RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts 377
An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."
Change you can believe in (Score:4, Funny)
http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg [tinypic.com]
Found on this thread [tickerforum.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rough translation from a crotchety old caveman
Re:Change you can believe in (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends. There's good reason to be able to do some back-of-the-envelope tests of your theories - first order approximations to see if your idea makes sense. You won't be able to do that if you can't do basic arithmetic in your brain. Maybe at some point we'll be able to tie computers directly into our brains so that just thinking an equation provides us with the solution, but until that happens somebody who can do the math in his brain will have an edge. Indeed, unless you always whip out the calculator at the cash register, it could mean you're also an easier mark to rip off.
I'm reminded of a couple of chapters in Vernor Vinge's The Peace War where Wil Wachendon enters a chess tournament where he plays unassisted against computer-assisted chess players. He gets his butt whipped by the computer-assisted players. That changes his attitude regarding using computer assist to solve problems. However I think the reverse would be true as well, the computer-assisted players who had never learned to play without the help of a computer would also be at a disadvantage because some of the pattern recognition abilities required for chess would never have developed as strongly. Sure it's fiction, but good SF writers put some pretty strong reality checks on their fiction
Similarly, while you can use Mathematica to do analytical solving of integration problems or differential equations, if you haven't done some of it by hand then you won't have as good an intuitive feel for what the equations that you are manipulating actually mean. That could seriously limit your ability to make new discoveries. But yeah if your ambition is to work on a road crew, you probably won't need to know all of your times tables up to 12x12 by heart.
Re:Change you can believe in (Score:4, Interesting)
Under a first order approximation the earth is flat. There's no relativity or quantum mechanics.
Using a computer does not preclude understanding basic mathematics. However, *NOT* using a computer will make it impossible to have an understanding of a growing part of mathematics.
Try to get an understanding of non-linear dynamics without a computer. Chaotic systems. Not to mention that computers are being used in mathematical proofs of theorems. The four-color map was proved over 30 years ago, with computers, and still today no one has found a way to prove it by hand.
I don't mean that paper and pencil should be abolished, and doing math in the head is still an essential ability in everyday life. But computers are also essential, there can be no teaching of science and mathematics without computers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Using a computer does not preclude understanding basic mathematics."
Yes it does, IF, most especially, you have never learned to do basic math in the first place. A calculator can only g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She knew nothing of the theory or math. The assistance she needed was help plugging the formulas into her calculator, so she could use it to get the slope at certain points, and so forth. She said her teacher didn't explain any other way of solving the problem... she had memorized a rote set of steps. I d
Re: (Score:2)
Or more importantly, at what age did they start/stop teaching basic math and English and start teaching astrophysics and warp-field dynamics at the Star Fleet Academy? Is the basic 101-course "Deflector Dish Realignments"? Ah, the one thing I always puzzled at was how smart those young kids where on any of the Star Trek series. "What are they teaching them?" is what I always seemed to ask.
It leads one to ask, are the basics really that necessary? How humanly possible would it be to project a warp speed
change (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.
Damn.
Re:change (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.
Damn.
The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same. That's CHANGE! you can HOPE! for.
Re:change (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that many people in American (or the world for that matter) thought that 'change you can believe in' meant exactly what you imply that it seems to mean. I think the only real change we got was the name plate on the desk in the oval office.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So you're apparently fine with this decision, I take it?
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, my comment would have been more appro to one of HordeKing's, you were the end of the thread and I simply ascribed to you his words. I apologize. Regardless of whether the words are directed at you specifically or not through, the issue still stands.
I've heard more bullshit from the "anti-Obama" group in the past month about "Ha! Ha! This is 'change'..." every time he makes a decision that could even be mildly thought of as controversial than I think I heard during the entire campaign.
News f
Re:change (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.
Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.
The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.
Re:change (Score:5, Insightful)
If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.
It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.
I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we spent the last 8 years being lectured daily on how dissent is most certainly *not* patriotic; and is even likely to be treasonous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, *I* could see it coming, and all I did was read part of one of Obama's books, and become aware of his political history (I didn't see any of his speeches/debates). That made him clear enough to me that none of his actions as President has surprised me in the least, and I expect there will be a lot more rude "surprises" in store for those who believed that "change" meant "change as WE want it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:change (Score:5, Insightful)
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.
