It's not like mincome projects are anything new. Canada had a mincome project in the late 70s which has gotten more popular recently. Manitoba did this and was successful.
Paying for this isn't hard either. You just have to tax income and ensure a maximum income of over $250,000 is taxed at 100%. That means any amount over that is given to the government to redistribute for social services. I doubt highly that people would actually be against such a system so long as it helped everyone.
" At least one of the people who received the email noted that people should "seek legal advice" before handing over such information, but it's unclear if anyone actually did that."
Wasn't the legal council of this spying also the person to retire recently because of it?
It seems that my analysis on what copyright is all too consistent with reality. We have corporate rights invading on the people and the public. Whatever shareholders and corporations want, they are pushing into being through corporate sovereignty.
As such, it seems that people need to focus on corporate rights and turn them into public rights.
The public's right to copy and share has been harmed through these corporate rights. Copyright is no longer a human concept. It is a corporate concept put into being to promote the interests of corporate control.
How do we promote access to knowledge and innovation? We can no longer believe in the reduction of copyright. As has been shown, that concept will be extended for those with the most money. The only available decision is the abolishment of this form of corporate property. There is no dichotomy of expressions of an idea. The ideas have been stifled by corporate rights. As such, copyright can no longer be considered compatible with the First Amendment. It is used to censor and control public discourse through laws that harm free speech.
Reform was tried and at every turn, from Aaron's law in the legislative, the constant enhancements of time in the Supreme Court, to the president's support of the TPP in the executive, the public has been rebuffed and neglected.
The fight, at its core, is against these corporate rights.
The lesson of capitalism is that regulations can be undone. You can't reform asystem where people are inherently unequal.
We have to rethink the workplace. Giving people no choices in what they produce, when they produce it, is the problem. If we don't allow democracy in the workplace, how can we fight for democracy in other areas? That's why we've gone backwards to the 1930s where corporations rule the soiree and the people have their rights infringed.
He got the model wrong. What we're looking at would be the Hamiltonian model where the plutocrats run all forms of the government and does everything in secrecy and deceit without regard to the protections the Constitution is supposed to uphold.
Madison wanted more democracy while Hamilton helped usurp it through his many maneuverings through the law to aglow the minority rules to usurp the majority.
Maybe Hayden should go back and read the Federal Papers and see what the Framers actually said.
I seriously think people need to recognize what happens if you "protect" an industry. This is clear proof that the protection doesn't help at all.
I believe the bovine and textiles industry were a part of NAFTA. If anyone paid attention to the trade agreements there, they basically shipped jobs overseas along with those of the manufacturing industry in order for the "protected" industries to become prosperous by making workers miserable.
So it seems that these trade agreements protect corporations over the needs of the public. If the TPP were to be signed tomorrow, it would harm America far more than it help and you can tell that by comparing the numbers of those industries affected by NAFTA.
So how can Google ignore the giant elephant that the TPP is a direct attack onthen where Microsoft controls the market digitally while they have to expend massive resources to fought this and the government on the NSA front?
Did they just not think that maybe the TPP wasn't a threat to them? While I could think of other companies, the Google v Microsoft debate heating up on the copyright/patent front should have been a reason they focus more on the public rights issue which helps them out considerably.
Why does the NSA exist? They aren't in the Constitution and they aren't scared of reforms it seems. So I'm of the opinion that they need the death penalty. Seriously, you refuse to uphold the parchment that protects the rights of all Americans?
You're wrong, and you're contributing to the problem. It's apathy from people like you that make the government think they can get away with this. Please reconsider.
Signing a petition is not going to change the world. It's a great start, but it's really time to begin to work on other options. Things that actually mean a change in things to come. A petition won't do that.
How can people form up into groups and fight these changes in their communities?
How can people form up?
Yes, we defeated SOPA but as of now, SOPA was implanted in the TPP, we lost Aaron Schwartz to an overzealous governmental system, and the battles that we do have come down to political bickering.
We need new strategies and groups because the old ways aren't working.
We need new ways to form up and have business interests that coincide with the public. We need to find out how to force the government to back away from this position and to actually do a lot more than reform.
These are egregious acts that have been caused. The government has criminalized whistleblowing, forced their hands to spy on everyone, and the 4th Amendment has been savaged by our Constitutional monarchy who decides the law over the Congress that we can't even elect through gerrymandering.
If people were willing to form up and fight these issues as important through a number of means, such as forming their own businesses and groups to go to Washington, we may have more leeway. And that's what it's going to take.
The petition is a great start, but there needs to be far more action for such an important Amendment.
Wow.. I'm amazed that a few graphs are so friggin hard to understand.
No one has ever talked about visualization nor shown a way to understand democracy and inform the public at all.
I'm amazed at my own ignorance at not being able to see such things with my own eyes and make my own decisions about how the US is treating the public.
I tend to play with language a lot so I've been coming up with new digital and analog analogies anyway. It's just how I see the copyright issue which seems the best way to talk about it moving forward.
In questions of statutory interpretation, isn't the court just figuring out whatever it was that Congress actually wrote?
