Stop Being Poor: U.S. Piracy Watch List Hits a New Low With 2012 Report 310
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Trade Representative released its annual Special 301 Report yesterday, unsurprisingly including Canada on the Priority Watch list. While inclusion on the list is designed to generate embarrassment on target countries, Michael Geist explains why this year's report should elicit outrage. Not only is the report lacking in objective analysis, it targets some of the world's poorest countries with no evidence of legal inadequacies and picks fights with any country that dare adopt a contrary view on intellectual property issues."
Canada should be embarrassed (Score:5, Insightful)
On a related note, as an American, could I borrow some?
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:5, Insightful)
We are, the only reason we are on the list is to pressure out government to implement a DMCA type law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:5, Funny)
They're lying, again. They've lied about every. single. point. they made during the election, and there's strong evidence that even the election results themselves are a lie.
They want to have it on the books so that if Beardo is at a protest or starts to make trouble, they can see what Beardo's been doing online and put him in jail or bankrupt him or hell, just embarrass him. Ripping a DVD is a $20k fine and 5 years in prison. Unlocking your nook? Same thing. Installing Ubuntu? Yep, prison. (Okay, you deserve that last one.) Any digital lock on any media cannot be bypassed or that's the penalty. That's not fear-mongering, that's what is in the law. If you buy a DVD and rip it to play on your unlocked iPhone, you're looking at 10+ years in jail. If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that.
"We're not going to do this!" means "We don't want you to complain until this is the law."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:5, Funny)
When Unity came out as the enforced default UI.
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:4, Interesting)
" If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that."
Sounds like you canadians have a plan in place then to fix the problems?
Remember, burning down the White house here in the USA did not fix us, Look at the scumbags we have in ours.
Re: (Score:3)
" If you burned down Parliament with everyone inside, you'd get out on parole sooner than that."
Sounds like you canadians have a plan in place then to fix the problems?
Remember, burning down the White house here in the USA did not fix us, Look at the scumbags we have in ours.
Well, it was proto-Canadians who burned down the White House... maybe the US should return the favour?
But as you said, it didn't really make things any better, other than allowing some royalists to vent their frustrations.
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:4, Interesting)
Not there yet. They're all pretty much a waste of ammo and/or accelerant. We've been using the soap box, and that's been simply ignored. We used the ballot box, and it seems that they took that away from us. The oversight group, Elections Canada, had its budget cut by 7.5 million this year, when they're in the middle of investigating the biggest fraud case in Canadian history. So The Jury box has been stripped of its funding.
I am concerned that someone's going to move to Box Four, and that's a terrible thing. We've never done that sort of thing up here.
Re:Canada should be embarrassed (Score:4, Informative)
Again... please enlighten me as to how something illegal that nobody would or even *COULD* ever even know had occurred other than the person who did it, be enforced?
How about their other bill (C-30) that allows for unlimited warrantless recording and logging of everything you ever do online?
What if the media companies seed their own movies, log the IP addresses and report those to the police?
What if they just take their chances if you're being a problem with them? 75% of the US population (and I would assume a slightly higher rate in Canada) says that media piracy is just fine. I take that to mean "they've done it". One movie that's out of region, one installation of Linux on a Win8 box, you play your Wii games off a hard drive so your kids don't fuck up the fucking disks AGAIN, and you're in jail for 5 years.
Once you get out, you're a convicted criminal (in the US, a felon) so what's your word worth anyway?
Additionally, there's now no risk to the media companies. Now that it's moving from civil to criminal, they can use the resources of the state (Canada) to threaten you. Canada's loser-pay system doesn't affect criminal cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No. And you will be searched when crossing the border back into the USA to make sure you aren't bringing any of those crazy ideas about privacy and civil rights in with you. We've nearly got them eradicated down here. We can't have you re-infecting the population with such thinking, like what happened in the 18th century.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
WTO redux (Score:4, Informative)
It's not about protecting anything but corporate profits.
