Homeland Security Running NBC-Owned PSAs 240
An anonymous reader writes "A few months ago, Homeland Security's ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) group started placing an anti-piracy video PSA on various domains that it had seized. What it didn't say was who created the PSA. A Freedom of Information Act request by Techdirt has revealed that the videos are actually created & owned by NBC Universal, but nowhere does Homeland Security publicly admit this. As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs? So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"
Oh come on, what's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)
It's called a Congressional hearing, they hold 'em every day!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent observation.
Now, let's all go back to Mussolini's textbook definition of Fascism, shall we?
âoeFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ
There is much in this, that explain the metaphoric "wars" on drugs and "piracy", as well as the never-ending Imperial adventures the Satanic States of AmeriKKKa:
"War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent observation.
Now, let's all go back to Mussolini's textbook definition of Fascism, shall we?
âoeFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ
There is much in this, that explain the metaphoric "wars" on drugs and "piracy", as well as the never-ending Imperial adventures the Satanic States of AmeriKKKa:
"War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. Fascism carries this anti-pacifist struggle into the lives of individuals. It is education for combat... war is to man what maternity is to the woman. I do not believe in perpetual peace; not only do I not believe in it but I find it depressing and a negation of all the fundamental virtues of a man."
Let's see:
"Bailouts and more bailouts" for Wall Street, with high-flying bankers flying in and out of the revolving door of working for the government and big banks.
"Bailouts and more bailouts" for automakers
GE paying zero taxes
Started a war in Libya
Started ANOTHER war in Yemen!!!! [nytimes.com]
Troops still in Iraq
No end in sight in Afghanistan
Gitmo still open, no plans to close
Unconsitutional wiretaps continue
Seriously - Obama sure as hell meets the definition of FASCIST, doesn't he?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Seriously - Obama sure as hell meets the definition of FASCIST, doesn't he?"
He's a fine Republican President and I resent that insult!
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be horrible, regressive legislation that provides additional benefit to the rich while shitting on the middle class and poor, but he'd actually be able to pass it.
Re:Oh come on, what's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just Obama. It started under Bush. That got Congress properly scared so the Executive branch could work autonomously outside of the checks and balances of our government. Obama's just taking Bush's ball and running with it.
THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN DEBATE. This is the "upper-class" declaring war on the "lower-class", and using partisan politics to divide us so we don't notice. Stop playing their game.
Re: (Score:2)
Proofreading fail. By "That" I meant the events of 9/11 that happened under Bush's watch.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're blaming Obama for the bailouts? Really? You might as well blame him for Watergate and the Great Depression.
and at that point, the Republicans start drooling, asking themselves, "Can we?"
Re: (Score:2)
Now, you can certainly say on his behalf is that he wasn't the ONLY one to blame.
Re:Oh come on, what's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, Dick Cheney even let the companies literally write the government policy [wikipedia.org] that regulated them. Pretty sweet deal if you've got the fat cash for some big campaign contributions.
You too can own your very own elected representative. For just hundreds of dollars a day, you can help these poor Congressmen and their reelection campaigns. Won't you please help?
Re: (Score:2)
For just hundreds of dollars a day, you can help these poor Congressmen and their reelection campaigns. Won't you please help?
It's bad enough that they're whores, but why do politicians have to be such cheap whores?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the treasury department is practically run by Goldman Sachs.
Re: (Score:2)
Public Service Announcement?
Re: (Score:2)
From the name Homeland Security, it just doesn't sound like it is something they would be charged with as a responsibility....?
Are we in danger of copyright terrorists blowing up planes over here or something? Is the Pirate Party threatening to invade us?
Why don't they worry about something that sounds like it should be right up their alley.....like securing our extremely porous borders?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that will never happen, because the
Re: (Score:2)
Because the FBI is under the DHS and the FBI has for more than a decade or two been involved in piracy cases. That would be why. Just so you know, the DHS doesn't involve just organizations dealing with terrorism or the border.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get hung up on the department it belongs to.
Homeland Security is a grouping of organizations from other departments which were found to have Homeland Security responsibilities. Some of those groups also had non-security tasks in their portfolio. Just like the fact that the Secret Service protects the President, but they also look into all counterfeiting operations because the Secret Service is part of the Treasury Department, making them Treasury Agents as well.