Judicial review is the Court deciding what Congress says. But there's a problem. You have them basically turning over laws even though the public has high support for them such as the Civil Rights Act or copyright law to make it more supportive to corporations.
This power is NOT in the Constitution no matter how you look at it. This is a legislative power that Congress has power over.
What you're suggesting is that the government decides how to rule over the public without the public having a say so in those laws. That isn't quite how a democracy should work.
Wow... We really set up a great Constitutional Monarchy where 9 wise elders can decide on how to figure out patent law and copyright over the needs of the public...
I believe the best way to coin the term is to call copyright exactly what it is: Corporate Rights.
The public has rights to access information until they come under corporate right law.
For the past 50 years, that has been what corpoate rights have been all about. Extending copyright to the benefit of corporations. Fair use has been decimated with knowledge, innovation, and sharing the things most harmed.
What this has been is a way for the legacy studios and industries to control the past. They no longer have to compete with new competitors or new fields and shut down independent artists and writers who work outside of their systems of governance. That's been the way to control the markets. Why can't artists make money on Spotify? The market is controlled.
Why can't people go to the big six publishers for a fair shake or deal? They're too busy trying to collude with Apple to control the markets.
And why can the MPAA spy on people through TWC, force startup companies to shut down for innovative use of technology and basically resist any form of adaptation?
Again. Control.
And that control spreads to the TPP, India, Brazil, China, Australia, Belgium and other places where the individual rights of the public are trampled to give more and more rights to the corporations that have stagnated.
In WWI, we had that very same type of corporate governance that became unbearable on a country. It was called the Treaty of Versailles. Now we call it the corporate sovereingty of the TransPacific Partnership.
It was never about the control of the artists. It's always been about the control of how much money the artists make. The more that goes to the legacy industries, the more stagnant we become.
The question isn't "Why is any country supporting this?"
The question is "Why haven't we stopped this corporate abuse of power?"
On the post: How To Solve The Piracy Problem: Give Everyone A Basic Income For Doing Nothing
Canada did it too
Paying for this isn't hard either. You just have to tax income and ensure a maximum income of over $250,000 is taxed at 100%. That means any amount over that is given to the government to redistribute for social services. I doubt highly that people would actually be against such a system so long as it helped everyone.
On the post: FBI Agent Tries To Register Copyright On Top Secret Interrogation Manual... Making It Available To Anyone
On the post: NZ Customs Refuses To Answer Questions After Revelations Of Illegal Orders To Give FBI Info On Kim Dotcom For 'Brownie Points'
Wasn't the legal council of this spying also the person to retire recently because of it?
On the post: Santa Claus Is Coming To Town... And EMI Is Keeping The Copyright
I wish I wasn't right
It seems that my analysis on what copyright is all too consistent with reality. We have corporate rights invading on the people and the public. Whatever shareholders and corporations want, they are pushing into being through corporate sovereignty.
As such, it seems that people need to focus on corporate rights and turn them into public rights.
The public's right to copy and share has been harmed through these corporate rights. Copyright is no longer a human concept. It is a corporate concept put into being to promote the interests of corporate control.
How do we promote access to knowledge and innovation? We can no longer believe in the reduction of copyright. As has been shown, that concept will be extended for those with the most money. The only available decision is the abolishment of this form of corporate property. There is no dichotomy of expressions of an idea. The ideas have been stifled by corporate rights. As such, copyright can no longer be considered compatible with the First Amendment. It is used to censor and control public discourse through laws that harm free speech.
Reform was tried and at every turn, from Aaron's law in the legislative, the constant enhancements of time in the Supreme Court, to the president's support of the TPP in the executive, the public has been rebuffed and neglected.
The fight, at its core, is against these corporate rights.
Abolish copyright.
On the post: DailyDirt: Dysfunctional Capitalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Capitalism, Schmapitalism
We have to rethink the workplace. Giving people no choices in what they produce, when they produce it, is the problem. If we don't allow democracy in the workplace, how can we fight for democracy in other areas? That's why we've gone backwards to the 1930s where corporations rule the soiree and the people have their rights infringed.
On the post: DailyDirt: Dysfunctional Capitalism
Re: Re: Capitalism, Schmapitalism
It might be time to rethink it.
On the post: Hayden Says They Did Surveillance In A 'Madisonian' Way
BS!
Madison wanted more democracy while Hamilton helped usurp it through his many maneuverings through the law to aglow the minority rules to usurp the majority.
Maybe Hayden should go back and read the Federal Papers and see what the Framers actually said.
On the post: Digital Exports Dwarf Other Industries, So Why Is The USTR Ignoring Them?
Protection?
I believe the bovine and textiles industry were a part of NAFTA. If anyone paid attention to the trade agreements there, they basically shipped jobs overseas along with those of the manufacturing industry in order for the "protected" industries to become prosperous by making workers miserable.
So it seems that these trade agreements protect corporations over the needs of the public. If the TPP were to be signed tomorrow, it would harm America far more than it help and you can tell that by comparing the numbers of those industries affected by NAFTA.
On the post: Digital Exports Dwarf Other Industries, So Why Is The USTR Ignoring Them?
Google should be pissed...