For example, when copyright was 1st conceived, the concept was to protect that individual's right to contract for the legitimate use or the press and distribution in order to ensure that the publisher was paying the actual author. In America, Jefferson argued that copyright should be restricted to 1/2 the average lifespan of a human in order to preserve the incentive to create new works as well as protect future generations from undue power that would otherwise accumulate in the hands of 'owners' of creative works. (Which is exactly what has happened.)
Since then, corporations have found it convenient to buy proprietary works, contractually strangle authors and coerce (I mean lobby) legislation to extend the term of copyright to ridiculous lengths (in the U.S. it's life plus 70 years or 120 for anonymous works owned by Inc.) in order to further the monopolistic tendencies of business interests. This places corporate interests above those of the individual or society in general. (Thank Sonny Bono & Mickey Mouse)
This is but one example of the 'service' so-called anti-piracy laws provide.
Re:WTO redux (Score:5, Informative)
Nice sentiment, but you go too easy on the concept of copyright. Paraphrased from No Safe Harbor [nosafeharbor.org]:
Copyright was first conceived by Bloody Mary of England in 1557 as a means of censorship to persecute non-Catholics and political dissenters. It was her idea to give the printing monopoly to the London printers' guild and have anyone else caught with a printing press hanged by the state. After the proletariat took over Parliament, copyright was abolished in 1695. The publishers managed to twist the notion of copyright and get it reinstated in 1701 by saying that authors will "own" their works, even though only guild printers would have the right to print them and so the authors were still at their mercy.
The notion that copyright could exist for the sake of anything other than publishers' profits did not even exist until the drafting of the United States Constitution, where it was a compromise after a heated debate. Jefferson argued that copyright shouldn't exist at all, and only took that position when a compromise was necessary. As a result, the Constitution states that copyright is to be used for the good of society, conspicuously (but not conspicuously enough, apparently) omitting the interests of *both* authors and publishers. This is the moral equivalent of saying "You are allowed to hit people only if it makes them feel better." Apart from a few masochists out there, by the letter of the law the right may exist but should *never* be exercised. We all know how well that turned out.
So the entire concept of copyright is a reheated censorship scheme inherited from one of the most infamous dictators in history. Why anyone still thinks it's a good idea is a testament to the power of money, propaganda and groupthink.
Re:WTO redux (Score:4, Informative)
The concept of copyright is far older. Ancient Jewish Talmudic law and Roman law contain ideas about the rights of an author to control his works.
The oldest legal case dates back to the 6th century in Ireland.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/copyright.html [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]
English common law has long precedent in recognizing rights of authors.
And your treatment of the Statute of Anne is rather unfair; it was a big advance in establishing the idea of public domain and eventually put an end to common law claims of perpetual ownership by authors.
Ignore it (Score:2)
Michael Geist explains why this year's report should elicit outrage. Not only is the report lacking in objective analysis, it targets some of the world's poorest countries with no evidence of legal inadequacies and picks fights with any country that dare adopt a contrary view on intellectual property issues.
So we can easily ignore that report.
Re:Ignore it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, while you're ignoring it, the politicians will be citing it for why we more and tougher IP legislation, both at home and abroad.
What motivation does a country have to get off of double secret probation, no trade embargoes will placed on countries listed on the report. This report has less teeth then a UN resolution, it is merely finger wagging in the hopes of pressuring other nations into abiding by foreign rules.
Re:Ignore it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I live in a country where the leading (Christian) parties still think everything America does is brilliant and fantastic so we will comply without even asking. Luckily the EC seems to change its stance on the US a bit, so there is hope.
Re: (Score:3)
I know how you feel.. I live in America...
If it makes you feel any better, it's only super-rich Americans that are pushing this crap.. and anyone they can pay to convince (e.g. politicians, whom are also, generally, rich)
The average American (excluding those whom watch Faux news) thinks this whole thing is incredibly stupid.. but those making under $250k/year do not have a political voice... We're just as disapproving as you all are.
ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, so all of you impoverished nations... your people might be poor and starving, but don't even think for a minute about feeding them. Take that money you would have fed hungry children with and step up your IP policing, because your laws are good, you are just wasting money you could use for more enforcement in all of the wrong places, like feeding your people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Take that money you would have fed hungry children"
LOL good one
"Take that money you would have fed spent on lavish palaces for your elite"
FTFY
Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people (Score:4, Interesting)
The US did manage to get new copyright laws passed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This seems to be a high priority issue for some politicians.