I'm not really for or against the man yet as I haven't seen any real results beyond a feel good cult mentality sweeping the nation but I do like the stopping of torture so I'm hopeful. All that said, you're still being fed and likely always will be one mans belief system rather than an adherence to a small set of immutable principles that govern all equally, which was the original goal of this little experiment we call America. Government has become far to profitable for that to return any time soon so prepare to have your beliefs determined for you and disagreement shouted down from both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws the prohibit murder force a belief system that opposes flat-out Laissez-Fair Darwinian survival of the fittest. Should laws prohibiting murder be stricken, since they force a belief system on the population
Re: (Score:3)
Inclusive means including people. Not catering to some to the point of excluding others. Just because the tide is in the opposite direction doesn't mean it isn't at play.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the last month or so, much had changed.
The US's focus on science is back,
How about that manned space program?
forcing a religion on people via the government is gone
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,
Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.
a renewed focus on alternate energies
No argument.
and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.
I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.
Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Sociali
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights [wikipedia.org].
Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 [tickerforum.org] state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights [wikipedia.org].
Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 [tickerforum.org] state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?
I've been hearing far more rumblings of secession the past two years, as well. And this time it isn't confined to the South.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?
This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "
Re: (Score:2)
It really pisses me off that the NWO tinfoil hat people are looking less and less crazy all the time
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh my FUCKING god. Is that the best FUD you could have come up wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a quote
"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child.
And how does the state decide what is in the best interests of the child? A lot of the social workers I've heard of (a personal friend who got a visit one time, and I would consider her to be an excellent mother) are pretty gung ho and get a lot of leeway to simply remove children preemptively, only returning them after a lengthy fight.
The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
So, aside from the obvious protections, this document does a poor job defining any limits. It ends up being State Vs Parents Vs the Child. A three-way fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, in the future, make you links larger then the number 7.
Your point is sort of too important to miss.
Re: (Score:2)
GW did some terrible things with our freedom
Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait [whitehouse.gov]......
why else would we have the 10th amendment?
Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait [whitehouse.gov]......
GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. QED.
why else would we have the 10th amendment?
Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?
They haven't. Libertarians are pretty tough on that one, but they constitute an ideology, rather than a political party. The states better start taking it seriously again. It may already be too late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you retarded? Seriously? Because I don't want to waste my time typing if you're physically incapable of understanding concepts above a 3rd grade level.
Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.
Secular == Absence of religion. Absence of religion is not a religion. Atheism arguably is, but secularism is not. It does not have rituals, beliefs, and it does not deal with the metaphysical. It simply states that religion should exist separately from government, which i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ROFLMAO (Score:2, Insightful)
Talk is cheap, actions haven't followed all the hype.
Lets see, Iran is now openly declaring we have to respect their nuclear right. North Korea is again launching test rockets towards Japan.
Yeah, looks like newly found world wide respect.
Throw in, the French laughing at our bail out ideas... I have seen the manure recently (read: two nominees toasted, two more that should have been, and the labor one is on her way out already) but I haven't seen the flowers or unicorns. Instead of substance we get inter
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You think all those minor things amount to all that?
I mean seriously, do you think funding abortions now somehow stops the religious right? Do you think that an couple of executive orders.....
Wow.. I think you sense of what was screwed up in this country was blown way out of portion and your just a crazy kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Better light globally? You mean by pissing off all our trade allies by trying to restrict this "economic stimulus" spending to only American products?
Re: (Score:2)
giving out money "without preconditions"
Ah yes, the solution to a recession: government giving out "free" money. Wonder who pays for that? France?
There may be some good come of this (Score:5, Insightful)
With those who've sold their souls in those positions, maybe they'll make things so bad that the public sits up and takes notice and demands reform to our seriously dysfunctional copyright laws.
So I, for one, welcome our new plutocratic overlords. At least, I think I do...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"despite everything the world continues to turn in its old corrupt way. And the same idea may now be crossing the minds of those who believed that electing Democrats into power would mean cleaner government, world peace and a high moral tone only to realize that maybe Washington is like a softdrink machine which dispenses orange bug juice no matter what buttons you push."
