backtop


Print 143 comment(s) - last by weiwei1.. on Jul 11 at 9:12 PM


The White House and its big media sponsors have "reached out" to ISPs telling them to join them in their campaign to crush the copyright rebellion or face the consequences.  (Source: LucasFilm)

Under the new plan, after six "strikes", users will have their internet connections severely hindered.  (Source: Ed Zurga/Associated Press)

Media lobbyists have poured tens of millions of dollars into the campaigns of active elected officials, now those payments have finally paid off.  (Source: Google Images)
Under threat, ISPs begrudgingly accept their conscriptment

Copyright enforcement is a big headache.  It's a big headache for the media industry as it's a money-losing proposition.  It's a big headache for the U.S. Senate who had nearly 10 percent of their collective campaign expenses paid by media lobbyists.  

It seems neither the federal government or big media wants to pay themselves for the massive cost of copyright enforcement, so they've cooked up a clever plan -- force internet service providers to become copyright cops and police the internet.

I. Welcome to New America, Where ISPs are Copyright Cops

Under the new "six strikes" plan, AT&T, Inc. (T), Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ), Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), Cablevision Systems Corp. (CVC), and Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) vow to protect customers’ privacy, but will forward messages they receive about infringing IPs to subscribers.  After five or six of these "strikes", subscribers may face penalties, such as "temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter."

The plan was inspired by similar plans proposed in other nations (most of which didn't pass) [1][2][3].

The plan is reportedly the work of several powerful players, led by the Obama administration.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) is also thought to have played a key role in bringing the parties together for talks.

Victoria Espinel, US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, cheers the plan commenting, "The joining of Internet service providers and entertainment companies in a cooperative effort to combat online infringement can further this goal [of supporting jobs and exports] and we commend them for reaching this agreement. We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy."

She says conscripting ISPs to act as copyright police is the key to "win the future".

II. Big Media Gets What It Paid For

There's little secret that it's also the key to "win the future [election]" for many politicians.  Media lobbyists have been among the most generous in terms of campaign contributions, and contributions, of course, typically equal election in federal politics.  Of course, without results, media's generous sponsorship of the elected officials (which includes 10 percent of all active Senators' estimated campaign costs) might dry up.

While media lobbyists wish the U.S. government would agree to imprison filesharers, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry indicates it still feels got what it paid for though. In a statement, the organization writes, "[This] agreement also sends an important signal internationally. It adds to the momentum already created by initiatives such as graduated response and blocking of infringing websites in other countries, and is the latest mark of recognition that ISP cooperation is the most effective way of addressing online piracy."

The question of how the ISPs will enforce the plan is a tricky one, though.  As monitoring users and contacting them will likely be expensive, many believe ISPs will turn to third parties to police their connections.  However, that brings questions about possible data loss or abuse of fair use content.

And of course not all ISPs are onboard with the plan.  And if the copyright holders push to hard there's no telling if some of the supporting ISPs will rebel.

That said the White House reportedly is heavily leveraging the threat of legislation to coerce the ISPs into begrudgingly sticking to the policing scheme.  After all, if the free market isn't willing to do it on its own, the Obama administration would be more than happy to force them to via federal mandate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

can't get it through Congress...
By dgingeri on 7/8/2011 12:15:04 PM , Rating: 4
...use executive order to screw the people over. This is so like the Obama administration. If they can't get it through Congress, which means the people don't like it, then he'll order it to get done rather than allow the people to object. this needs to stop. Vote this power hungry bastard out of office in 2012.




RE: can't get it through Congress...
By Invane on 7/8/2011 12:35:53 PM , Rating: 5
I certainly plan to. That way I have a new power hungry corporate sock puppet in office. It will be SO much better.

Our political system is pretty much fubarred at this point I'm afraid.


By Booty on 7/8/2011 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. If anyone thinks that it matters whether it's a Democrat or Republican in office they're fooling yourself... especially when it comes to issues like this. Focus your energy on hating the way the recording and motion picture industries do business or our political system in general, but don't believe for a second that the next official you vote for isn't just as corrupt as the last one.

