That's the wrong message to take from my words here.
We need a grassroots movement to change our government. We have a number of issues that need to be tackled:
Proportional representation
Electoral college reform
Incentives for business
Incentives for people to work
Women's rights
Educational reform
That reform is something that can be done, at least partially, with one party in charge. It was done in 1932.
Right now, the fact is that both parties are pretty bad, playing a game of austerity that is going to hurt the country.
I predict that when Social Security is finally cut, you will have a massive uprising similar to Hoovervilles under FDR.
Now let's recognize that corporate are sitting on trillions of dollars while the deficit IS trillions. The main difference from FDR's more liberal views was the fact that since the 1940s, we've destroyed our left movement that pushed FDRto some stresses that saved capitalism.
Obama is merely responding to where his money comes from and that is the richest among us. As it stands, both parties are indeed bad. But atty least onepparty will take a left-center position because it is made up of more progressive minded people.
I really don't. I just hate how people get this notion that one party is somehow above reproach. Both are bad but the worst Congress is the one that just left office.
Personally, I would like a better proportional government. But that requires a national movement.
Fast and Furious did NOTHING to take away guns in Mexico and was political theater to make Holder look bad.
Gun Runner was Bush's idea first.
Megaupload was all Hollywood which controls both parties.
Benghazi was all conservatives who took away diplomatic funding for more guns in the military.
Obamacare is supposed to help all Americans get healthcare. You must hate people getting preventative care when the US is 37th in healthcare among developed nations. I guess humanity is not one thing taught in our schools anymore.
Since 1976, the government has been controlled by special interests. In regards to copyright, it's evident that they've used copyright to destroy their competition. The first segment was other businesses until it was consolidated in the 80s. Next came control of artists, directors, and what I'll deem "The creative class". By creating "work for hire" laws that favored businesses over people, the creative class was forced to work for Pennies on the dollar. And how could you get a message out that didn't support the status quo? Amateur radio is hampered by FTC regulations that favor the big boys. The same with broadband internet with the monopoly of AT&T and Verizon.
So in essence, the government has revolved around monopolies for the past four decades. But why?
Well, I keep harping about what the must powerful word in the English language is: incentive.
The MPAA has a strong incentive to use the government to maintain its monopoly and greatly bend the rules. Pirate sites make little money from maintaining archives of videos, but the less competition for the studios means more profits for them in their monopolized industries. If there were no internet, Universal would have control of its products and where it can make money through the same tactics of windowing, regionalization, and strong enforcement of the law that it bought and paid for with Hollywood subsidies.
This incentive has crippled our justice system the same way it has crippled our public domain. I don't think the result is just more regulation here. The entire system is rotten. Why do we need a system that allows for inequality of content sharing to be the norm?
At least to me, we've given corporate interests a strong incentive to make the public mere vessels for "stuff" rather than helpful creators of more content.
That is a damn travesty of what our Founding Fathers believed in allowing copyright monopolies for a limited time.
This isn't the first time that the FBI is on the wrong side of history. During the 60s, Hoover investigated MLK and his "communist" leaning. He ignored the racists that plotted against the civil rights leader and it wound up killing MLK.
When people that are dangerous are ignored, it seems the FBI can't be bothered to investigate the people that need it. Instead, their entire focus is on those looking to change the social order.
They'll never learn from their own short-sighted view of the world. As they've stated, "They want to throw people in jail"
That's far different from actually trying to do a good job of protecting the public.
It never fails. Government officials want to hide their own wrong doings so they suppress the people. The first ones targeted are the ones reporting about wrong doing. Once the journalists are gone, then you work to suppress the public.
The very clear message we get is that democracy is destroyed when the public is not informed of the actions of government.
And for what? Are the benefits of suppressing discussion really worth leaving a nation ignorant of their culture and different ideas and arguments that the people want?
Is democracy so evil that we need a government to suppress it?
So disappointed that the public can't have nice things...
No, it's the fault of Reagan and 30 years of reaganomics.
But let's think about why Bush is to blame and so many Pepe voted against hours policies in the 2006 elections.