In this case, ICE (Immigration and Cus
Must See TV! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pick up that can.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll wait for the torrent.
The press doesn't care (Score:2, Insightful)
The press wouldn't care, because they do it too. They happily run videos produced by corporations and present them as news. It makes them a little money and helps them be lazy.
Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?
Actually the press does care (Score:2)
Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?
The more important question is why would any other network want to show a PSA that credits NBC? The lack of references to NBC probably has more to due with network rivalry than anything else. I have a faint recollection that the networks like to overlay *their* logo over the PSA, "this PSA brought to you by [insert network here] and ICE."
Re: (Score:3)
And this is why you should not allow Newspapers to own TV stations/networks to own production monopolies to own Congress and vice-versa.
But what do you expect from a Corporatocracy?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Homeland Security? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, as I'm sure we'll all admit, copyright infringement and terrorism are pretty much the same thing...kind of like jaywalking and murder.
Re:Homeland Security? (Score:5, Informative)
US Customs has been moved under Homeland Security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A government stretched the definition of something to fit their will, rather than bent their will to the definition?
I'm shocked.
Re:Homeland Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've said earlier.
Piracy means people get free access.
Free access means everyone can have it.
Everyone can have it means Communism.
Communism is unamerican.
Better Dead than Red!
-
Its also probably because nothing gets the public riled up more than hunting down 'terrorists'. They're our new pariah group.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?
Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.
Good point.
Of course, if DHS and ICE had produced these videos in house, Anonymous Coward would complain that this was more government waste, as there are folks whose job it is to produce video who could do the job much more efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they need a PSA video in the first place? Doesn't a page with legal information suffice?
Re: (Score:2)
Because under Bush, they absorbed the FBI from the Justice department. It was an absurd change, but that's why they're pursuing all sorts of non-terrorism related things.
Re:Homeland Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting terrorism was just the government's way of getting its foot in the door.
I wish more people were outraged by the fact that DHS and ICE are getting away with shutting down websites without any kind of trial or even the promise of a trial. The government's current approach to domain seizures is more the behavior of an unaccountable government than that of a proper democracy. Those who truly stand for Freedom instead of just paying lip service to it should be outraged by this kind of behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most of us have already passed outrage and fallen into the realm of despair. Sorry about that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So which department of the Executive Branch, you know the one that is suppose to enforce laws, should it fall to if not the Department of Homeland Security?
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Homeland Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So it seems the problem is easily fixed. Just start shooting, blowing up and poisoning DHS. Now that I think of it, that would likely fix a few other problems as well.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>So which department of the Executive Branch
None of them.
Copyright should be enforced by the Judicial Branch, whenever a lawsuit is brought against someone who copied without permission.
Perhaps I could accept enforcement of the Copy Monopoly by the same branch that regulates other monopolies/cartels: Department of Justice. Or the FTC. Still no need for DHS to be involved. DHS was created to prevent 9/11 events, not people scanning books w/o permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.
It's just NBC repaying its debt:
- Government give NBC-GE billions of dollars in bailout money.
- NBC gives free videos for government propa..... PSAs.
- Government says thank you and cracks-down on thieves of NBC products.
- NBC gives donations for the 2012 campaign.
Win.
Win.
"Bam. Winning!"
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again (Score:3)
What was 'Homeland Security' created for? What is its charter?
Re:Remind me again (Score:5, Informative)
public-private partnership (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK we call this the public-private partnership (PPP - no, not that PPP), private finance initiative, introducing competitiveness into service provision, blah, blah, blah. What it actually means is a hegemony of large corporations selected by government cronies which siphon money off the tax payer to provide a service you either didn't want in the first place or which was once provided much more effectively at cost.
When finding out that a government is paying money to a corporation for a service, there is only one necessary question: what compensation will be paid to the men in government who made the decision by the executives of the firm which just won the multi-million-currency contract?
I assume this is a rhetorical question. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if I only had mod points to give you
I don't understand why this is such a big deal? A company that is hurt by stealing offers to make a PSA to help promote not stealing, seems like a pretty reasonable thing to happen. I especially love this quote from techdirt
Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's
Yeah, that would only apply if the PSA was about not stealing hamburgers, in which case I can't see how anyone could complain about that.
