The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking 213
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
"The biggest misperception about [the Stop Online Piracy Act] is that it is somehow unprecedented or extraordinary. It is not. SOPA represents just the latest example of copyright law defined and controlled not by the government but by private entities. Copyright owners will deploy SOPA in the same way they have behaved in the past: to extend out their rights. They will disrupt sites that do not infringe a copyright, interfere with fair uses of copyrighted works, and take other steps that evade the limits that the Copyright Act sets on a copyright owner's actual rights."
The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now laws are in the best interests of the biggest bank accounts.
Not familiar with The Golden Rule? "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Not disagreeing with you, by the way, just wanted to point out that what you said is similar to a Mitch Hedburg joke.
"I used to do a lot of drugs. I still do, but I used to, too."
I'm still waiting for corporate entities to be executed for capital crimes - until then, I won't actually believe they're people. A possible alternative would be to make the CEO of the company directly and personally responsible for everything the company does, as if the CEO had done it him/her self - make 'em earn those golden parachutes by risking life in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
...A possible alternative would be to make the CEO of the company directly and personally responsible for everything the company does, as if the CEO had done it him/her self - make 'em earn those golden parachutes by risking life in prison.
And I would accept that alternative if the definition of "life" in prison was a bit more than a few days(or hours) for the Hollywood/Executive 1% elite...(gotta love those Lohan sentencing guildelines...apparently her freckles count as "time served".)
Besides, unless we started getting smarter about arrests, what do you think an exec with a few billion at his/her disposal is going to do the instant they post bail facing that kind of punishment? I'm certain they would find a comfortable life with their stol
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Funny)
... or we could just shoot them.
take there passport away (Score:2)
And put a GPS on them.
Re: (Score:2)
And put a GPS on them.
Yeah, because THAT technology is foolproof...
Re: (Score:2)
or they *could* put the person on the no-fly list and also take the travel documents due to flight risk.
Nice try...too bad most of the elitist 1% fly their own way (Netjets or some other private service), so fat chance keeping them grounded.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still waiting for corporate entities to be executed for capital crimes - until then, I won't actually believe they're people. A possible alternative would be to make the CEO of the company directly and personally responsible for everything the company does, as if the CEO had done it him/her self - make 'em earn those golden parachutes by risking life in prison.
Unfortunately, we're long past the point where that could ever be a possibility. We can't even get corporations to pay meaningful fines for breaking the law, let alone something like a corporate-equivalent of capital punishment. In fact, I am not sure of any non-trivial criminal penalty (even as a sizable fine) has ever been levied against a corporation in the last century. We rely entirely upon lawsuits to keep corporations in line, which both stacks the deck heavily in favor of the near infinite legal budget of the corporation and carries a stigma of injustice against the poor, benevolent, victimized corporations.
No, corporate personhood is all about granting nearly all individual rights to a faceless entity and taking away nearly all responsibilities from the entity and those who control it.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, corporate personhood is all about granting nearly all individual rights to a faceless entity and taking away nearly all responsibilities from the entity and those who control it.
Corporate personhood is not the problem. The problem with Citizens United is not "corporations are people." It's not even "money is speech." It's the inherent fact that speech costs money, so people with no money get no speech. And there is an easy fix for that: Public financing of elections. But people don't like it, because they don't want their dollars going to political campaigns. (Apparently they would prefer that it be AT&T's dollars.)
People just don't seem to understand what limited liability is. If you're the CEO of a corporation and you hire an assassin to kill your competitor's engineering team, you go to jail for murder. Limited liability has nothing to do with it.
If you sell toys with lead paint, the victims sues and gets a judgment. If the corporation is not bankrupted by the judgment, limited liability doesn't do anything. The corporation pays the victims, the end. If the shareholders want the CEO to pay the judgment, they can put that in his employment contract before it happens, or they can condition his future employment on him paying it. It's completely between the CEO and the shareholders.