Re:ip enforcement, not feeding hungry people (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing what happens when you're an occupying force. It used to be called Colonialism.
I seriously doubt that this was a priority in either country -- more like "if you don't pass this law, we're going to stop financial support or have you replaced".
Classy.
Disappointment (Score:5, Interesting)
From where I sit, this has been one of the greatest disappointments even staunch supporters like me have with Obama: his administration's continued support for the content industry at the expense of people in America and around the world.
Dan Aris
Re:Disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Does his IP maximalism really come close to his support for the NDAA? His assassination of US citizens and flagrant violation of the War Powers Act? His crack down on government whistle blowers (more whistle blowers prosecuted than all previous presidents combined)? His crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries despite his promise to respect states rights on the issue? His failure to prosecute anyone for the 2008 financial crisis?
IP maximalism is bad, but it's WAY down on the list of grievences against Barack Obama.
Re:Disappointment (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Does his IP maximalism really come close to his support for the NDAA? His assassination of US citizens and flagrant violation of the War Powers Act? His crack down on government whistle blowers (more whistle blowers prosecuted than all previous presidents combined)? His crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries despite his promise to respect states rights on the issue? His failure to prosecute anyone for the 2008 financial crisis?
IP maximalism is bad, but it's WAY down on the list of grievences against Barack Obama.
While I agree with some of the things you are faulting him for (although not all are so clear), faulting him for "support for the NDAA" is over generalizing. An NDAA is passed every year. It is what specifies the budget and expenditures for the US DoD. You are probably upset with a single provision in this year's bill being referred to as the "Indefinite Detention" section. The president himself was not happy with this provision and pushed back. Unfortunately, a compromise on the wording didn't improve it much. Also (unfortunate) the law does nothing that the Federal courts have not already recognized as lawful.
Re: (Score:3)
The president himself was not happy with this provision and pushed back.
No he didn't. He signed the bill. "Pushing back" would mean vetoing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Disappointment (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one?
Not his involving Americans in two new wars (Yemen and Libya) without permission of the People in Congress? Not his insistence that Congress add 2 lines to the NDAA to let him imprison americans without a trial? Not his assassination of 3 american citizens (including a 16 year old child) w/o giving them a constitutional a right to trial? Not his raising the national debt at twice the rate of George "duh" Bush? I would be HAPPY if Obama's only flaw was signing ACTA/supporting SOPA.
put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats are concerned with civil liberties and the rights of the individual. We need change! Oh, wait...
Re:put a Democrat in the White House in 2012 (Score:4, Interesting)
When it comes to copyright, the parties do seem pretty close to even, which is to say paid for by the same organizations.
I think the Democrats are better overall on other kinds of civil liberties (especially compared to the theocratic wing of the Republican Party), but I'd probably vote for a Pirate Party if we had one.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the party you were looking for is Libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats are just as authoritarian as Republicans, they just differ on what they want to ram down our throats.
finally an excuse to bomb canada (Score:5, Funny)
we tried to conquer your worthless country twice before, but you finally gave us an excuse for a third time
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno, man, didn't they burn down the White House last time?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
we tried to conquer your worthless country twice before, but you finally gave us an excuse for a third time
Yeah, the previous two times were so successful, we figure we'll try it a third time, and in doing so trigger an international military response that'll result in the deaths of tens of millions... because Hollywood tells us to? Not. Likely.
Best part ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the best part:
Which basically means the people writing this report are well known shills, who are predisposed to write something which is in favor of what the content industry wants.
Glad to see these guys being told to bugger off if they don't have any facts. Far too much of American policy is dictated by lobbyists.
Constantly listening to the content industry in the US bleating that Canada is a horrible evil country of people who violate copyrights gets tedious.
Re:Best part ... (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't some Canadian government representatives *ask* the US to put Canada on that list?