-- Richard Fernandez [pajamasmedia.com]
tag these "messiah" please (Score:3, Insightful)
It's perfect.
Prior to him getting into office, Slashdot was full of Obama worshippers. They really thought he was going to be a president for nerds. Suckers!
BTW, since this post surely hits too close to home for many, please keep an eye on the moderation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I'm a big Obama fan, but I never once believed he'd be an improvement on copyright. There are no friends in Congress on that issue. On the one hand, you have Democrats with strong ties to Hollywood. On the other hand, you have Republicans who are just pro-big business in general, and IP is one of America's biggest export industries. No one gives a crap about the average citizen on this issue.
Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
So the lawyers brought these lawsuits not the RIAA. I didn't realize Donald Verrilli brought these lawsuits to protect his copyrights. I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
But you need to look at the lawyers behavior in doing their job.
Look for NewYorkCountryLawyer to reply in this thread. He put's it better then I do.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
It's all about influence. The more influence you can inject into a government, the more you'll see laws that favor your business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because Verrilli had no choice but to file those lawsuits, right? Or is it because being a copyright lawyer was his only way to attain a college education?
Re: (Score:2)
And being a mafia hitman was the only way Sammy the Bull could attain a new Camero, but it's still no excuse.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right that its the RIAA not the lawyer, but it still marks him an opportunistic worm that has no scruples.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
These lawyers have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible.
The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a key difference here, mate:
Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.
RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us?
Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases.
RIAA: Okay then.
Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.
I love it when somebody thinks our all volunteer military is somehow full of pitiful victims who are being railroaded into shooting innocent women and babies by their evil overlords. What a load of tripe!
When you join the U.S. military, you take an oath with full understanding of the meaning of that oath. If you don't, you're a fool who deserves whatever you get, but that's a separate argument. If people join because they think they'll get free travel, pretty uniforms, college tuition, and so forth, they
Re: (Score:2)
Woah...if this was directed at me, that isn't what I was insinuating at all.
I was just saying the GP's comparison of a lawyer to a soldier is invalid, because lawyers have a LOT more choice in which cases they take.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
There's a key difference here, mate:
Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.
You are incorrect here.. very very incorrect. If you are ordered to do something or go somewhere, and you disobey.. you get a court martial.
You sign up for the military, you do as you are told till your obligation ends, then you get out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you're still a lawyer. If you get dishonorably discharged from the military for refusing an assignment, you're no longer a soldier.
And in many situations, lawyers are able to pick and choose cases...much moreso than a soldier is able to pick and choose assignments.
I'm not saying all the RIAA lawyers are heartless bastards out to get innocent people. What I'm saying is the comparison to a soldier isn't really valid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because lawyers don't work in corporations, they work in firms. And these people are all senior partners.
Only they are to blame (Score:2, Interesting)
People can dress it up all they want to, but when you pick up a gun and follow orders it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for what you do. I know the majority of the people in the world just plain worship violentism, but that doesn't change a thing. There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.
And even the law isn't so blind as to be able to be otherwise. Invading Iraq was immoral and illegal and ALL of the people who participated in it, from top to bottom, committed a crime. Pure and sim
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only they are to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.
If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?
Your lofty rhetoric doesn't stand up to real-world scenarios, I'm afraid.
The answer is none to simple (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the way I see it, your response is perfectly understandable, but it fails to make sense when you take a more holistic view of things.
One cannot effectively defend oneself unless one is PREPARED to defend oneself. That might at first glance seem to be merely a sensible thing to do, be prepared (hey I was even a Boy Scout once, lol).
The problem is that being prepared consists of being armed. Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else. Thus they must arm themselves. Thus ev
arms make people polite (Score:3, Insightful)
At a shooting range or gun-related event, people are really nice to each other. They don't get in fights.
At the international level, notice how there has never been war between a pair of countries with nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that people who sign up for the armed services make a years long commitment to serving and defending their country. That meas that even if they don't agree with the current mission they made a commitment follow legal orders to the best of their abilities.