Me - I illegally download movies and music. It's how I decide what's worth buying. You try on clothes before you buy them, right? I don't go to movies in the theater much because they mostly suck (in relation to the ticket price), so it's either Netflix, Redbox, or illegal downloads to determine what's worth adding to my collection.

Music's not much better - at least the radio is free, but most of what they play is garbage. I've bought 100's of CDs that I pirated first and would have never heard of through traditional sources.

All that said, what I do is illegal and if those means of procurement are taken away from me I can't argue with that. I (and everyone else) will just find other ways of sharing media - eventually the entertainment industry will realize they're fighting a losing battle and be forced to adapt.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By kraeper on 7/8/2011 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Vote this power hungry bastard out of office in 2012.


I hope we will. However, only power-hungry bastards will be on the ballot. We'll be replacing one power-hungry bastard with another, merely shifting the ideals they push.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By dgingeri on 7/8/2011 4:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
If Mitt Romney gets the GOP candidacy, I may have to vote for Obama this time around. I do not like him at all. If it's anyone else, they'd do better than Obama, at least for those of us not collecting welfare.


By Gzus666 on 7/8/2011 4:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
AHHHHHH, no you don't, you can vote for neither of them you lousy puppet.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By mindless1 on 7/9/2011 5:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
Actually that's a load of nonsense. What went wrong was we elected a dubious character who was too young, McCain by nature would have taken a far more even handed approach regardless of which political party he represented.

Old people may think slower, but when making important decisions that is a good thing until they're at the point of dementia. Palin killed his chances though, another example of people who are or at least act, too young to be entrusted with high ranking political office.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 5:48:24 PM , Rating: 1
Vice President is a very overatted position. I mean, who can actually name me something Bidden has actually done?

The media coverage of Palin killed it for McCain, not Palin herself. Pretty much anybody can be Vice President, just look at previous ones.

McCain didn't do himself any favors either. Yes, he would have been a better President. But his platform did nothing to excite the Conservative Republican base and get those votes. He was too moderate.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By DaveSylvia on 7/10/2011 1:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's a problem with being too moderate??? Maybe, just maybe, people are too conservative or too liberal.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2011 1:36:17 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone says they want a moderate, but they really don't. Bush was a moderate, and both sides bashed him.

McCain was running as a Republican, but then he stupidly and vocally supported things like amnesty for illegals. What the hell? No Conservatives are going to get behind a guy like that.

You HAVE to excite your base if you want to get elected. I'm not even sure McCain understood what his base even was.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By mindless1 on 7/10/2011 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
True it was the media coverage, but it was her character that polarized the media, seeing an easy target to fill their news void.

It does become a concern though if you elect someone old enough that they are approaching if not exceeding average lifespan... he's 75 yo, did people want to take a chance Palin would succeed him as President due to this?

McCain would have had a much better chance if his running mate were unnoteworthy in every possible way.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2011 9:33:05 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah I've heard the arguments. It always amuses me when Democrats view themselves as more diverse and open minded, then bash a candidate for his age and participate in sexist attacks against his vice Presidential choice.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't exactly jazzed about the combo. But so much of the coverage of Palin and McCain was just downright mean spirited and below the belt. Dragging her family into it like that? Just despicable.

Looks like another woman right run for the whole enchilada this time for the Republicans. Can't wait to see how the "civil rights" minded equal opportunity Democrats react to that...


By yomamafor1 on 7/11/2011 6:31:19 AM , Rating: 3
Sexist attack? HA! Did you forget that Hillary Clinton was also running for a presidential bid back in 2008? Did the so called "liberals" attack her because of her sex?

If you put down your conservatively tinted glasses, you'd realize that every time Palin speaks, her rating drops. This has nothing to do with any sexist attack. Palin is her own worst enemy, period.

Oh yeh, before you whine about how Palin's family was thoroughly examined, perhaps you should also remember how some people ferociously and persistently attacked Obama's birth.

As for Bachman, she is her own worst enemy, again. The "liberals" don't need to attack her. She will drop by her words.


