They pretty much give to every congress person who will take their money. Some more than others - but it appears the money is there for the taking...
So it's really NOT surprising that those who support the bill have AT&T as one of their top contributors, nor would it be all the surprising if a congressman was getting a ton of cash from AT&T and still opposed the legislation.
There is no story here because - well - there is no story here. We've known for decades that cash is king. Contributors have gotten smart. They don't support candidates who are good for them. They support candidates who are likely to win. If there is no clear winner - guess what - support them both evenly.
The only real stories regarding campaign contributions are the stories about money getting rejected or returned. And you know what - not only does it rarely happen - it's really not all that interesting (yawn) and so news outlets don't make a big deal out of it.
Congress supports big business. Big business supports congress. Americans think they care - but don't - and end up voting for congressmen supported by big business anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the average taxpayer will use technology at some level. Let's assume that the same person enjoys 12 movies and 6 new CD's a year. This average increase as expendable income increases. It also increase as the number of teens and early post-teens live in the household.
Clearly enjoying entertainment and using technology is a dangerous mix. Those who know how to copy music and movies will do it at some point.
Obviously, through no fault of their own, the music industry is in serious trouble. The solution is obvious - we need global levies that are technology agnostic (because it's always changing), and tied to household income.
Tax returns should include lines that calculate the household entertainment multiplier based on a minimum of the the average number music albums/cds/songs and movies that are purchased + some provision for those who earn more than average.
This money will be paid to the entertainment industry who will then decide how to distribute the money - most likely paying back substantial debt that was never recouped for up and coming bands and movies and TV shows who owe money on production costs.
This measure clearly ensures that the artist get what they deserve, while also preserving America's lead in global entertainment.
Re: Mike again wanting "unlimited" for a fixed price. -- Or not.
DSL carriers used to (maybe still do) advertise a "burst speed" which, from my understanding, was the fastest the network would serve you data provided no-one else was online in your neighborhood.
"Unlimited" access can remain true if you don't tie guaranteed speed rates. The carrier could easily throttle persistent connections that are using using a lot of data all the time. That way the network remains open to the heavy user while being "nice" (In Unix/Linux "nice" command sense) to the users who use much less bandwidth.
I don't think the issue is that Sprint needs to manage their networks (they do). I think the issue is that the advertised unlimited access and then said that it's "unlimited" with a cap (i.e. not "unlimited"). Sprint is not the only company who has done this.
I picked up mobile carrier's brochure the other day and in it "unlimited" carried the caveat "reasonable". What the hell is "reasonable?"
Mike's point (from what I got out of the post) was that now that Sprint is trying to move people over to their new network, some still have a bad taste in their mouth over Sprints previous "unlimited" claims - and wonder if it will just be history repeating once the 4G network becomes saturated and once again they've promised more than they can offer.
Artist need to find lables that are willing to work in reverse
Instead of the labels controlling the books, the artist need to pay the labels.
The artist should write the contract and hire out promotion/recording/tour management.
They may not be much better off - but at least they will be in control.
Of course the "major" labels won't work this way. But there are thousands of "promotional" companies that would love the chance to promote a potential mega-band.
Not to mention that most car parts are made overseas and only assembled in the US as a car. How difficult would it be to load car parts up with stickers?
SUBJECT: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection
....
#
Coordination with the Private Sector
# In accordance with applicable laws or regulations, the Department and the Sector-Specific Agencies will collaborate with appropriate private sector entities and continue to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms. Additionally, the Department and Sector-Specific Agencies shall collaborate with the private sector and continue to support sector-coordinating mechanisms:
1. to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and
2. to facilitate sharing of information about physical and cyber threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, potential protective measures, and best practices.
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Protection_and_Programs_Directorate)
The National Protection and Programs Directorate[1] (NPPD) is a component within the United States Department of Homeland Security led by the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs. NPPD's goal is to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements. The components of the National Protection and Programs Directorate include the Federal Protective Service, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Office of Risk Management and Analysis, and US-VISIT.
