Blackburn simply regurgitates the too easy mindless blame government regulation mantra. --> "Take the private internet and put it all under government control." These proposals for so-called government control are being pushed by private industry for the benefit of companies that can "buy" our politicians.
Blackburn goes on to say: "Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application." Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.
Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.
The problem with Hilary Rosen's comments are that they purposely avoid the issue that the content industry is "stealing" from the public. The content industry has been claiming ever greater so-called property rights (land-grab) at the expense of both the individual and the public domain. So if she wants to stop "stealing" is she willing to go back to copyright law as originally passed in 1790? I seriously doubt it.
We are witnessing the rebirth of McCartyism. In the case today, it is not the threat of Communism as the source of FUD, but other boogeymen such as terrorism, piracy, and drugs.
Won't be long before we have a new "House Committee on Un-American Activities". I also suspect, based on Newt Gingrich's comments that we may soon have a Federal PreCrime police unit authorized to arrest people on the simple belief without evidence that they may commit a crime.
Excellent post. Those who push for "strong" copyright seem to think that the law is meant to serve them, not society as a whole, meaning that those accused are also entitled to due process under the rule of law.
Furthermore, those who claim that the legal system owes them protection are undertaking a massive "land-grab" to assert ever greater control over so-called "intellectual property". Like a drug addict, they need an ever bigger fix. Time to put an end to the "land-grab". Those who buy products are also entitled to the rights of ownership.
Now for the mandatory disclosure. So-called claims for "deficit reduction" are a disingenuous play on words. There is NO actual deficit reduction, what is being proposed is to spend slightly less then originally proposed. The US will still have deficit spending along with increasing debt.
To phrase this a bit differently. Hypothetically, blame Bush proposes to buy a $20,000 clunker of a car. Obama gets elected and now proposes to by an extravagant luxury $100,000 car. The people get upset, so Obama downgrades his proposal to only buy a stripped down $50,000 sports car while lamenting over this sacrifice. He now claims to have "saved" (reduced the deficit by) $50,000. No mention of the fact that unfunded deficit spending increased by $30,000.
The Washington Times recently had an editorial concerning speed camera errors. Now one would not normally associate Speed Cameras with copyright infringement, but they are related in the sense that "due process" is being eliminated to (falsely) facilitate the justice for the sole benefit of the accuser. If the finger of blame is pointed at you, you have virtually no opportunity to refute any allegations. Go directly to jail.
A Washington Times editorial writes: "Traditional law-enforcement duties are best performed by men, not machines. This is the case in Maryland, where speed cameras continue to pronounce the innocent guilty, regardless of mounting evidence that the measuring devices are faulty. ... In a May 24 letter, Mr. Warrington explained his interest in addressing reliability problems was not ensuring justice but “how we can optimize the productivity of our camera.”" (emphasis added)"
You raise a very good point, I've searched for a "correct" word for some time, but really haven't found a definitive word that resolves all my theoretical concerns.
The concern with Oligarchy is that it is the rule of a few that serves whatever is of interest to the few. While, we do having increasing influence by a few (for government to serve corporate interests) that would meet the criteria of Oligarchy; it misses the organic concept that government exists to explicitly serve corporate interests.
The statement by Anonymous that: ".. if the public actually respected current copyright law ...". ignores the land-grab by those advocating ever stronger copyright laws. No matter how "strong" copyright/patent law become, it never seems to be enough. So how can we have respect for a law that incrementally and continually eliminates the rights of citizens. Now if Anonymous was discussing respecting the first copyright act of 1790 he might have had a point.
I seriously doubt that Anonymous would have any respect for that law. How about a roll-back Anonymous?
The last two Republican debates raised the specter of the theft of so-called "intellectual property" by foreign governments/companies. Specifically Romney on China. The implication; ever stronger laws censoring the internet for the average citizen in the name of National Security.
Though this issue is surfacing in the Republican debates, it really seems to be a bi-partisan effort. So it would seem that no matter who wins the 2012 election, the pendulum will continue to swing towards ever more onerous laws depriving citizens of civil rights. Our future government will be based on Corporatism, a government of, by, and for the corporations.
The Definition of Stealing is Becoming More "Liberal"
Anonymous, content creators are involved in a massive land-grab that consistently aggrandizes their so-called property privilege. This land-grab needs to be stopped.
Not only that, but scarcity is used, in some situation, as a basis for asserting a property right. Well, if there is infinite scarcity, then the property right should diminish.