First, you had the Republicans revving us full speed to fascism by taking is to war twice as well as his attempt to privatize Social Security. Finally, liberals could fight against neo-conservatism and get more representation. That's why they took over. But most were still pretty center-right in their thinking and it screwed them over in 2010.
My entire point though, is that the country is deeply left and both parties were battling to represent the rich. Democrats, however, softened the blow while keeping the same policies in place. In essence, it's a shell game of two parties fighting to represent the rich and leaving the nation to rot in that battle.
The saddest thing about it is that this battle happened when Rome fell as an empire. History just loves repeating itself...
It would be overridden. Cloture requires 60 votes to override a hold. Look at how many Senators betrayed the public regardless of their political party.
"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Ben Franklin was asked this question at the end of the constitutional Convention. His answer was telling:
"A republic if you can keep it"
So at the end of this debacle in the interest of the public commonwealth we should ask ourselves...
What do we have in front of us? We have had our rights infringed upon worse than England did at the behest of the East India Company at the beginning of the American Revolution. Or laws no longer protect the people, but the very rich from prosecution. We can't reference the Magna Carta because it no longer applies to American law.
We heap piles of debt on our children, say it's a good debt, but then keep them in bad jobs as indentured servants, enslaved to their debts that cannot go away.
We don't invite the best and brightest into the country, we merely discriminate against them as job competitors. And our government merely responds to the rich, silencing the voices of millions through rigged elections to their own specialized interests.
So which is it?
Have we fought for our democracy or have we fought for a monarchy?
Those are on loan. So long as an artist makes money for the industry, they can have nice things. I'm sure you haven't seen the platinum credit card given to the top performing artists. That is debt, not money given to a musician.
That they should now be complaining that they can't make as much money there -- at the same time they've often failed to make their own movies available digitally in a reasonable manner -- reeks of just bad business, rather than any sort of existential threat.
From the very start, this has been about control of markets through monopoly. Ever since Hollywood ran away from Thomas Edison, they have worked to control markets through law, collusion, or threats.
We've heard that they can't treat actors fairly or pay them proportionately based on their performances.
The musicians and composers have lost on copyright based on how record labels control their work and take away their venues.
Writers have been screwed by the Author's Guild who fights for more copyright over their interests.
Finally, the public had green screwed since 1976, when copyright was strengthened to diminish the public domain and bar people from telling stories with new music, movies, and games based on old material. For every remix that people wanted, there is a maximalist trying to underscore what copyright's true purpose is: control.
You can't control a million people. But controlling their access to new technology and maintaining that control had been the aim and it's failing.
I don't know if that fragile monopoly will maintain for any longer. It seems more likely that the more people look into copyright issues, the less inclined people are to support copyright monopolies.
Thanks to Reagan, corporations became people. He corrupted the US democracy by allowing crazy bankruptcy laws, decreasing tax revenue, destroying free markets in music and media, and essentially corrupting our capitalist system by turning it into a plutocracy.
Kind of sad, but the American people witnessed a heist in the 1980s that would not have happened except for the policies of Reagan (with an assist from Nixon in regards to the drug war)
Those are few and far between. Any audio recordings that predate the '76 Act were given state rights.
Quite literally, it's harming the industry as the Library of Congress works to update their files on those copyrights and tries to enforce both state and federal copyright.
One example would be jazz music suffering under copyright. You might be able to use a melody, but older musicians long gone are bound by state laws that are very much outdated.
Did you not read the part where Stephen Kinsella debunked that claim?
" But creation of the loaf is not the reason why the baker owns it. He owns the loaf because he owned the dough that he baked. He already owned the dough, before any act of "creation"--before he transformed it with his labor. If he owned the dough, then he owns whatever he transforms his property into; the act of creation is an act of transformation that does not generate any new property rights. So creation is not necessary for him to own the resulting baked bread. Likewise, if he used someone else's dough--say, his employer's--then he does not own the loaf, but the owner of the dough does. So creation is not sufficient for ownership."