What if the PSA stated, or even implied, that "fast food" *flashes McD's sign* isn't that bad for you *flashes images of skinny people at line at McD's* and you should eat it more often *flashes image of McD's drive through*, would you have an issue? Note, I have not seen the PSA, but if it included the ludicrously inflated "financial damage due to piracy" statistics the media companies like to drop, could you see why some people would think that this is an issue?
Re:I assume this is a rhetorical question. (Score:4, Insightful)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
WAIT!!! (Score:2)
What we really need to know is... do they have a proper license for the content? ;-)
Also, do they have to prove they have a proper license if someone files an improper DMCA takedown request in order to counterclaim it?
I logged in before posting, but when I went to preview the CAPTCHA was "hostage". Apropos. How very apropos.
Name Change (Score:3)
Who cares who made it ... (Score:2)
Alternative IF NBC wrote the script and the government found it to be accurate(*), then fine.
Note that I am not commenting on this video. I'm just challenging that idea that if someone else produced the video there is inherently a prob
Re:Who cares who made it ... (Score:4, Informative)
Alternative IF NBC wrote the script and the government found it to be accurate(*), then fine.
No, maybe not fine.
Fine is: Government wants to produce a message. Government writes the message. Government puts production services out for bid, NBC is best by fair assessment (not just on price but possibly quality services). Video is made.
NOT fine is: Message is essentially a corporate message from NBC following NBC interests, so they give/donate/underbid their services in such a way that their corporate message is being sent and endorsed using the government as a mouthpiece.
Not quite the same ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? 'Big evil corporations' often lobby for their industry, and they form organizations like the MPAA to collectively lobby and do other work on their behalf. Truth be told, a lot of the 'competitors' aren't particularly concerned with competition as much as profits.
No need to imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
US Agricultural policy is written by lobbyists for the likes of Monsanto and ADM. And are there any high-ranking officials in Treasury who don't have strong ties to Goldman or Bear Stearns?
The question isn't how the press would react, it's how the citizens react. And the answer is, they don't.
There have been many documentaries, exposes, and so forth about the incestuous relationships between industry and US regulators and law makers. The response has been a collective yawn.
Everyone (other than W.) in the White House or Congress who had any major role in getting the prescription drug plan passed went on to work for the drug industry. You don't need to imagine the reaction; just look around.
Oligarchy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no need to ask.
Laws in the US are written at the behest of large corporations, to serve large corporations, with the people who enact those laws being paid by those large corporations.
The fact that the Department of Homeland Security is performing raids to protect the intellectual property of corporations is pretty much proof of that. Why is an agency tasked with the physical security of a nation responsible for seizing domain names suspect of copyright infringement? Because pretty much all US law and policy is in service to the wishes of the owners of this intellectual property.
When Goldman Sachs writes your economic policy, you seriously need to ask these questions?
They do it all the time: (Score:2, Informative)
How's this different than the PSA's that the Ad Council regularly runs? They're often done by outside corporations. They're usually "nonprofit" corporations. That doesn't always mean they don't have an agenda. Often the agenda is their very reason for being.
Don't believe me? Well, the NRA is a nonprofit corp, for example. At least portions of Earth First are nonprofit corp. The American Conservative Union Foundation that puts on CPAC is a nonprofit corp.
I could go on, but I've given examples that should be
Re: (Score:2)
What this amount
Re: (Score:2)
The Ad Council works closely with government departments from HUD to Interior to DOE, to USDA to the same Homeland Security department the original post mentioned.
They are contracted the same way that NBC was to do this one. The only difference is they're a nonprofit.
I'm not trying to say this is a good or bad thing, I'm just pointing out that this is not an unusual situation.
The real question is not so much who the partner was, but is the information and presentation accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
"So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"
Um, no. Let the Government do what they damned well please.
Or start firing your representatives, and hiring new ones. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs. It's called an election, and they happen every 2 years. Fire your Representatives, and your Senators, and your President, until they get it right. Then they will have to look over the other branch (judiciary) and get them re-oriented as well. This will take decades, my friends. It's ok, BTW, for the Congress to instruct the Judiciary, by law and by appointment. We have influence on that, if we choose to exercise it. Even the SCOTUS answers occasionally to Congress, in the form of nomination confirmations, and in new law to address disagreements. Not instantanous, not perfect, but it can work.