The RIAA lawyers, on the other hand, signed up to make money. They were asked to do something that 95% of people out there would identify as ethically wrong (or at least questionable) and yet they didn't walk away. They have a choice in the matter
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the soldier analogy is terrible. Soldiers get arrested for going AWOL. There are a few options to get out of service on a moral basis, but I imagine they're difficult to pull off (interesting approach taken by this guy [wri-irg.org]). There also also repercussions for doing so. Lawyers just turn a client down and don't get paid.
This is not necessarily bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pattern recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With two lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
as President and Vice President, what do you expect? Perhaps all of that Hollywood support from actors and musicians bought something from Obama and Biden.....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bush 43? Nope ...
Clinton? Yep
Bush 41? Nope
Reagan? Nope
Carter? Nope
Re:With two lawyers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:With two lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a more recent precedent for engineer-as-leader:
Hu JinTao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.
[citation needed]
If you start at Washington, about 3/4 of our presidents were ex-military (31 according to wikipedia).
Most recently, Carter was ex-Navy. Reagan was an actor. Bush #1 was ex-Navy. Clinton studied law but was basically a career politician. Bush #2 was (kind of) ex-National Guard and then an oil man. Yes, Obama studied & taught law.
When you say "pretty much every President...", who exactly are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Obama can be characterized as a career politician as well.
OIW (Score:2)
Obama is wonderful! He's taking RIAA's and BSA's lawyers away from them and giving them productive jobs, and now the RIAA and BSA won't be able to sue helpless people!
-Loyal
Re:OIW (Score:4, Insightful)
The scary part is that we have more to lose from the government then we do from the BSA and RIAA. This is sort of scary when you consider the type of firepower the government is stocking up on. I mean people who have taken single mothers and blind grandmas to court and dragged them around quite capably. Now we can rest assured that knowing that the government now has people skilled in this area. It sort of balances the power out that has been lopsided towards the people for the last 230 plus years.
Now that's change we can believe in. HOPE and all that shit.
So, what you're saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, what you're saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Another excellent decision from Him (Score:4, Funny)
If our Dear Leader likes these picks, then I like them too.
From all of the negative comments I read, I can only conclude that pirates are racist.
As a Brit... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm currently more interested in this as a real test of the Obama administration's sincerity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870049.stm [bbc.co.uk]
If Obama can't come forward and say to us "Yes, your courts can now open that evidence" then it is evidence of one important fact. Obama is a fraud.
He cannot possibly on one hand talk of bringing those guilty of torture to justice and then prevent us doing so on the other.
I think that it's actually our government that's playing up here because they do not want it coming out in the open that our security services were equally guilty of assisting in torture, but all Obama needs to do to make that clear is come forward. By the sounds of it our foreign secretary hasn't even approached the Obama administration yet and if that's true then it's a local issue, if that's not true then the world has bigger problems.
If he can't then yeah, I think he's a fraud and yeah, I think these RIAA appointments possibly are more than just a case of hiring experienced lawyers (i.e. did they work for the RIAA because they believed the cause, or for the money?).
I truly hope it's not too much to ask to at last have an important world leader that can walk the walk not just talk the talk.
Yeah, things are really going to change (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only is the RIAA now apparently synonymous with the Justice Department, but we STILL have renditions and we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us (and by extension of the same logic essentially ignore any law or any provision of the Constitution by the same argument).
It was unacceptable when GWB did it, and it is STILL unacceptable and it is still the responsibility of the citizens of the US to put a stop to it.
But hey, Barak Obama is a great guy, we don't need civil liberties.
Fools.
See the forest, not the trees (Score:5, Interesting)
When grasping the fact that the copyright barons are taking over the Justice Dept, remember that there is fundamental shift happening in the media industry.
The media industry is basically a 20th-century phenomenon. The technology of the 20th-century created a structure where the best musicians of the world sold their musical in the format of fixed recordings through a centralized company. The recordings are the product. Under this structure, the musicians (and actors) become stars or mini-deities.
The main idea here is that the recordings (of music or filmed performance) are the product that is sold on concept of a fixed price regardless of the 'artist' or the quality of the performance. The unnoticed aspect of this model is that there is NO interactivity between the recordings and the people who buy the recordings.