All limited liability does is make it so that if the judgment is so large that it bankrupts the entire corporation, the victims can't go after the shareholders or the officers too. Unless the corporation ceases to exist, it doesn't really come into play. It isn't the cause of corruption in Washington and it isn't the cause of music labels ripping off the artists.
What it is is a moral hazard in finance: The corporation can take your money and make a risky bet at a 40:1 margin. If they win the bet then they make the corporation a billion dollars and take home a fair chunk of that as a bonus. If they lose then the entire company goes bankrupt but the officers don't have to pay for it. And the solution there isn't even to eliminate limited liability, it's disclosure requirements. If you're a securities trader making a trade that, if you lose, will cause you to be unable to pay what you promised, you should have to disclose that to the other party or be subject to criminal penalties. Then nobody in their right mind will be willing to be the other side of those transactions and the problem will go away.
Corporate personhood is not the problem. Limited liability is not the problem. The problem is that we have more government spending than tax revenue but nobody wants to pay more taxes and nobody is willing to gore their own ox. The problem is that wealthy and organized parties like record labels and telecoms are better able to shape legislation than unorganized parties like artists and consumers.
You can't take the money and power out of money and power. All you can do is see to it that you get your share.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Informative)
If the shareholders want the CEO to pay the judgment, they can put that in his employment contract before it happens, or they can condition his future employment on him paying it. It's completely between the CEO and the shareholders.
The problem is that "the shareholders" (of any voting block size) are all "in the club" and would never ask a potential new CEO to accept anything as *shudder* gauche as liability. The things that are deemed acceptable, even for owners of tiny little $10M companies, wouldn't pass the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fairness test of an 8 year old.
Apparently, it is accepted as fair and reasonable for an owner to offer a block of restricted shares to the employees for purchase to help the company during a time of crisis. These shares are priced at 1/2 current market and may not be sold for a period of one year. The year represents risk, and the 1/2 market price represents reward... sound fair so far? At the same time, the owner (secretly) offers himself a block of shares four times as large as the employees at 1/4 market price, restricted for a period of 6 months. This only comes out after 6 months have passed and the owner's sale of a portion of these shares is made public. The deal was "approved" by a paid "ethics consultant." Pure genius.
He who has the gold makes the rules, indeed, and those rules invariably give him more gold in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
That ruling was only a "problem" because washington is full of corrupt assholes that allow themselves to be legally bribed.
Trust me, the biggest wallets have ALWAYS outvoted the little folks. The court ruling just made obvious what was already going on behind the scenes.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't due to any flaw in democracy; it has nothing at all to do with democracy. These kinds of abuses come from autocratic structures that do not answer to any outsiders. A better way to describe these kinds of systems is 'totalitarian.' Of course, democracy is a nice word that we have all been taught applies to our systems of centralized planning and property, but just 5 minutes of thinking about it should induce uncontrollable laughter. The fact that most Americans don't laugh is a sign of how deeply indoctrinated much of the population, especially the political and technical class, has become. The Soviet system was similar. The intelligentsia (including the technical intelligentsia) needed to be well-indoctrinated. The remaining 80% would follow, as guided by the 20% of `proper' thinkers and the truly mass media. In the US, the situation is nearly indistinguishable. The mass media depends on things like publicly subsidized sports (franchises run by universities with the profits primarily going to private owners) and `popular' music and movies. It is crucial that these means of mass control remain firmly in the grip of private power; mass media is the primary means by which popular consent is shaped in the US and projected abroad.
The reality is that no modern corporation -- be it a financial institution, a mass media distributor (RIAA/MPAA/etc), or whatever -- can tolerate democracy. We can see how the machinery respond to even modest democratic initiatives, such as the occupy movement: hysteria. They can't tolerate 'free markets' either, but that's a different (though related) story. What we see now are interrelated systems of global mercantilism backed by state power and by a hugely profitable propaganda system, which we now call the media and public relations, and those propaganda systems depend on favorable 'IP laws.'