You know how at work, if the boss isn't paying attention, then the staff gets into trouble screwing around and failing to even try for goals, much less achieving them? Same problem with government. We are lax in our management of our own government. This must stop.
Gotta steer the boat, or it will end up on the rocks. Rock beats sailboat.
Re:Um, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or start firing your representatives, and hiring new ones. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs. It's called an election, and they happen every 2 years.
Yeah, because that's worked just so well in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just give up and re-elect the current bunch of weasels. Your choice, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
So many seem to forget the essence of American Democracy "Of the people, by the people, for the people". If you don't like what your government is doing, don't sit back on your couch and complain, get out and vote or run for office yourself!
Sadly I've already commented elsewhere else you'd be getting my mod point.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you fire them when they all have the same agenda? So you choose one and then heshe goes on and does the same thing as the one you just fired.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly seems that way. So long as you are limited to the two major parties, then you get similar candidates, this is true.
So broaden your horizons, work for an alternative candidate, run yourself.
Or pick the donut back up and complain. Your choice, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean beats paper. If it doesn't, it's a boat. Rock beats boat.
Meh (Score:3)
Seems like worrying that the pit bull coming for your neck has a tick.
I wonder why... (Score:3)
Hmmm... I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I think it has something to do with the current administration...
...and just the other day...
For those of you that voted for Obama, apparently you didn't notice that he choose Mr. Joe Biden as his Vice President running mate. Mr. Joe is bought and paid for by the RIAA and MPAA. Now you get to see what all that campaign money bought. Congratulations!
Whaaaat? (Score:2)
A government agency running a corporate sponsored ad campaign? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Who would have expected that?
I mean, aside of people who have been living on the planet for more than a decade...
But I liked it! (Score:2)
A have to admit, that's actually a very slick video that gets its point across in a very human and humorous way. And I agree with the point that they're making.
If everybody stopped going to theaters and buying DVDs (... or now using NetFlix, iTunes and other streaming media outlets...) then they are right, Hollywood would collapse putting thousands out of work and severely impacting the economy. (And while they are overreacting, it has already had an impact on the music industry.)
They are clearly exaggerati
Question? (Score:2)
So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?
Not if you value your weekly dose of Chuck:Super-Nerd, Consumer.
Buy our crap or this woman looses her job (Score:2)
Whose the pirate there? "Gi
Typical behavior from govt, Same bold faced lie. (Score:5, Insightful)
Watched the video.
Message: Take these pirated movies, and this woman (Sound stage tech) loses her job.
Sub-message: The people that still take the movies are heartless scum.
As article points out, shameless PSA produced by NBC; proffered by HSA.
That over with--
1) This assertion (Take pirate DVD, woman loses job) makes a series of fundamentally broken assumptions:
i) Content production companies (like studios-- like the one which made the PSA) live so hand-to-mouth that the failure to monopoly dominate sales/transfers of the content they create will cause them to lay off workers.
Reality: The phase 'hollywood accounting' exists for a reason. Any such 'Hand-to-mouth' type economics exists exclusively on paper, to avoid paying actors, authors and film crew while simultaneously generating huge profits for the production company. It exists exclusively as a contrived mechanism to avoid paying royalty money on the very sales the video harps about. This makes the video a hypocritical, bold faced lie from the get-go.
ii) The act of taking the pirated DVD would cause the person to lose her job, because you are not paying-- EG-- the lost sale angle.
Reality: Multiple redundant studies have shown that consummate media pirates on average BUY MORE products than their 'legitimate purchases only' counterparts.
Additionally, the pirate is only interested in the product to begin with because he does not have to invest anything; EG, the appropriation of the pirated DVDs are NOT lost sales.
Without the piracy option, the consumer would simply not have consumed, reducing media penetration, and realistically doing far worse than what piracy allegedly would have done. At least when the product gets pirated, the pirate gets a direct assessment of the quality of the product, and if it is any good, would now have direct motivation to buy additional products. Eg- Pirate downloads first matrix movie-- likes it, orders the trilogy box set. The subsequent sale would never have taken place if the initial piracy had never occurred. The notion that the pirate would have just sunk down 50$ for the box set of movies he has never seen and is dubious about, is pure insanity.