I'm no lawyer. In fact this is probably the first time I've done this type of research. But here you go. The crime, The punishment, and the enforcement per legal code (as best this novice can tell).
(Following From http://openjurist.org/)
18 USC 2323 - Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution
(1) Property subject to forfeiture.
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319,....
(Following from http://www.law.cornell.edu)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > § 2319 - Criminal infrigement of copyright
Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(B) of title 17
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101 a.3 (Unauthorized Acts. Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved distributes or offers to distribute...)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 46 > § 981
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
(A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956,
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1956
a.3.a. Whoever, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
c.7.d. the term "specified unlawful activity" means ...an offense under...section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement)
e. Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct.....
Re: what is the deal with disney ? they are not allowed to play ? WHY?
I would expect Disney to be directed to the FBI. And then I would expect the FBI to follow the rule of law - including doing nothing if Disney's complaints where not criminal in nature.
I would expect "Homeland Security" to be a go-between agency that helps the iron out communication issues between the CIA and the FBI, local Police, Border Patrol and DEA.
Bottom line - can't trust the US (or any) Government
Regardless of who is in control - Democrat or Republican. The bottom line is that if you're using a US controlled asset (The Internet was born in the US as a US Military project via DARPA don't forget) or if you're dealing with the US in any way - you do so at your risk.
Same can be said of any country - the US just happens to be the powerhouse at the moment.
Governments aren't fair. They are restrictive and protective by design.
MLK broke the law knowing that there would be consequences in hope of bringing attention to the injustice colored people (primarily) where experiencing.
Most people who speed (myself included) are doing so out of ignorance (not paying attention), complacency, or just a flat out disregard for the rules of the road.
There is really no comparison between the two scenarios.
One could argue that copying copy-righted material is done as hope of being caught so that attention can be brought to the "injustices" of the RIAA and the laws they purport to operate under. But in reality most people who copy are not trying to change the world - they are trying to get a piece of art that they don't want to pay for.
I tend to agree with Mike most of the time. However there are two things about this story that irk me.
1. $3.99 - even for a teenager - is not much cash. That's what - half hour work at McDonalds? I bet the the ultra-slushy coffee drink they have in their hands costs more.
2. Regardless of the inability to grasp the "new business model" Brown has rejected it (at least for now). That is his choice. Just as there should be venues for allowing artist to thrive without the need for RIAA, there should also be venues that allow artist to be more restrictive with their art if they feel it's necessary.
My beef is never with the artist. My beef is with RIAA (et al) who aggressively protect profits (through legal bullying, protection rackets, congressional lobbying) in the *guise* of protecting artist.
I think in the end it is the wrong move for the Copy Left folks to lump the two camps (artist and recording associations) together.
Doing so gives the recording groups a "see I told you so" opportunity (RIAA can claim that Copy Left groups don't care about the artist - they just want the art) - where as the true motive should be to protect the artist choice of distribution - even if that means the individual artist chooses to keep his art distribution limited.
In other words fight RIAA - but don't fight the artist.
This is a great comment - and one that didn't - but should have - jumped out at me.
Why can't the USPTO be sued for granting patents that can't be held up?
Once a patent is given, it seems reasonable to me that the party receiving the patent can make an assumption that the patent is enforceable.
I do however also see there being an issue with the USPTO being afraid to further review any patents if they could be found liable. In other words I could see the USPTO specifically NOT reviewing previously awarded patents for fear of being held liable.
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
Re: Help
On the post: Funny How All The Senators Supporting Anti-FCC Bill, Have Raised Lots Of Money From AT&T
That's what happens when AT&T is the top contributor to congress... period
They pretty much give to every congress person who will take their money. Some more than others - but it appears the money is there for the taking...
So it's really NOT surprising that those who support the bill have AT&T as one of their top contributors, nor would it be all the surprising if a congressman was getting a ton of cash from AT&T and still opposed the legislation.