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You should write a sociology paper and refer the entity you describe as the Berlusconi/Murdoch complex, it would be more universal that way.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
What does gay marriage or the lack thereof actually do? Nothing at all.
Unless you're gay and want to marry your partner, in which case it does quite a lot.
Never assume that the freedoms you care most about are the ones that are most important to other people. You want to live your life as you see fit; so does everyone else, and what you see fit to do may well be something that's of no interest to them.
Support other people's freedoms. It gives them a motivation to support yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a handful of fabulous gay neighbors. Really, they're awesome. I have gay clients and honestly enjoy their company more than most people's.
Perhaps you don't feel affected by the enormous loss of rights yet. However, what I think people are trying to say is that the foundations of a country are not predicated upon marriage or abortion issues. They are built on basic, inalienable rights of all people. Erode those, and clinging to other rights is just clinging to the top of the mast on a sinking ship.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but his point is that noble causes are frequently used as fig leaves. Larger issues remain outside of the scope of public discussion and are typically counter to the interests of the population. This tactic serves to give the population the illusion of participation in political issues. Of course, go on all day talking about gays or abortion (again, important issues in their own rights). Just don't get too worked up over the issues that affect your owners. In a democracy, *all* of those issues would be discussed, not just the ones that are inconsequential to real power.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've just illustrated the point: you're so distracted by the gay marriage issue that you've missed the fact that the government is destroying all our other civil liberties (free speech, due process, no illegal search and seizure, etc.)!
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you didn't construe my post to mean that gay marriage is less "real" than other civil liberties; it's important too. My point was that myopically focusing on gaining a new right blinds us to the erosion of the ones we already have.
As for an "official" list, just read the Bill of Rights. Almost all of them are under attack, and the only reason the 3rd Amendment isn't is that quartering troops in people's houses is less profitable for the military-industrial complex than constructing new barracks!
Here are some examples of attacks on our rights that (in my opinion) need to be dealt with more urgently than gay marriage:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"What we see now are interrelated systems of global mercantilism "
No what we're seeing is the true face of the free market, the free market has ALWAYS had the nanny state to protect it, only morons use linguistic obscurantism like yourself to protect your favored ideal from any kind of rational criticism.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the free market has ALWAYS had the nanny state to protect it.
That's a strange definition of a free market.
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is that no modern corporation -- be it a financial institution, a mass media distributor (RIAA/MPAA/etc), or whatever -- can tolerate democracy. [...] They can't tolerate 'free markets' either, but that's a different (though related) story.
I believe you're making the rather common mistake of conflating free and competitive.
A market can be free without being competitive.
And a market can be competitive without being free.
I'd rather have the latter, but we frequently end up with the former.
Of course, competitive and free is best.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Competitive and free are mutually exclusive. A free market always ends up as a collection of monopolies or oligopolies due to the simple fact that free means no constraints on the advantages of scale and accumulated wealth to stamp out competition. The US prior to the Sherman act is an illustrative example.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because people don't understand why the classic free market is good: it isn't good just because, it is good because when combined with the theoretical characteristics of perfect competition, it will lead to the lowest prices and the best service. Most people, especially Americans, have completely lost track of this requirement, and instead have elevated the free market to a religion. It is now the Free Market, and anyone who questions the Free Market is a heretic, to be burned at a stake.
Democracy ne
No, the flaw is simpler and you don't get it (Score:2)
The economy is a race with no end. Therefore in a race to cut costs, you are NEVER finished. And how much can you cut costs without loosing service OR doing something drastic.
When one company outsources to get a lower price, to continue in the race everyone else must as well and then who is left locally to afford the product even at the lower costs? Yet many people happily claim you can outsource everything and then the low low low price means people locally don't need jobs. Apparently they believe that the
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't due to any flaw in democracy; it has nothing at all to do with democracy.