--------------------
What I personally took away from the video PSA:
'See this poor token production worker? See her frazzled hair!? Doesnt she look pathetic?'
See me? I am in my fancy suit, and have perfect teeth-- Isn't it terrible that you would cause me to take money away from this poor frazzled worker because you would dare upset the apple cart?
Never-mind that I am obviously not hurting for money (As seen by my quarterly finance reports), or that I am a lieing shyster who personally is responsible for this poor token floor worker's plight because I care about my corporate bonuses more than her and her welfare---OR that I am being a hypocritical bastard by passing that blame on to you...
Just Pretend that simply isn't the case and embrace the fantasy we spin for you about how it is YOUR fault she suffers, and it's all because you don't impulse blanket-buy everything we shit out on store shelves blindly! (In fact, she probably isnt even a real sound boom operator to begin with, and is probably some poor soul we conned into thinking might get an acting career if she did this humiliation gig, whom we will probably never call on again.)
That you would take these DVDs for free and 'force' me to fire this woman (Again, because I value my own bonus more than her or her employment-- but never-mind that) whom I barely pay purely out of my own greed and do legal gymnastics to get out of responsibility for; Why that makes you a disgusting person! You should be ashamed of yourself!'
Message brought to you by the federal Homeland Security Administration.
Nobody would give a shit. (Score:2)
As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public?
As opposed to the FACT that the heads of the FDA are always major industry players who have or will work for the same companies that they're overseeing? Like Monstanto people working in the FDA?
How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?
As opposed to the FACT that the department itself is run by Goldman Sachs people (such as Henry Paulson) who pushed through to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars during the whole manufactured "the world is going to end!" financial problems?
Well, chances are, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT. They didn't give a shit bout
Obligatory (Score:2)
Slow news day? (Score:2)
"DHS hires producer of TV commercials to produce TV commercial." Gee, what a shocker.
So, who should they have hired instead? Is there any production company, writer, or actor that doesn't have a vested interest in this matter? Were you expecting a PSA to show a reasoned intellectual debate about the pros and cons of copyright infringement? Would you expect Smokey the Bear to discuss how fire is a natural and necessary part of the life cycle of the forest, so go ahead and leave that campfire burning on
A network, producing media? GASP! (Score:2)
OMG, fucking DUH! A television network producing TV commercials! Producing PSAs is media production. [sarcasm]What a goddamn shock that is. "Oh, why doesn't DHS just use a camcorder and do it in an office?"[/sarcasm] This is how PSAs get made, people. What's the problem? It's not like DHS doesn't direct the content.
Re: (Score:2)
Some media corporation would be needed to make the video. No matter which one makes it there would be complaints.
Re: (Score:3)
DHS is funded by our tax dollars. There are procedures in place to make sure that government contracts are issued to companies in a fair manner. Do we know if this was done correctly? Of course, since Comcast NBC Universal is staffed by a former FCC board member, I guess things like due diligence don't matter anymore. Not to mention the fact that Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE who used to own NBC Universal) is the jobs czar. This just reeks of conflict of interest.
Next there is the issue of ownership. If our tax do
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense if DHS actually owned the video afterwards, as in a work for hire. It was made by NBC for NYC as a PSA, then ICE (part of DHS) went and used it after taking out all the NYC references. The video is actually still owned by NBC, not NYC or ICE. If you ask someone to make something for you, you would likely be involved in it and get ownership of it afterward. This is just NBC getting a message they like out. I find it kind of hard to blame DHS for the content when they didn't make it, the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, this means that NBC is making government policy on copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means NBC is making videos about government policy on copyright.
If the government didn't pay for it, the government doesn't own it, which means it's not public property.
If it was somehow not in line with government policy, there might be a point here, but it is in line with government policy, so this entire article is a troll.
Capiche?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's Internet Justice? I made it up, but I'm sure it will solve your problem.
Hint: Net Neutrality doesn't prevent an ISP from pushing random crap down your pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't seem to understand is that the problem you referred to is not a "capitalist system" problem, but a human nature problem.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w [youtube.com]
there is no difference in between feudalism and capitalism. latter is just a 'free for all' version of the former, until an established hierarchy totally settles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)