Yes, that came out in the Wikileaks cables. See the story here [michaelgeist.ca].
Enemy #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has declared wars on drugs, terrorism, copyright violations, crackers, and a whole host of other things.
In doing so they've declared "war" on pretty much every nation in the world, including the very ones that they claim are friends and allies.
So what can we conclude?
The US is Enemy #1 to the world.
Re:Enemy #1 (Score:4, Insightful)
The US government has declared wars on drugs, terrorism, copyright violations, crackers, and a whole host of other things.
In doing so they've declared "war" on pretty much every nation in the world, including the very ones that they claim are friends and allies.
So what can we conclude?
The US government is Enemy #1 to the world.
FTFY.
Re:Enemy #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is elected by the people.
Stop pretending it's not your fault. You, the people, are the ones who put up with their schite.
Re:Enemy #1 (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been bugging me all day. It really pisses me off when people try to tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. I say what I mean.
The fact that "patriotic Americans" don't like it is their problem. But watch those of them with mod points mod this psot into oblivion, because they think it's a "disagree" to vote things down. Which only proves my point...
When I say the US has a navel gazing, we're superior, our law should trump all others attitude, I MEAN IT.
Your government.
Your banks.
Your MPAA/RIAA.
Your businesses.
Your pharmacorps.
And the list goes on...
Your whole nation's MENTALITY is that you're superior.
You are the very DEFINITION of a fascist country which engenders and encourages blind, national fervour and faith in the waving flag of the nation above all else.
There are many in the country who do not feel that way, and understand what it means to cooperate with the world instead of trying to dominate it.
But apparently there aren't enough of them VOTING.
For once I disagree with Michael Geist.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think we (as canadians) should be outraged. That's the wrong approach to this. We should be celebrating the fact that we have better rules than the americans.
Imagine some politicians came out with a report about how awful it is that blacks can vote in this long list of countries, or how abhorrent is is that women could vote in some places, or how some countries *still* haven't enacted prohibition, or how terrible it must be for people living in those countries that have government healthcare. If you on one of those lists you don't get outraged, you can use it as proof positive that your system is working, and those idiots that wrote the report are living in the wrong century. Which, as with this report, they are.
There's no point in trying to complain that some of their metrics are wrong or unfairly target the wrong groups. The whole concept is basically inverted, squabbling about the details gives the false impression that it can somehow be corrected with some tweaking of specifics.
Spain is caving (Score:4, Interesting)
countries should streisand effect this report (Score:3)
The US will rely on IP for economic security (Score:3)
I think there's a place for protecting intellectual and artistic expressions that exist in a tangible form, but it must reasonable, limited, and well-defined. People should be able to make their living by discovering new things, and by springing something novel and valuable into the world, but at the same time, doing so once should not guarantee lifetimes' of income for you, your children, and so on down the line, nor provide you with the means to prevent others from competing with or building upon your ideas.
Re:The US will rely on IP for economic security (Score:4, Interesting)
The first paragraph I'm merely acknowledging what I see as the inevitability that any developed nation must realize: That without raw resources or cheap labor to offer up to the world economy, all that's really left is innovation. And if that nation intends to support itself on the fruit of that innovation, then they must have themselves, and lobby for others to adopt, IP laws that benefit those who hold the most. This is not something I'm arguing for myself, I just think it happens to be on the natural course of things if we desire to maintain the economic status quo.
The second paragraph does advocate for reasonable protections that grant individuals, and their governments through taxation, to benefit from their efforts. The problem with the current system is that there are essentially no limits to the amount of control that the IP holder can exercise, nor any real limit to the length of time one can reap the benefit from their innovation. Current IP law is essentially a land-grab: it says "This thought is mine." and also "If you have to pass through my thought on the way to yours, I can collect a toll. If the price I want is too high, sorry, you and the world are denied your thought." Combined with lengthy protection terms, this allows patent holders to exercise too much control over future innovation.
Patents should exist in some form in order to spur investments as you say, but likewise they should expire in a reasonable term so that they cannot be lorded over future innovation essentially indefinitely. This is a distinctly anti-capitalist idea, but I believe that, at some point, society as a whole has indeed paid all that's due to the inventor, and their invention should at that point essentially become public domain.