Au contraire, it has everything to do with the most fundamental premised of Democracy. The greatest enemy of Democracy is, apathy. Not communisim. Not terrorism of Wahhabis and Quereshis[*]. Not even the reasoned argument, "there is nothing to stop people from voting themselves benefits they call ill afford and refuse to pay for it. The debt will accumulate and destroy the system from within". No sir. Once people lose interest in the functioning of the government, stop paying attention, stop trying to separate the misinformation from the correct information, once people are deluded enough to believe in policy statements that fit into a bumper sticker or a 30 second sound bit, that would be the time Democracy stops working for the people.
It is far easier to steal a penny from million people than to steal $10000 from one person. Every dollar wasted by the government is an ill-gotten undeserved revenue for someone. That someone will fight tooth and nail to continue the waste. Those will engage in all sorts of misinformation campaigns. If people are not vigilant they will lose. If people don't see that they lose something when fair use is constrained, when ??AA engage in legal extortion etc, the people will lose it.
----- [*] We should avoid using overly broad terms like Islamic Terrorism, or Jihadism. Such terms unify Muslims against external threats, and using the same terms plays into the hands of the terrorists. Use the minimal group label to tie terrorism to a smaller group. There is no point in antagonizing a larger group than necessary.
Nice fix (Score:2)
So your solution to the worlds issues is to put the blame on factions within a larger group. Why don't you just blame it all on the jews (faction within the judaic faiths) and get it over with.
Re: (Score:3)
Broken contract between elector and elected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that most Americans don't laugh is a sign of how deeply indoctrinated much of the population, especially the political and technical class, has become.
I don't laugh because I see no hope for improvement (improvement requires a motivated people, which we don't have), and it depresses me deeply.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like the old Communist joke:
"Communism is for the best of man. And at the last parade, I've even gotten to see that man."
It's kinda sad if the old dictatorship jokes start to apply to nominally democratic systems.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is fundamental to our system: corporations can continue to lobby, year after year, until the goverment finally caves in -- even if that requires corporate employees to temporarily join the government in positions of power.
Until this changes, we're going to be slowly become more and more fucked.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is not something you achieve and then enjoy for the rest of your life. It's something that you have to fight for every day of your life. So what you are talking about — is nothing new. Corporations have their interests, you have yours. They will keep trying to get what they want, so should you. The whole idea of democracy is based on balance: everybody is trying as hard as they can to get what they want and everything ends up in a compromise. If the balance is shifting somewhere — you should push harder, it's just that.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem: Fighting for rights takes time and effort.
We have lives, they have enough money to pay people to sit on the phone all day doing it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the understanding that we all have limited time available to us, most of it being spent either sleeping or working in an area other than politics. It's not a question of caring, it's a question of resources. And most people in a democracy don't have the resources to lobby someone long enough to change their mind. Corporations, on the other hand, do.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Though apathy is definitely a large part of our current dilemma, it is not the point made above. Rather, the point is that your average person would be homeless and hungry if they spent all their time fighting the good fight, while on the other side, lobbyists are *paid* to fight against our rights. In no universe is that a balanced equation.
The counterbalance to that proposed by the founding fathers was that our representatives were to be intelligent, selfless, benevolent leaders of men which would fight for the best interests of their constituents. These representatives would have paid, full-time duties towards that end.
We can see in hindsight that this was a naive, idealistic view of things, only made worse by the formation of political parties and the distillation of seats in Congress to an increasingly small ratio of the population.
It is the way to apathy (Score:2)
Believing one man can do nothing leads to one man not doing anything. There are 360 million or so Americans. If all them donated 10 bucks to the EFF per years that would fund the EFF with 3.6 BILLION dollars per year. That hires a LOT of people and most of us van afford more then 10 bucks.
So... how much have you donated?
But your one tenner donation won't make a difference right? So you don't do anything.