There is no story here because - well - there is no story here. We've known for decades that cash is king. Contributors have gotten smart. They don't support candidates who are good for them. They support candidates who are likely to win. If there is no clear winner - guess what - support them both evenly.
The only real stories regarding campaign contributions are the stories about money getting rejected or returned. And you know what - not only does it rarely happen - it's really not all that interesting (yawn) and so news outlets don't make a big deal out of it.
Congress supports big business. Big business supports congress. Americans think they care - but don't - and end up voting for congressmen supported by big business anyway.
Nothing new here or there.
-CF
On the post: Australian Gov't Censors Plans About Gov't Internet Censorship
Open Government Promise
http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/07/16/declaration-of-open-government/
I quote myself from an earlier TechDirt posting:
"...Bottom line - can't trust the US (or any) Government..."
-CF
On the post: People Aren't Buying Blank CDs Any More, So Collection Agency Demands Media Levy Expanded To Mobile Phones
Why wait for a purchase - just add to income tax
Clearly enjoying entertainment and using technology is a dangerous mix. Those who know how to copy music and movies will do it at some point.
Obviously, through no fault of their own, the music industry is in serious trouble. The solution is obvious - we need global levies that are technology agnostic (because it's always changing), and tied to household income.
Tax returns should include lines that calculate the household entertainment multiplier based on a minimum of the the average number music albums/cds/songs and movies that are purchased + some provision for those who earn more than average.
This money will be paid to the entertainment industry who will then decide how to distribute the money - most likely paying back substantial debt that was never recouped for up and coming bands and movies and TV shows who owe money on production costs.
This measure clearly ensures that the artist get what they deserve, while also preserving America's lead in global entertainment.
On the post: Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The drive by "AC" I get - but those that have established a habit of coming here and commenting, come-on... grow a pair and put a name to your words!
-CF
On the post: Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off
Re: Mike again wanting "unlimited" for a fixed price. -- Or not.
"Unlimited" access can remain true if you don't tie guaranteed speed rates. The carrier could easily throttle persistent connections that are using using a lot of data all the time. That way the network remains open to the heavy user while being "nice" (In Unix/Linux "nice" command sense) to the users who use much less bandwidth.
-CF
On the post: Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off
Re:
On the post: Sprint Realizing That Data Caps Turn Customers Off
Re:
I picked up mobile carrier's brochure the other day and in it "unlimited" carried the caveat "reasonable". What the hell is "reasonable?"
Mike's point (from what I got out of the post) was that now that Sprint is trying to move people over to their new network, some still have a bad taste in their mouth over Sprints previous "unlimited" claims - and wonder if it will just be history repeating once the 4G network becomes saturated and once again they've promised more than they can offer.
-CF
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
Artist need to find lables that are willing to work in reverse
The artist should write the contract and hire out promotion/recording/tour management.
They may not be much better off - but at least they will be in control.
Of course the "major" labels won't work this way. But there are thousands of "promotional" companies that would love the chance to promote a potential mega-band.
-CF
On the post: Libraries Worried About Potential Supreme Court Ruling Concerning Legality Of Selling Imported Omega Watches
Re: And this means...
-CF
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Re: Re: Here is Legal Maze
(from the DHS website http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7
December 17, 2003
SUBJECT: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection
....
#
Coordination with the Private Sector
# In accordance with applicable laws or regulations, the Department and the Sector-Specific Agencies will collaborate with appropriate private sector entities and continue to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms. Additionally, the Department and Sector-Specific Agencies shall collaborate with the private sector and continue to support sector-coordinating mechanisms:
1. to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and
2. to facilitate sharing of information about physical and cyber threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, potential protective measures, and best practices.
....
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Re: Here is Legal Maze
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)
Child Agencies:
National Protection and Programs Directorate
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Protection_and_Programs_Directorate)
The National Protection and Programs Directorate[1] (NPPD) is a component within the United States Department of Homeland Security led by the Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs. NPPD's goal is to advance the Department's risk-reduction mission. Reducing risk requires an integrated approach that encompasses both physical and virtual threats and their associated human elements. The components of the National Protection and Programs Directorate include the Federal Protective Service, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Office of Risk Management and Analysis, and US-VISIT.