There is little reason to be "honest". If you actually buy the software there seems to be no method to return the product for a refund. Given that,why should the consumer be honest when a company takes your money and refuses to give it back. With that Target - BAD.
The TOS and EULA deprive you of any rights and to my knowledge none of the software offers a return policy. So if you reject the terms of service, the product does not work on your computer, or you are otherwise displeased it you just spent big $$$ for useless cheap plastic.
Honesty needs to work both ways, not just to the benefit of the seller. Good old "Buyer Beware". With that, why should the consumer be "honest".
There was a move afoot, were some lobbyists were able to get some clueless Congress people to allocate a portion of the radio spectrum for the benefit of First Responders. The premise was that our public servants in the fire/police/medics needed this spectrum for interoperability.
Well, someone put together a film clip of various first responders saying that if they did not receive this spectrum allocation that they couldn't do their job and that children and old woman would die. Pure FUD.
Without going into a lot of detail, interoperability is a management problem, not a spectrum problem. What I suspect, no proof, was that this was being proposed by the communications industry to "force" public safety department to buy PROPRIETARY radio equipment.
But Then Why is "Legal" for the Police to Record You.
First, good to see the ACLU involved. Seems that they have not been reluctant to get involved in how Corporations and Government have using technology to suppress freedom. I hope that the ACLU becomes more concerned and active.
Second, it seems that the police record our every move. So if the police can record the public, the public should be able to record them.
If only one side can record events then how do we know what is true or not? Furthermore, what about the concept of transparent government? Government actions are supposed to be "exposed" for public scrutiny. I guess, we are just getting "trained" to accept the coming police state.
Exactly what is wrong. Patents now seem to describe a process that goes from one black box to another. You would not be able to replicate the device. If you cannot replicate a device from the submitted detailed plans, a patent should not be granted.
But What Gives Them a "Right" to Claim a Poperty Right
"The patient, a man named John Moore, was never told that his discarded body parts could be used in other ways."
If the assertion that so-called "intellectual property" actually exists then Mr. Moore still "owned" the information contained in his discarded body parts since the property is the "intellectual" content recorded in his genes, not the actual physical media. Think music CD. So how can the person collecting the physical samples assert an ownership right to the genes?
It is unfortunate that no matter how convoluted or absurd the concept of "intellectual property" becomes, the court system seems to reluctant to quash these ridiculous claims. Patenting natural products, such as genes, should not be allowed.
Fully agree. What I neglected to add, is that the ever "stronger" laws concerning so-called "intellectual property" are "stealing" from the public domain and depriving people of due process.
Those who assert that so-called "intellectual property" exists are never satisfied. It's always more more more.
Not only that, but as their property claims become more onerous, once legal activities become criminal. To stamp out this atrocious "criminal" active; they demand even stronger onerous laws to protect so-called "intellectual property". Sigh.
On the post: The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA
Government Regulation - the Perpetual Bogyman
Blackburn goes on to say: "Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application." Again, it is private industry that is attempting to use regulations to quash competition.
Blackburn should be demanding that the private refrain from manipulating the politicians and to let the free-market work.
On the post: Ex-RIAA Boss Ignores All Criticisim Of SOPA/PIPA, Claims Any Complaints Are Trying To Justify Stealing
The Shifting Sands of Ownership
On the post: Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button
McCartyism Revived
Won't be long before we have a new "House Committee on Un-American Activities". I also suspect, based on Newt Gingrich's comments that we may soon have a Federal PreCrime police unit authorized to arrest people on the simple belief without evidence that they may commit a crime.
On the post: European Court Of Justice Says ISPs Cannot Be Forced To Be Copyright Cops
Rule of Law and Due Process
Furthermore, those who claim that the legal system owes them protection are undertaking a massive "land-grab" to assert ever greater control over so-called "intellectual property". Like a drug addict, they need an ever bigger fix. Time to put an end to the "land-grab". Those who buy products are also entitled to the rights of ownership.
On the post: The Scale Of Money
Re: Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
On the post: The Scale Of Money
Jack Daniels Explains The Deficit
Now for the mandatory disclosure. So-called claims for "deficit reduction" are a disingenuous play on words. There is NO actual deficit reduction, what is being proposed is to spend slightly less then originally proposed. The US will still have deficit spending along with increasing debt.