I don't take this stance as an outsider. The kind of work I do is digital, and therefore solely protected by IP laws, anyone can replicate the fruit of my labor bit-by-bit, with no real capital cost. I choose not to employ DRM, and to instead encourage people to support me by providing them with a great product, and in the future, supporting services. I *should* be able to seek recompense should someone illicitly distribute or clone my work, but I don't care to have a bludgeon that can be used to prevent those who might do a better job than I, or who might take my ideas in a distinct direction, from doing so.
In college I knew a guy who belonged to the family who's ancestor had invented the modern ball-point pen. He's a really nice guy. I wouldn't begrudge him or anyone else the good fortune of being born into wealth. That such a simple but ubiquitous invention could bring wealth to a family is what should happen when the system works. On the other hand, it seems a little ludicrous that royalties and licenses still flow several generations on.
Also keep in mind that all of IP is not some god-given right of inventive minds. It's a social contract in which society at large agrees to play by certain rules in order to spur innovation and investment. If one side abuses the other, they'll take their ball and go home--this is not the exclusive right of IP holders.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, performing a cover of a pop song for free at a concert is not an issue here either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that when people are listening to CDs or MP3s, they're not JUST listening to them. They're cleaning, playing video games, exercising, driving, or any one of a multitude of activities which don't require 100% of your ears. Hell, I've listened to music while working at a call center before. 99% of situations in which people would have music are not situations in which live music is applicable.
tl;dr: You trollin'.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming one country should forgo their culture because you said yours is better is not a very good argument. Maybe some people dont want to go out and prefer to stay home and listen to music, is there is something wrong with that? while i am not bashing your culture, i think its great if you have more community based entertainment...but USA is different for a variety of reasons and it would be easier to change the record companys then it would be to change an entire culture.
Its funny, most the time its Americans are being accused of the very same thing your doing.
Re: (Score:2)
This person's statements are total bunk. Pop music is very popular in a number of Asian countries and CD and DVD sales are huge too.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, look! These wannabees who live in a different place like music that I don't like!
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, I'm normally the first in line to accuse Americans of doing this but this guy is just being an asshole.
He's also wrong. I also live in Asia and plenty of people pirate, play video games, and do all the things that the west does. GP is talking complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Informative)
>>>performing a cover of a pop song for free at a concert is not an issue here either.
Yeah actually it is.
Public performance of copyrighted works, even legal recordings, is forbidden in the U.S. and the RIAA expects other countries to have similar laws.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you figure? I've never seen nor heard of any band getting sued for performing a cover of any song.
Re: (Score:3)
That case is about playing a copyrighted recording in a bar without a license for playing it in public. The case ancestor brought up is for a live performance of a song by a cover band, which is not a copyright violation.
By analogy, It's the difference between reading a book to kids at the library, and handing out photocopies of a book to kids at the library.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Informative)
odd that a [paid?] performance by a cover band (or worse, a tribute band) isn't a violation, yet if they sold a copy of that recording it certainly would be.
Both are violations. [bitlaw.com]
Most places pay ASCAP fees or whatever, so you can play covers there without having to ask permission first. But that's because the performance license is already paid for, not because not because a license isn't required.
Some places don't pay ASCAP fees, and also don't allow covers. For Example. [bazaarcafe.com]
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Informative)
cpu6502 blathered:
Public performance of copyrighted works, even legal recordings, is forbidden in the U.S. and the RIAA expects other countries to have similar laws.
Absolutely, totally, completely, and utterly incorrect.
Covering another songwriter's material is perfectly legal, whether you record it or perform it live - as long as the orginal recording has been in release for at least one calendar year. HOWEVER, if you cover a song, you MUST pay what's known as a "mechanical license fee" [wikipedia.org] of 9.10 cents per copy for songs 5 minutes or less or 1.75 cents per minute or fraction thereof, per copy for songs over 5 minutes to the author or authors of the material (fee schedule courtesy Harry Fox Agency [harryfox.com]). That royalty rate is set by Congress, per international treaties.