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We need a grassroots movement to change our government. We have a number of issues that need to be tackled:
Proportional representation
Electoral college reform
Incentives for business
Incentives for people to work
Women's rights
Educational reform
That reform is something that can be done, at least partially, with one party in charge. It was done in 1932.
Right now, the fact is that both parties are pretty bad, playing a game of austerity that is going to hurt the country.
I predict that when Social Security is finally cut, you will have a massive uprising similar to Hoovervilles under FDR.
Now let's recognize that corporate are sitting on trillions of dollars while the deficit IS trillions. The main difference from FDR's more liberal views was the fact that since the 1940s, we've destroyed our left movement that pushed FDRto some stresses that saved capitalism.
Obama is merely responding to where his money comes from and that is the richest among us. As it stands, both parties are indeed bad. But atty least onepparty will take a left-center position because it is made up of more progressive minded people.
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I would like a better proportional government. But that requires a national movement.
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
Re:
Gun Runner was Bush's idea first.
Megaupload was all Hollywood which controls both parties.
Benghazi was all conservatives who took away diplomatic funding for more guns in the military.
Obamacare is supposed to help all Americans get healthcare. You must hate people getting preventative care when the US is 37th in healthcare among developed nations. I guess humanity is not one thing taught in our schools anymore.
On the post: Megaupload Tells Court That DOJ Deliberately Misled Court In Getting Warrant
Re:
So I'll add to my reasoning here.
Since 1976, the government has been controlled by special interests. In regards to copyright, it's evident that they've used copyright to destroy their competition. The first segment was other businesses until it was consolidated in the 80s. Next came control of artists, directors, and what I'll deem "The creative class". By creating "work for hire" laws that favored businesses over people, the creative class was forced to work for Pennies on the dollar. And how could you get a message out that didn't support the status quo? Amateur radio is hampered by FTC regulations that favor the big boys. The same with broadband internet with the monopoly of AT&T and Verizon.
So in essence, the government has revolved around monopolies for the past four decades. But why?
Well, I keep harping about what the must powerful word in the English language is: incentive.
The MPAA has a strong incentive to use the government to maintain its monopoly and greatly bend the rules. Pirate sites make little money from maintaining archives of videos, but the less competition for the studios means more profits for them in their monopolized industries. If there were no internet, Universal would have control of its products and where it can make money through the same tactics of windowing, regionalization, and strong enforcement of the law that it bought and paid for with Hollywood subsidies.
This incentive has crippled our justice system the same way it has crippled our public domain. I don't think the result is just more regulation here. The entire system is rotten. Why do we need a system that allows for inequality of content sharing to be the norm?
At least to me, we've given corporate interests a strong incentive to make the public mere vessels for "stuff" rather than helpful creators of more content.
That is a damn travesty of what our Founding Fathers believed in allowing copyright monopolies for a limited time.
On the post: How The Supreme Court Helped Stomp Out The Public Domain
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI, Working With Banks, Chose Not To Inform Occupy Leadership Of Assassination Plot On Its Leaders
When people that are dangerous are ignored, it seems the FBI can't be bothered to investigate the people that need it. Instead, their entire focus is on those looking to change the social order.
They'll never learn from their own short-sighted view of the world. As they've stated, "They want to throw people in jail"
That's far different from actually trying to do a good job of protecting the public.
On the post: Philippine Government Ignores Public Concerns, Continues To Push Extreme 'Cybercrime' Law
Why is journalism the first target?
The very clear message we get is that democracy is destroyed when the public is not informed of the actions of government.
And for what? Are the benefits of suppressing discussion really worth leaving a nation ignorant of their culture and different ideas and arguments that the people want?
Is democracy so evil that we need a government to suppress it?
So disappointed that the public can't have nice things...
On the post: ...And FISA Is Renewed, With All Its Problems Still Intact
Re: This is Bush's fault
But let's think about why Bush is to blame and so many Pepe voted against hours policies in the 2006 elections.
First, you had the Republicans revving us full speed to fascism by taking is to war twice as well as his attempt to privatize Social Security. Finally, liberals could fight against neo-conservatism and get more representation. That's why they took over. But most were still pretty center-right in their thinking and it screwed them over in 2010.