To phrase this a bit differently. Hypothetically, blame Bush proposes to buy a $20,000 clunker of a car. Obama gets elected and now proposes to by an extravagant luxury $100,000 car. The people get upset, so Obama downgrades his proposal to only buy a stripped down $50,000 sports car while lamenting over this sacrifice. He now claims to have "saved" (reduced the deficit by) $50,000. No mention of the fact that unfunded deficit spending increased by $30,000.
On the post: SOPA Gives Me Powers That I Don't Want
Automated Justice
A Washington Times editorial writes: "Traditional law-enforcement duties are best performed by men, not machines. This is the case in Maryland, where speed cameras continue to pronounce the innocent guilty, regardless of mounting evidence that the measuring devices are faulty. ... In a May 24 letter, Mr. Warrington explained his interest in addressing reliability problems was not ensuring justice but “how we can optimize the productivity of our camera.”" (emphasis added)"
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Downward Spiral Will Continue
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Re: Re: The Downward Spiral Will Continue
The concern with Oligarchy is that it is the rule of a few that serves whatever is of interest to the few. While, we do having increasing influence by a few (for government to serve corporate interests) that would meet the criteria of Oligarchy; it misses the organic concept that government exists to explicitly serve corporate interests.
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
Current Law is Not the Level Playing Field
I seriously doubt that Anonymous would have any respect for that law. How about a roll-back Anonymous?
On the post: How The Entertainment Industry Is Killing Copyright
The Downward Spiral Will Continue
Though this issue is surfacing in the Republican debates, it really seems to be a bi-partisan effort. So it would seem that no matter who wins the 2012 election, the pendulum will continue to swing towards ever more onerous laws depriving citizens of civil rights. Our future government will be based on Corporatism, a government of, by, and for the corporations.
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
Re: The Definition of Stealing is Becoming More "Liberal"
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
The Definition of Stealing is Becoming More "Liberal"
Not only that, but scarcity is used, in some situation, as a basis for asserting a property right. Well, if there is infinite scarcity, then the property right should diminish.
On the post: Old Fashioned 'Pirates' Steal 6,000 Copies Of The New Call Of Duty Game
But why be honest? Target BAD,
The TOS and EULA deprive you of any rights and to my knowledge none of the software offers a return policy. So if you reject the terms of service, the product does not work on your computer, or you are otherwise displeased it you just spent big $$$ for useless cheap plastic.
Honesty needs to work both ways, not just to the benefit of the seller. Good old "Buyer Beware". With that, why should the consumer be "honest".
On the post: Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense
First Responder Spectrum Allocation
Well, someone put together a film clip of various first responders saying that if they did not receive this spectrum allocation that they couldn't do their job and that children and old woman would die. Pure FUD.
Without going into a lot of detail, interoperability is a management problem, not a spectrum problem. What I suspect, no proof, was that this was being proposed by the communications industry to "force" public safety department to buy PROPRIETARY radio equipment.
On the post: ACLU Sues Los Angeles Police For Harassing Photographers For Taking Photos With No Apparent Aesthetic Value
But Then Why is "Legal" for the Police to Record You.
Second, it seems that the police record our every move. So if the police can record the public, the public should be able to record them.
If only one side can record events then how do we know what is true or not? Furthermore, what about the concept of transparent government? Government actions are supposed to be "exposed" for public scrutiny. I guess, we are just getting "trained" to accept the coming police state.
On the post: Deadly Monopolies: New Book Explores How Patenting Genes Has Made Us Less Healthy
Re: Re:
On the post: Deadly Monopolies: New Book Explores How Patenting Genes Has Made Us Less Healthy
But What Gives Them a "Right" to Claim a Poperty Right
If the assertion that so-called "intellectual property" actually exists then Mr. Moore still "owned" the information contained in his discarded body parts since the property is the "intellectual" content recorded in his genes, not the actual physical media. Think music CD. So how can the person collecting the physical samples assert an ownership right to the genes?
It is unfortunate that no matter how convoluted or absurd the concept of "intellectual property" becomes, the court system seems to reluctant to quash these ridiculous claims. Patenting natural products, such as genes, should not be allowed.
On the post: Jamaica The Latest To Embrace Retroactive Copyright Term Extension And Screw The Public Domain
Re: Re: It's Never Enough
On the post: Jamaica The Latest To Embrace Retroactive Copyright Term Extension And Screw The Public Domain
It's Never Enough
Not only that, but as their property claims become more onerous, once legal activities become criminal. To stamp out this atrocious "criminal" active; they demand even stronger onerous laws to protect so-called "intellectual property". Sigh.
Next >>