a life outside of this, even I do! I don't sit in front of a computer hitting the refresh button and trying to make a grown man look bad because his viewpoints don't match up to yours. As I told Blue a couple times already: GET. A. LIFE!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The reason, according to two Republicans within the RSC: angry objections from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville, Tenn. In winning a fifth term earlier in the month, Blackburn received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics."
"Lobbyists for the music and movie industries also called the RSC to express disapproval, according to Republicans involved."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is once again an opinion piece by another pirate-type zealot; one who writes for a notoriously zealot-based publication.
It reads like Masnick wrote it himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is once again an opinion piece by another pirate-type zealot; one who writes for a notoriously zealot-based publication.
It reads like Masnick wrote it himself.
Translation: Despite citations, evidence and reality, nothing anyone says will change me from my conviction that Masnick must be lying, because he said something that upsets my fragile ego.
Even when MULTIPLE staffers familiar with what happened have said this is the case, you're still denying it? Incredible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You now are trying to tell me that supposedly because a few staffers (that you infer are pirate types) suggest it was big evil Hollywood that got it pulled that I'm supposed to believe you?
That's not a citation, you asshat.
You refuse to consider the fact that the paper got pulled because it was garbage. It is you that have blinders on.
If Blackburn complained, good for her. It's a garbage paper. And she's from Tennessee, not Hollywood.
The fact is, most of the members of the RSC likely saw what a joke this paper was for any business that doesn't make it's money as a content parasite, and got it pulled.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Four words for you: No, you fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your own words:
"Post a reputable citation or STFU."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though he never did provide any citations of this so-called technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I thought you wanted opinions instead of facts? Hypocrite?
*takes closer look* ... No, I don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*starts laughing like a hyena*
Ah... now then, what do you want Mike to do again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I have read enough of this Story from other News Sites to know it is a true tale.
GOP will do anything to protect their Corporate Masters.
[ 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 ]
Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyin g/243625-the-hills-2012-50-wealthiest-in-congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Probably true using the traditional political fundraising.
But I still wonder if someone couldn't crowdfund a run at office with a completely anonymous donation system. It would remove the cronyism part since the candidate wouldn't actually know where the money came from and wouldn't be beholden to the biggest donors. I realize that this is probably not feasible with current election funding laws, but it would be an interesting experiment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Even if you can solve the fundraising issue, you've still got to be in a district where you can be elected. Your politics need to mesh at least somewhat with voters during the primary and then the general election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Right. But if you combine that with an idea I had a year or so ago where the the elected representative used some sort of online poll (of only their constituents) to tell them how to vote on each bill you would automatically have your politics align with your voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Would we need parties at all, then? Or even representatives? Everything could be done with an online vote.
What I'd like to see is some sort of game program so that people could see what would happen with different policy scenarios. I realize this modeling is only as accurate as the model, but the current system (where everyone lobbies for their particular cause without factoring in how to deal with budgetary constraints, policies that act at cross purposes with each other, and so on) seems unable to deal with the complexities of modern life and global interconnectedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe...
The big test will be 3D printing. If one is going to revise copyright laws, it should be done with 3D printing in mind and the fact that 3D printing has the potential to disrupt many traditional industries (which I hope it does).
Painting Hollywood as the enemy overlooks the bigger issues to come.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
I don't get what you mean.
I see 3D printing affecting many industries that produce, sell, and transport actual objects. The sophistication of 3D printers is rapidly expanding.
I was reading that you can't copyright a pattern, so perhaps that means files of printing instructions won't fall under copyright, but I'm not sure if that will be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Anyway, intructions for 3d printers are no different from instructions for other hardware as far as I can tell. I don't know why they would be treated differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Copyright Law - Patterns
But I don't know the extent to which something like this would hold up in terms of 3D printing. I do expect that any industry that begins to lose business because people are sharing patterns and printing stuff on their own rather paying others for it will look for loopholes.
I was just reading that that there is now a material that can be used in 3D printers to make electrical circuits (I'd have to pull the article to get the actual details). I really expect entire supply chains will be disrupted in time. Anyone who tackles copyright needs to look way beyond the entertainment and publishing industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Also see 17 U.S.C. § 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe...
Thanks.
Yes, copyright is going to get bigger, messier, and involve a lot more industries than entertainment and publishing. Whatever is going to happen in terms of entertainment/publishing is already happening and working itself out in one way or another.
But copyright as it pertains to supply chain issues is going to involve lots of people who think it doesn't involve their jobs or their companies. When that article yesterday said copyright should revert back to charts, maps, and books, I thought, "Yes, sure, that either opens up or doesn't open up a lot of stuff depending on what you mean by 'charts.' Have fun with that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there is anything good in that, it's a sign of exactly why heads need to roll in Washington, replacing corrupt politicians with some that haven't quite been tainted yet.
Once again it is demonstrated what is wrong with the republican party. In two years the voters will speak again. They just barely kept the majority of the house seats this time and made no inroads into the presidency nor the senate. Time will not be kind to those who can not appeal to all voters for the vote.
I'd say it's about time to kick out the source of the do nothing congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Nixon Principle
These are hicks that are being fed class warfare propaganda and eating it up. One elitist snob told them that another set of elitist snobs looks down on them and wants to run their lives.
Until they get over that and religious meddling, most Republican voters won't be interested in real issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But why was he there in the first place?
And as I read about Khanna, I was wondering what appealed to him about the Republican Party. I don't see it as a young person's party, for many many reasons. As I have written before, I don't think pushing for copyright revision would be enough in itself to win new young voters. A lot of other issues would need to be addressed too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But why was he there in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But why was he there in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But why was he there in the first place?
If a party is out of sync with your beliefs, why that one?
Again, getting back to the politics of all of this. I was surprised that the paper was released when it was and by the group that it was, so I guess I'm not surprised that it was pulled and that Khanna lost his job.
While copyright reform might be a libertarian issue (it's definitely a copyleft issue), I've never thought of it as a conservative Republican issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But why was he there in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Nixon Principle, plus neocons.
Also somewhere along the lines they got confused about what certain terms mean like "political conservative".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Nixon Principle, plus neocons.
I'm very much in favor of sustainability, which puts me on the left of many issues. What's interesting is that the sustainability movement has a lot in common with "traditional" conservative values. There's support of localization, of being self-reliant (e.g., growing your own food, generating your own energy and getting off-grid), etc. But I have an old high school friend who apparently is a Tea Party type and she puts up links to the most outrageous conspiracy stuff. How, for example, bike paths are a plot by the UN/communists to take over America.
The whole anti-science bias of many of today's conservatives doesn't work for me, either. You can't ignore or refuse to publish research just because you don't like the results. Science evolves, so what we know now might be refuted in the future, but you have to get the info out there in order to pull it apart and test and retest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Re
I know Mike Masnick from this forum only and I happen to agree with his stance on most things. I find that like most name calling fools those that do the most are the ones guilty of doing exactly what they are pointing the finger at others for.
They have the biggest collections of porn, both adult and kiddie, the most pirated music and movies, and they pretend to be so bloody self-righteous and pompous that it's a wonder their heads don't explode from all the BS they
espouse each time they open their mouths.
They try to justify their existence by screaming bloody blue murder if someone disagrees with them and their skewed version of reality.
Mayhap it's time their nannies and mommies came and gave them all a good spanking and send them to bed with no supper as well as making sure that the parental controls on the computers are working with passwords that our wee trolls can't guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who says movies don't imitate life:
Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got 'em by the balls.
-Truer words were probably never scripted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a good reason to get rid of IP laws and get voter support for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They almost serve a purpose by showing how worthless they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]