People can do a LOT. Vote with your dollars. Don't buy Apple, don't buy Walmart, don't buy from Amazon. B
Re: (Score:2)
What has changed is the relative power of the average voter and the rich. Until relatively recently, you could fight for your interests, and have some sway over politicians. Now, you can do that, and they will ignore you.
Bread and circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is, that the system delivers what most of people consider to be most essential, namely: Bread and circuses. Of course this reasoning preceded the Roman Republic's transformation into the Roman Empire before it's ultimate collapse
Re: (Score:2)
That's the funny part, they're not even delivering the bread and circuses anymore.
Hulu was a classic "Circus" but now it's purposely being degraded. You've seen the economy, there's the Bread half at work.
Now they're going straight out for the fastest track to Big Brother possible, with each new piece coming on the heels of the other, daring us to fight it. Yeah, we do, a little, so maybe we succeed in getting a particular clause removed *this year* but overall the corruption is accelerating.
Does anyone kno
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know what Al Gore is up to? Is this the REAL cost of that fateful 2000 election? Does anyone think we'd be here if he had been President?
Yes, I do.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:4, Insightful)
And why does the American people still tolerate this again? Surely, in a democracy, every law should be in its people's best interest, no?
How sad is it that this got modded 'funny'. I am not laughing
Re: (Score:3)
> Surely, in a democracy, every law should be in its people's best interest, no?
Yes. But in this case the 'people' is the corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
We are more and more turning into the world depicted by Max Headroom.
It's kind of depressing that a fictional movie and TV series got it so right.
Because elections are decided by the stupid. (Score:2)
Re:Because elections are decided by the stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
The media has convinced people that if they don't pick a team and vote for that team no matter what the team does, they must be stupid. The newspeak has worked, and it has worked on you specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
And why does the American people still tolerate this again?
Well, what mechanism do the American people have for acting on their *in*toleration, once access to money becomes absolutely essential to getting elected, and wealth is able to exercise the influence without any restrictions?
Surely, in a democracy, ...
That's the rub, isn't it? Of course we are *formally* a democratic republic according to our Constitution, but the question is how effectively our republic still *functions* as a democracy. It's not either/or. The people might still be able to throw the bums out over a huge bungle like
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you're the chicken.
Re:The flaw in democracy. (Score:5, Funny)
my tank is full of gas and there is a chicken in my pot, what is the problem?
I hate it when that happens. Get him out quick, he'll go crazy and eat hundreds of dollars worth of weed.
America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
America is totally corrupt. How many of the current US politicians are not taking corporate handouts, accepting meetings with lobbyists, or preaching 'free market' ideology. It has to be accepted that America is a banana republic, run by a mafia of corporate interests, and a collection of crazed religious zealots. I am just so glad I don't live there.
In a democracy, there is a choice of government. Choice is impossible in the United States, because the Republican/Democrat Party, is the only party that can attract enough campaign contributions. The Republican/Democrat Party, is consequently the only party that can buy power. This is not democracy.
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't act surprised, the system forces them to.
There is no way in hell a "honest", i.e. really and completely independent politician could get elected. The reason: Campaigning. And the cost of it. How should any politician afford it if he can't get a fund raiser going? And fund raisers by definition means that some corporations will chip in. And of course they'd expect something in return for their investment.
Over here there was an outcry when in the 70s our back-then socialist government demanded that political parties and people should get their campaigning expenses reimbursed from tax money if they get at least (IIRC) 2% of the votes. Right now, I'm fuckin' glad they did that.
I consider it heaps better if I buy my politicians with tax money rather than corporations do it with lobbying money.
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
And you should also realize the same corporations also own the media and are going to do everything they can to keep things the way they are by smearing anyone they don't like.
Which means that almost by definition an honest politician isn't going to even make it to the primaries before he fails the corporate kiss-ass test and squashed out of the running.
Re: (Score:2)
AHAHAHAHA... so we just need to find someone that doesn't want outrageous amounts of money and power.