I understand that talking out your ass is a favorite /. exercise, but ... really?
Re: (Score:3)
You act like a teenager (lacking in manners). People above have cited numerous sources where people were FINED for not getting permission to perform a song (or play a CD) in a public venue. So NO I was not wrong. Nor was I deserving of being insulted by an adult who still acts like he's 12 years old.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Interesting)
The scenario, as put forth by the GP, is an issue for ASCAP and/or its international equivalents, not RIAA here.
And ASCAP is every bit as evil as the RIAA, if not more so. Got a jukebox in your bar? You have to pay ASCAP. Live band? Pay ASCAP. Your band only plays original or public domain works? Pay ASCAP anyway.
A bar owner here in Springfield, who hired bands that played only bluegrass and folk music (public domain) was taken to court by ASCAP for the fees they said he owed for the public domain music that was performed in his bar. He went bankrupt fighting the suit and his bar is now closed.
ASCAP is pure evil.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Informative)
The Canadian equivalent to ASCAP is so anal retentive about collecting their royalties that they PAY someone to attend every concert to make sure that only the songs on the play list are played, including encores. If anything other than the listed songs is played and the band itself didn't write the track, they get charged a fee.
I forget the name of the organization off hand, but I've known a few people over the years who worked for them monitoring concerts. From their perspective, they got to see the concert for free -- all they had to do was write down the title of each track as it was played.
A Band (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Band (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Band (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I am surprised that musical instrument manufacturers haven't attached EULAs and charges for every time you play a song with one of their instruments. If the RIAA likes playing their game with copyrights and screwing people, then Fender can play a game with them.
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly, I am surprised that musical instrument manufacturers haven't attached EULAs and charges for every time you play a song with one of their instruments. If the RIAA likes playing their game with copyrights and screwing people, then Fender can play a game with them.
I'm a little surprised you would address this argument to me!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/series-15-episode-2-sports-saloon-challenge-part-2 [topgear.com]
Re:A Band (Score:5, Funny)
No, those were just guys he picked up at Home Depot to redo his deck.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Insightful)
We can't do that here in the USA. They keep the noise^H^H^H^H^Hmusic in bars cranked up so loud you can't carry on a conversation. Not just bars. Even the local Starbucks plays their Muzak far too loud to talk quietly, or even read without being distracted.
But then if they turned down the music, you'd realize how little people actually have to say.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like it's time to build the B Ark. We just have to make sure that we sanitize our own telephones.
We did that ages ago (Score:5, Funny)
The B-Ark idea was done centuries ago, however it was decided two were needed to get rid of all the undesirables. One was named Australia, the other America.
There they would die an agonizing dead, removed from all culture essential to any human. Who knew the dregs would adapt to do without culture?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're seeing here really is more of a disconnect between the Government and the people it is suppose to represent. The american government at this point is pretty much entirely owned by various corporations and private interests that don't represent the thoughts and will of the american people.
I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do
Organize.
There are probably people near you who are organizing political events that work for real people rather than the powers that be. Seek them out.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
| What you're seeing here really is more of a disconnect between the Government and the people it is suppose to represent
Umm, you and I aren't the American people. We' don't have the money. We don't count. Real American people number less than 1 million, out of the 300 million inhabitants of America. The rest of us live in 'Murica, are a nuisance to real Americans, and are expendable.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty fed up with it and I want things to change but I really don't see what I can do, the FBI is busy trying to turn people into terrorists who are unhappy with the way the government is representing them. It doesn't matter if I vote for the right or left any politician I vote for is owned by someone, and most if not all the third party candidates are dubious or likely to be subverted the moment they become any more than 'third party' and or get seen as a threat to the status quo.
My favored solution is for grassroots organizations to stop banging their heads against the wall on issues that aren't going anywhere under the current system and focus on electoral reforms. 1) End political redistricting. 2) Enact some sort of acceptability voting (e.g. instant run-off), starting with local and state elections and building support for federal elections. 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).