The 21st-century entertainment media model is one of increasing interactivity between the recording and the person buying the recording. Starting with crude television-based video games in the 1980s, there has been a strong increase in the amount of interaction between the person 'consuming' the entertainment product and the entertainment product itself. The RIAA/MPAA can't reproduce this interactivity, neither can the companies who create fixed product (audio CDs, films). But this interactivity is becoming the key aspect of the entertainment experience that people (especially young people in their teens and twenties) are willing to pay for.
The more that the RIAA/MPAA are successful at forcing people away from obtaining low-cost fixed recordings, the more that they drive their core consumer base into interactive entertainment products that they don't control. They don't seem to realize this, primarily because the RIAA/MPAA companies are stuck in the 20th-century. The Slashdaughters generally grasp this concept, but they are mostly young and technologically oriented. They are the demographic most likely to copy RIAA/MPAA product, this is true, but they are also the first people to move beyond RIAA/MPAA product to meet their entertainment needs.
As the economic structure of the 20th-century fades, then so will the influence (and bullying ability) of the global media companies. As long as the RIAA/MPAA lawyers don't understand or control the emerging fields of interactive entertainment, it doesn't matter if the control the US Justice Department. They will remain 20th-century wolves chasing 20th-century sheep.
Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama (Score:2)
Him being VP and the possibility that Obama my be in the frame of mind on these issues made it very hard to vote for this team. Just the thought that Biden is a heartbeat from being President gave and still gives me nightmares.
wtf? (Score:2)
This isn't change!
Very interesting (Score:2)
Years of pointing out the Orrin Hatch is the most evil Senator in Washington and all this time Biden was his evil twin? Of course now that the Dems are in charge everyone thought there was really going to be a change? *snerk, giggle, guffaw*
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes and make all media belong to the glorious state!!!
And make it high treason to use any state owned media unless you get permission from the commissar and pay a usage fee to the state.
YAY!!!!! Where do I sign up!!!
Re:Not a bad move IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
All art, as all science and engineering, is built on the achievements of those who came before. Engineers have it easy, as patents only last 20 years and I'm told are often easy to get around.
Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life. I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years.
This AP story illustrates the folly of our system. [yahoo.com]
There is a comparison of the two works, and it's obvious (to me as a content creator anyway) that the Fairey image is fair use.
As to your incredibly ignorant remark, it is exactly like the guy who said "Looks like the days of drunken bums is over" when they passed prohibition. Copyright law is getting worse and worse, and people are responding by ignoring it, just as they ignored laws against alcohol. It WILL reach a breaking point.
I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Just what creative element is AP claiming copyright of? The camera angle? Nothing else had anything to do with AP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.
While I agreed with everything else you said, I don't think this argument is correct.
Copyright should be based on a fixed duration, such as 25 years, perhaps with a registration or notice requirement for it to take effect, and perhaps with a low-cost renewal option (for perhaps another 25 years).
Copyright should not be based on the author's life, because that A) drastically lowers the value of late-life art compared to early-life art, and B) makes it economically viable to murder artists whose works you wou
Re:Not a bad move IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
Patently false, you cannot legally build on someones work without paying for the privilege.
It isn't a privelege, it is a RIGHT spelled out in Article 2 Section 8. Copyrights are only there to "promote the useful arts". What I write or paint or record does NOT belong to me, it belongs to humanity. It is supposed to go into the public domain after a "limited time". All I own is a "limited time" monopoly on its distribution, nothing more.
Besides the longer I can keep some hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting my work the better as far as I'm concerned..
An archetect might say the same thing, but I have the right to do anything I want to a property I own. And we ALL own ALL intelectual "property". If you don't want some "hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting" your work, don't do it to begin with.
Art isn't really where the innovations come from anyway
Despite the fact that your statement there has no bearing on the argument, I should remind you that archetecture IS art. You could not build a skyscraper in 1800.
if you think that copyright is stopping progress you are in the wrong business
Copyright itself is a very useful structure when properly implimented, and does indeed promote the arts. When it is poorly implimented, as it is now, it is a hindrance to progress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the artist's lifespan should have anything to do with it. All music, movies, books, etc that were created when I was young and Hendrix was alive should be in the public domain by now whether their artists are dead or not.
Patents only last 20 years, why should copyright be any different? I think 20 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. With a few exceptions (Asimov's Foundation being the most notable I can think of), if you haven't made a profit off it in 20 years you're not likely to in