Re: (Score:2)
Outspending? No. Out-shouting through astroturf campaigns? Hell yes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's probably not a good idea to put your hope in a medium that can be shutdown by the government at any time they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the Republicans and Democrats both pander to their donors, but at least the tend to have different, conflicting. donors,
Really? That would be incredibly stupid of the donors. If i was in that position i would be sponsoring both sides to make sure i won. Hedge my bets kind of thing. I'm pretty sure big corporations are doing this.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the Republicans and Democrats both pander to their donors, but at least the tend to have different, conflicting. donors
That's not how it works. A company will donate $200K (for example) to both candidates. If the winning candidate doesn't vote the way the company wants, then the threat is to only give $200K to the other candidate in the next election. The elected representative doesn't have to do what they want to get an advantage, they have to do what they want to get a level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
A large component of the function used to allocate donations is holding public office. That is if the Republicans hold power, most donations go to Republicans.
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:4, Informative)
America is totally corrupt...
I'm not sure you know what that means. [wikipedia.org] In fact look at any african country....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "but we're still better off than a tribe in civil-war torn African country" really passes for an argument this days?
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in a "Civil war torn African country." I have never lived in America, I must admit, but I have a hard time believing the level of corruption is anywhere near comparable to say, Zimbabwe. In fact I seriously doubt you understand what "total corruption" really means, until you actually experience it. I know exactly what it means. And after a long chat with my brother in America, you don't have it. Not even close.
And btw, this is not an argument, this is abuse. You want room 12b. :)
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how they tried to counter Mugabe in Zimbabwe - with peaceful protest. How far did that get them?
The point is that it's the way the US is *heading*, and peaceful protest doesn't always work. Where it does, great, but if it always works, why do you have the 2nd Amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet(surprisingly), america is not in africa. There is a lot of worry in South Africa for example, that the same thing will happen there - some crazy dictator will take over and screw the country. What people forget is that South Africa is not Zimbabwe. And you could hardly compare America to Africa. It is a different situation and things will go down differently.
In essence, in Zimbabwe they have Mugabe. In South Africa they have Julius Malema as their crazy potential dictator. Who've you got?
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption is everywhere, just because you don't live in a country with conspiracies under a media spot-light does not mean you live in a utopia.
And you're right, we're not a democracy. We're a representative republic. We leave it to the socialist and communist countries to claim that they are a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. Aside from the cold of living in the northern part of the country, Norway isn't that bad.
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense for anyone living in an abused colony, to try to move to the heart of the Empire that conquered it.
Re:America is NOT a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's not forget how many people try to flee to China...
There's always someone who is worse off than you. Does that mean that he should be the standard? Why take someone who's worse than you as a role model?
This isn't news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the laws passed in the US start the same way. That's the point of the article, though it is hardly new enough to constitute news.
How else do you think multi-thousand-page bills are created? Surely, you don't think that our congressmen have the time to draft them. In our system, bills are written by lobbyists just as our regulatory agencies are managed by the industry they regulate.
Insightful translation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Insightful translation (Score:5, Funny)
Rule by corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
Over recent years there has been an accelerating plunge into rule by corporation in its interests rather than rule by government in the interests of all. This has resulted in the loosening of regulation or oversight, laws allow corporations to do things that are effectively disallowed to individuals. The results of this include: the financial woes of recent times; copyright abuse; globalisation for corporation but not individuals (think: they buy where it is cheap in the world, but stop you doing so, eg by region encoding).
This has happened by a variety of means: bribing of law makers (whoops silly me, I mean - donations to campaigns and pet causes, promises of jobs on leaving office, ...); threats to move to another country; ...
Don't get me wrong: not everything about corporations is bad, not all corporations are problematic. A restoration of balance is needed.
Re:Rule by corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
...[L]aws allow corporations to do things that are effectively disallowed to individuals. The results of this include: the financial woes of recent times; copyright abuse; globalisation for corporation but not individuals (think: they buy where it is cheap in the world, but stop you doing so, eg by region encoding).