My entire point though, is that the country is deeply left and both parties were battling to represent the rich. Democrats, however, softened the blow while keeping the same policies in place. In essence, it's a shell game of two parties fighting to represent the rich and leaving the nation to rot in that battle.
The saddest thing about it is that this battle happened when Rome fell as an empire. History just loves repeating itself...
On the post: ...And FISA Is Renewed, With All Its Problems Still Intact
Re:
On the post: Senate Rejects Final FISA Amendment, Lets Spying Program Stay Shrouded In Secrecy
Which is it?
Ben Franklin was asked this question at the end of the constitutional Convention. His answer was telling:
"A republic if you can keep it"
So at the end of this debacle in the interest of the public commonwealth we should ask ourselves...
What do we have in front of us? We have had our rights infringed upon worse than England did at the behest of the East India Company at the beginning of the American Revolution. Or laws no longer protect the people, but the very rich from prosecution. We can't reference the Magna Carta because it no longer applies to American law.
We heap piles of debt on our children, say it's a good debt, but then keep them in bad jobs as indentured servants, enslaved to their debts that cannot go away.
We don't invite the best and brightest into the country, we merely discriminate against them as job competitors. And our government merely responds to the rich, silencing the voices of millions through rigged elections to their own specialized interests.
So which is it?
Have we fought for our democracy or have we fought for a monarchy?
On the post: And, Once Again, Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money At The Box Office
Re: Re:
On the post: And, Once Again, Hollywood Is Making Tons Of Money At The Box Office
Nor exactly...
From the very start, this has been about control of markets through monopoly. Ever since Hollywood ran away from Thomas Edison, they have worked to control markets through law, collusion, or threats.
We've heard that they can't treat actors fairly or pay them proportionately based on their performances.
The musicians and composers have lost on copyright based on how record labels control their work and take away their venues.
Writers have been screwed by the Author's Guild who fights for more copyright over their interests.
Finally, the public had green screwed since 1976, when copyright was strengthened to diminish the public domain and bar people from telling stories with new music, movies, and games based on old material. For every remix that people wanted, there is a maximalist trying to underscore what copyright's true purpose is: control.
You can't control a million people. But controlling their access to new technology and maintaining that control had been the aim and it's failing.
I don't know if that fragile monopoly will maintain for any longer. It seems more likely that the more people look into copyright issues, the less inclined people are to support copyright monopolies.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
And now, there are more artists not under the thumb of the record labels.
What's your point?
On the post: Senator Wyden Proposes Bill That Would Protect Users From Bogus Data Caps
Re: Re: Re: Not well thought out
Kind of sad, but the American people witnessed a heist in the 1980s that would not have happened except for the policies of Reagan (with an assist from Nixon in regards to the drug war)
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re: Re: Re:
Quite literally, it's harming the industry as the Library of Congress works to update their files on those copyrights and tries to enforce both state and federal copyright.
One example would be jazz music suffering under copyright. You might be able to use a melody, but older musicians long gone are bound by state laws that are very much outdated.
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re: Re: Who cares about natural rights? The statute is good enough
15 times in 30 years.
Copyright is anything but stable by the industry trying to expand it every two years.
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re:
The 2008 Pro-Ip act helped eliminate sovereign immunity for almost all states.
So now, federal law trumps state law in this regard.
On the post: RIAA Lawyers Trying To Rewrite History Of Copyright Clause Through Shoddy Scholarship And Selective Quotation
Re:
" But creation of the loaf is not the reason why the baker owns it. He owns the loaf because he owned the dough that he baked. He already owned the dough, before any act of "creation"--before he transformed it with his labor. If he owned the dough, then he owns whatever he transforms his property into; the act of creation is an act of transformation that does not generate any new property rights. So creation is not necessary for him to own the resulting baked bread. Likewise, if he used someone else's dough--say, his employer's--then he does not own the loaf, but the owner of the dough does. So creation is not sufficient for ownership."
Next >>