I could add more (like somehow modifying the primary system, rotating which states vote first in presidential primaries, media ownership reforms), but those 3 I think deal with the bulk of what's preventing progress in terms of true representation of the people and resistance to corporate special interests. (1) reduces individual power consolidation and polarization, (2) reduces party power consolidation, polarization, and provides an opportunity for the public to express their preferences in more dimensions (this might make it easier to push back against the advancing security state), and (3) reduces the power of wealthy donors and corporations (who aren't people), or in the case of greater transparency at least allows us to know who is spending how much on what/whom.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Interesting)
All good points.
> 3) Enact campaign finance reforms of some sort (the biggest and most challenging issue, though one in which there are many avenues along which to make advances).
Spot on. Money needs to be *completely* removed from politics as a factor otherwise you end up with a death-spiral of who can outbid buying off the public.
The sensible way would to pool ALL donations, and split the balance every month.
I would add the other political reform would be is get rid of the parties, and focus on the *issues*, not this juvenile mudslinging crap that does nothing.
The root problem is most Americans don't give a shit, to actually DO anything to change the existing system.
--
The best part apart of the US is Capitalism. The worst part about the US, ironically, is also Capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
No offense, but every Asian country I've ever been to was loaded with CD's and DVD's of popular music and movies. Some, like China, were filled with mostly *bootleg* CD's and DVD's too (not that I can fault them for that, since so much is officially banned there). Just because you don't buy them (and will no doubt tell us all at great length why you don't even *OWN* a TV), doesn't mean that pop culture is somehow a plague solely limited to the U.S.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:5, Funny)
I live in Asia. Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing.
That sounds too much like socialism for the US.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So if 'Asians' only go out and listen to live bands as their entertainment why are CD and DVD so huge in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc.? Also, how do you explain away the vast amount of CD and DVD bootlegging in the region? Oh and lets not forget the more than a billion 'asians' who live in rural areas without the entertainment you list. Basically, you're full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, I see. This explains why there is so little piracy going on in Asian countries.
Re: (Score:2)
The US used to have live musicians at every club, a lot of restaurants, and anywhere else people congregate but once places could replace a live band they had to pay every night with a record they only had to pay for once that started disappearing.
Re:US, nobody gives a shit (Score:4, Informative)
Many are returning to that after the past few years of ASCAP/BMI sending out goons to fine bars and restaurants for daring to play the radio in their establishment. There are two bars I frequent that have evicted any jukebox or DJ and have live entertainment most of the time. It's a single guy with a guitar most of the time or a duo, but that is far better than recorded music.
Re: (Score:3)
That's interesting, since Japanese and South Koreans consume recorded music the way Slashdot users consumer cheesy-poofs.
I don't know where in Asia you live, but the music industry sells lots of product there.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Asia.
Well that narrows it down.
Our entertainment is going out with people and socializing.
Yeah, no one in the USA *ever* does that.
We like that.
Well bully for you!
Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.
http://us14.memecdn.com/Stop-Liking-What-I-Dont-Like_c_115105.jpg [memecdn.com]
In your opinion, of course, and there are CDs containing other things than pop music, just FYI. I just found a CD of 60s cartoon music and sound effects. I like to crack up the Speed Racer theme during traffic jams to totally mess with the other commuters.
Bands at the restaurants and bars occasionally play covers of those over here,
WOW!!!! o.O The NEVER happens here. Our bands just play scales and basic fingering exercises, or they go
Re: (Score:3)
Live music is better than listening to some stupid pop artists from your cd's.
I know, right? I just wonder why they don't ever put other types of music on CD. Seems like an untapped market.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Asia, it is not one country or one culture. Pakistan is a world apart from Japan. I Kazakhstan you are not even going to find a shop selling legit DVDs whereas in Japan you would not find a shop, openly, selling bootleg DVDs. I download shedloads. I also go out to watch live music and do lots of other stuff. Asia is a great place, much better than America, but it is not one place and the great thing is the diversity.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I called Microsoft to see about bulk licensing of office and I could not get anyone to tell me where I could pay. Supposedly the office that covers Mozambique is in Namibia but none of the emails or phone number work. The South African office refuses to license for
Re: (Score:2)