Bingo.
To say that treating corporations as persons is to state only half of the problem.
The other half of the problem stems from treating corporations as a privileged class of persons.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, I was bit too quick to click...
...[L]aws allow corporations to do things that are effectively disallowed to individuals. The results of this include: the financial woes of recent times; copyright abuse; globalisation for corporation but not individuals (think: they buy where it is cheap in the world, but stop you doing so, eg by region encoding).
Bingo.
To say that treating corporations as persons is a problem, is to state only half of the problem.
The other half of the problem stems from treating corporations as a privileged class of persons.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the other half of the problem is the idea that all consumers are greedy, conniving bastards who will cheerfully steal anything from "big corporations", given half a chance, so the "big corporations" assume all of them are criminals before they've even had the opportunity to purchase a product.
Or maybe it's a system of laws that practically guarantees that every person is a lawbreaker in some form or fashion, allowing the enforcement agencies to pick up, detain, and criminalize any person at any ti
Re: (Score:2)
The corporations are trying to produce as cheaply as possible, and then sell it as expensive as possible , for biggest profit margin
The people are trying to get the product as cheaply as possible , to maximize their own utility
The two keep each other in check, that is, until one side went off crying and called the law to its aid
And yeah, this whole article is brilliant. There was an awesome bit in the Discworld novel "Night Watch" *i think
Re:Rule by corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
American dream is dead
I would be delighted to see that happening. "American dream" is essentially an aspiration to obtain massive amount of wealth by whatever means, and use it to elevate yourself into position of control over other people (supposedly ones who implemented that dream at your expense before, or would implement it if you didn't stop them first), abusing them for your own pleasure. It is imposed on all population by propaganda, to make sociopaths in position of power seem normal.
The problem is, this thing is still alive.
Re: (Score:3)
News Flash: 99.99% of Americans don't have that dream, and never have.
James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase "American Dream" in 1931:
But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of
Re: (Score:3)
American dream is dead
I would be delighted to see that happening. "American dream" is essentially an aspiration to obtain massive amount of wealth by whatever means, and use it to elevate yourself into position of control over other people (supposedly ones who implemented that dream at your expense before, or would implement it if you didn't stop them first), abusing them for your own pleasure. It is imposed on all population by propaganda, to make sociopaths in position of power seem normal.
The problem is, this thing is still alive.
The dream is very much alive. The realisation of the dream is just this side of impossible these days. Back in the day, when we were hunting dinosaurs from the backs of our '57 Chevies, we used to hear all the time that 'any boy can become President'. These days, they modified that to 'any boy with the proper connections and shitpiles of money can become President'. Kinda leaves us who are struggling just to make enough for groceries in the 'also-ran' category.
The American Dream has been myth for gener
Re: (Score:2)
Magna Carta 1297 Section 61 (Score:5, Interesting)
...Applies to every satellite State of Britain, former and current. The specific section implies the obligation upon Law-abiding citizenry to Lawfully disobey bad Law. This is the only way in which it will get changed. If we sit there and take it up the arse every time our basic civil rights are infringed those who make black-letter Law will carry on until we are deprived of the freedom to make our own choices. That said, it is up to you: will you argue for your rights in a public forum, even if that forum consists of thirteen men and women, even if it means the total loss of liberty for an unspecified period? Will you take that argument to a wider audience, for example by way of media, considering that this action is not without personal risk? Will you risk your life for your freedom as your grandparents did and your great grandparents did (I ask as a Gen. X-er)? Or will you bend over and take it up the arse like a good little sheep?
Lawful Rebellion doesn't mean asking permission to protest. If you have a grievance, make a peaceful and nonviolent show of obstructing a public space and broadcasting your grievance. Let the Corporate Enforcement Officers (AKA Police) make the first violent or unlawful move, and make sure you have the video camera running when they do. And when they do, the Court of Public Opinion shall judge them.