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Here is Legal Maze
(Following From http://openjurist.org/)
18 USC 2323 - Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution
(1) Property subject to forfeiture.
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17, or section 2318, 2319,....
(Following from http://www.law.cornell.edu)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > § 2319 - Criminal infrigement of copyright
Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1)(B) of title 17
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101 a.3 (Unauthorized Acts. Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved distributes or offers to distribute...)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 46 > § 981
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States:
(A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956,
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1956
a.3.a. Whoever, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity;
c.7.d. the term "specified unlawful activity" means ...an offense under...section 2319 (relating to copyright infringement)
e. Violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct, and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and, with respect to offenses over which the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction, by such components of the Department of Homeland Security as the Secretary of Homeland Security may direct.....
(following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security)
United States
Department of Homeland Security
Child agencies:
...
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
...
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
...
-CF
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Re: what is the deal with disney ? they are not allowed to play ? WHY?
I would expect "Homeland Security" to be a go-between agency that helps the iron out communication issues between the CIA and the FBI, local Police, Border Patrol and DEA.
-CF
On the post: Homeland Security Wanted To Seize Pirate Bay And MegaUpload Domains?
Bottom line - can't trust the US (or any) Government
Same can be said of any country - the US just happens to be the powerhouse at the moment.
Governments aren't fair. They are restrictive and protective by design.
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re:
Nope. But nice try on crafting an argument that attempts to make you *obligated* to share art work against the wishes of the artist.
-CF
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Sure
MLK broke the law knowing that there would be consequences in hope of bringing attention to the injustice colored people (primarily) where experiencing.
Most people who speed (myself included) are doing so out of ignorance (not paying attention), complacency, or just a flat out disregard for the rules of the road.
There is really no comparison between the two scenarios.
One could argue that copying copy-righted material is done as hope of being caught so that attention can be brought to the "injustices" of the RIAA and the laws they purport to operate under. But in reality most people who copy are not trying to change the world - they are trying to get a piece of art that they don't want to pay for.
Regardless of the reason, illegal is illegal.
-CF
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re:
1. Not duplicated
and therefore
2. Can not be in two peoples hands at once.
Not saying the logic isn't flawed. Just saying that I would hypothesis that this is his reasoning.
-CF
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Illegal is Illegal
1. $3.99 - even for a teenager - is not much cash. That's what - half hour work at McDonalds? I bet the the ultra-slushy coffee drink they have in their hands costs more.
2. Regardless of the inability to grasp the "new business model" Brown has rejected it (at least for now). That is his choice. Just as there should be venues for allowing artist to thrive without the need for RIAA, there should also be venues that allow artist to be more restrictive with their art if they feel it's necessary.
My beef is never with the artist. My beef is with RIAA (et al) who aggressively protect profits (through legal bullying, protection rackets, congressional lobbying) in the *guise* of protecting artist.
I think in the end it is the wrong move for the Copy Left folks to lump the two camps (artist and recording associations) together.
Doing so gives the recording groups a "see I told you so" opportunity (RIAA can claim that Copy Left groups don't care about the artist - they just want the art) - where as the true motive should be to protect the artist choice of distribution - even if that means the individual artist chooses to keep his art distribution limited.
In other words fight RIAA - but don't fight the artist.
-CF
On the post: It Appears That The Encyclopaedia Britannica Entry On Shaking Down GPS Providers With A Bogus Patent Needs Updating
Re: Re: Sue Back?
Why can't the USPTO be sued for granting patents that can't be held up?
Once a patent is given, it seems reasonable to me that the party receiving the patent can make an assumption that the patent is enforceable.
I do however also see there being an issue with the USPTO being afraid to further review any patents if they could be found liable. In other words I could see the USPTO specifically NOT reviewing previously awarded patents for fear of being held liable.
-CF
Next >>