Did they just not think that maybe the TPP wasn't a threat to them? While I could think of other companies, the Google v Microsoft debate heating up on the copyright/patent front should have been a reason they focus more on the public rights issue which helps them out considerably.
On the post: Tone Deaf NSA Officials Tell Reporter It's Time To Reform The First Amendment
Re: WTF?!
Why does the NSA exist? They aren't in the Constitution and they aren't scared of reforms it seems. So I'm of the opinion that they need the death penalty. Seriously, you refuse to uphold the parchment that protects the rights of all Americans?
You need to go...
On the post: Tone Deaf NSA Officials Tell Reporter It's Time To Reform The First Amendment
WTF?!
On the post: You Don't Own What You 'Bought': Disney And Amazon Play The Role Of The Grinch In Taking Back Purchased Film
In other words...
On the post: If You're An American Who Believes In The 4th Amendment, You Have No Excuse Not To Sign This Petition
Re: Re:
Signing a petition is not going to change the world. It's a great start, but it's really time to begin to work on other options. Things that actually mean a change in things to come. A petition won't do that.
How can people form up into groups and fight these changes in their communities?
How can people form up?
Yes, we defeated SOPA but as of now, SOPA was implanted in the TPP, we lost Aaron Schwartz to an overzealous governmental system, and the battles that we do have come down to political bickering.
We need new strategies and groups because the old ways aren't working.
We need new ways to form up and have business interests that coincide with the public. We need to find out how to force the government to back away from this position and to actually do a lot more than reform.
These are egregious acts that have been caused. The government has criminalized whistleblowing, forced their hands to spy on everyone, and the 4th Amendment has been savaged by our Constitutional monarchy who decides the law over the Congress that we can't even elect through gerrymandering.
If people were willing to form up and fight these issues as important through a number of means, such as forming their own businesses and groups to go to Washington, we may have more leeway. And that's what it's going to take.
The petition is a great start, but there needs to be far more action for such an important Amendment.
On the post: A Look At Just How Much The US Is Isolated In Its TPP Demands
/Sarcasm
No one has ever talked about visualization nor shown a way to understand democracy and inform the public at all.
I'm amazed at my own ignorance at not being able to see such things with my own eyes and make my own decisions about how the US is treating the public.
Curse you Gabriel! And your little dog too!
On the post: Make Art Not Law
Re:
People nerd to make copies to share knowledge and learning while publishers want to prevent copying for their bottom line.
We have to all ourselves a serious question... Which idea is more important?
Controlling quantities or sharing?
How much have we lost to sharing information?
How much have we lost when someone thinks about each skated copy as a sale?
Those are better questions imo.
On the post: Ridiculous: Why Is Any Country Supporting Locking In Life + 70 Copyright Term Protection?
Re: Re: Corporate rights
I tend to play with language a lot so I've been coming up with new digital and analog analogies anyway. It's just how I see the copyright issue which seems the best way to talk about it moving forward.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Key Case On Software Patents That Appeals Court Couldn't Figure Out
Re: Re: Is it just me...
In questions of statutory interpretation, isn't the court just figuring out whatever it was that Congress actually wrote?
Judicial review is the Court deciding what Congress says. But there's a problem. You have them basically turning over laws even though the public has high support for them such as the Civil Rights Act or copyright law to make it more supportive to corporations.
This power is NOT in the Constitution no matter how you look at it. This is a legislative power that Congress has power over.
What you're suggesting is that the government decides how to rule over the public without the public having a say so in those laws. That isn't quite how a democracy should work.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Key Case On Software Patents That Appeals Court Couldn't Figure Out
Is it just me...
On the post: Ridiculous: Why Is Any Country Supporting Locking In Life + 70 Copyright Term Protection?
Corporate rights
The public has rights to access information until they come under corporate right law.
For the past 50 years, that has been what corpoate rights have been all about. Extending copyright to the benefit of corporations. Fair use has been decimated with knowledge, innovation, and sharing the things most harmed.
What this has been is a way for the legacy studios and industries to control the past. They no longer have to compete with new competitors or new fields and shut down independent artists and writers who work outside of their systems of governance. That's been the way to control the markets. Why can't artists make money on Spotify? The market is controlled.
Why can't people go to the big six publishers for a fair shake or deal? They're too busy trying to collude with Apple to control the markets.
And why can the MPAA spy on people through TWC, force startup companies to shut down for innovative use of technology and basically resist any form of adaptation?
Again. Control.
And that control spreads to the TPP, India, Brazil, China, Australia, Belgium and other places where the individual rights of the public are trampled to give more and more rights to the corporations that have stagnated.
In WWI, we had that very same type of corporate governance that became unbearable on a country. It was called the Treaty of Versailles. Now we call it the corporate sovereingty of the TransPacific Partnership.
It was never about the control of the artists. It's always been about the control of how much money the artists make. The more that goes to the legacy industries, the more stagnant we become.
The question isn't "Why is any country supporting this?"
The question is "Why haven't we stopped this corporate abuse of power?"
On the post: Obama's Response To Too Much Secrecy About Surveillance... Is More Secrecy
Re: Obummer
Or do you think FDR was a bad president?
Next >>