Re: (Score:3)
Will you risk your life for your freedom as your grandparents did and your great grandparents did (I ask as a Gen. X-er)?
The grandparents had the government and the army ON their side. To try and dislodge the oligarchy in charge of the USA, you'd have to take up arms AGAINST a military that receives half a trillion dollars per year. This makes things slightly tougher.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you visited the Occupy people in various parts of the world? This is exactly what they are doing and advocating.
Privatization of COPYRIGHT lawmaking ? (Score:2, Insightful)
we'll be following italy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying it makes (insert crime here) legal unless pursued by some entity who has the money to do so. Is the implication clear or do I have to write it down?
Re: (Score:2)
... so it's only illegal if you get caught?
Re: (Score:3)
It's only illegal if you get caught AND if the powers that be see fit to not let you get away with it.
Stealth and selective enforcement often go together.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what's it worth to you that copyrighted material enter the public domain?
Nonprofits running completely automated factories that produce everything I really need. It would happen.
There's a reason pirates exist. (Score:5, Informative)
The Constitution of the United States of America [wikipedia.org] had a nod to a limited copyright, with the idea that it would promote the arts and sciences for there to be a period of time in which the original creator of an idea would be able to profit from it. (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution [usconstitution.net], wherein it states as a goal "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;")
Here's an article entitled The Founding Fathers Had Copyright Right [indyweek.com], explaining how and why copyright was first introduced (back when the U.S.A. was just a twinkle in the founding fathers' eyes). It bears little resemblance to the convoluted and draconian system we now have in place.
As of 1790 [wikipedia.org], that "limited time" was a period of 14 years, with a possible 14 year extension (assuming the author was still alive), for a possible maximum of 28 years from date of creation. Those periods were more than double those originally specified in earlier documents, which ranged from 5 to 7 years.
More recently, the Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org] has shoved everything in quite the wrong direction for anything to ever reach the public domain.
For example:
Mickey Mouse was created in 1928. Mickey Mouse's likeness will not be legal to reproduce without a license until 2036, or maybe even 2047 (there is some legalistic ambiguity). And that's assuming that the copyright laws are not changed yet again to suit corporate greed... Because, you know, Disney hasn't had enough time to properly profit from Mickey Mouse yet, since he's only 83 years old!
If that example isn't broken enough for you, have a look at this list of when things enter the public domain [cornell.edu], and note that the current copyright law ensures that a book published on 15 March 1923 will enter the public domain on 1 January 2019, despite nearly everyone who was alive when it was published being dead now - nevermind 7 more years. It also shows that a sound recording published in 1978 will enter the public domain no earlier than 2049. If it was recorded prior to 1972, then it won't become public domain until at least 2067. This literally means that music recorded before I was born will not be in the public domain before I die. I expect this holds true for most of us, actually, and not just me. As an aside, this is also why restaurants do not sing "Happy Birthday [wikipedia.org]" with the lyrics and melody you learned growing up.
Re: (Score:3)
Great post, but largely irrelevant to the issue here. How much of the current torrent traffic is used for sharing content created before 1997 (2011 minus 14 years)? From a quick glance at the front pages of the torrent sites listed on torrentfreak, closer to zero in percentage. Fixing copyright to favor consumers is a good thing, but that doesn't address the issue of people downloading the newest bluray the same day it is released, which is largely what these companies are after. I have no problem with them
Re: (Score:2)
How much of the current torrent traffic is used for sharing content created before 1997 (2011 minus 14 years)?
Who cares? The content industry wishes to abuse ALL of copyright law, and in response the people* of this country decided to grant no one ANY copyright law.
(* Or most of the people, most being the key word. You can use the same stats from TPB you already looked up to prove that)
It does suck the content producers from yesterday have so fucked over the content producers from today, but this is exactly what happens, and they were told as such.
At this point, there is NO reason not to pirate a zero-day movie.