RE: can't get it through Congress...
By rttrek on 7/11/2011 6:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vice President is a very overatted position.

Yes, we've had far too many rats in that office! Never forget, that person is just a single heartbeat away from becoming El Supremo Sock Puppet of the world!

A similar quote was said about Teddy Roosevelt, when he was buried in a safe, powerless place as VP. Shortly afterwards President McKinley was assassinated and TR was soon digging a trench in Panama with a big stick. :)


By ipay on 7/8/2011 12:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
Copyright law needs major reform, not more aggressive enforcement. The media companies are paying off politicians to siphon away our rights. Whatever happened to the public domain?




By xyzCoder on 7/8/2011 2:47:46 PM , Rating: 4
Puh-leeze. The number of dummy trolls here is tiring.

The dude you replied to didn't say anything about stealing movies - he talked about copyright reform. In other words: fixing the larger problem, fixing the underlying causes that encourage the vast majority to pirate.

Here's a hint: it's not just people being cheap b@st@rds. For example: I'm disgusted by the fact that digital copies for media (where I'm even paying for my own internet connection to the vendor) cost as much or more than hard-copy items (CDs, books, etc.). The douche bags argue that you somehow have 'more' when you have less (less audio quality, and certainly far less in real costs - there's not even a need for inventory when it's digital!).

As another example: I make all sorts of individual efforts to minimize my impact on the environment. Part of that is not buying physical copies of media - too bad that a lot of stuff out there is only available in physical form. Perhaps that's another valid reason for fighting back against what these pigs would rather have?

And let's be clear about who RIAA & co are talking for: it's the interests of the middlemen who are making vast fortunes with boy-bands and oligarchies that strangle access to the markets for the small content creator. You play by their rules, pay their exorbitant percentages, or you are locked out, as much as possible.

So yeah: these pukes can go screw themselves. It's not about protecting the interests of the content creators (whom the content consumers love and need) - it's about protecting the interests of the mega corporations that profiteer from the current system.


By kchase731 on 7/8/2011 7:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
i was about to rant but you did a perfectly accurate job of doing it for me. i dont steal meadia. i just dont need my ISP "assuming" more cost to watch me only to have my bill go up.

all for the cause of the crazy number of people that profit off one persons (or a groups) creative efforts. and dont get me wrong those people do create, and should profit...but the middle men are out of control


By kraeper on 7/8/2011 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 1
I hate the **AA as much as the next guy, but 2/3 of the original post was
quote:
The media companies are paying off politicians to siphon away our rights. Whatever happened to the public domain?
.. in response to an article about politicians creating framework to punish those who download stuff, which is what I replied to. Public Domain still exists, just not for anything that this law is talking about.

I agree that copyright law needs work, but everything you cited is about market conditions and monopolies, not copyright law. This is a stupid law to serve greedier bastards than most, but doesn't have anything to do with copyright law reform, unless you think there should be no copyrights at all.


By xyzCoder on 7/9/2011 11:43:50 AM , Rating: 4
Copyright is a large part of the framework that these middlemen operate in and it has been abused and manipulated as much as the rest.

As a simple example, consider how every 10-20 years the powers that be convene and push through legislation that extends copyright for old stuff by another 10-20 years...

They won't let anything go to the public domain, even though that's how copyright is supposed to work. Clearly, any such occurrence means reduced revenues and control for the content owners, so they fight it tooth and nail.

'Copyright reform' doesn't mean no copyright - if anything, you could add the implicit 'smart copyright reform' in there, to maybe help your understanding.

Anyhow, you likely are a troll since you keep inventing things (eg: that the other poster implied encouraging piracy/stealing or that he implied "no copyrights at all"). As such, I probably won't reply again.


By kmmatney on 7/10/2011 1:15:40 AM , Rating: 4
The "Happy Birthday" copyright has always cracked me up. I had always wondered by restaurants never sing Happy Birthday - because they are not allowed to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You


By Solandri on 7/8/2011 9:06:07 PM , Rating: 4
You have it backwards. Stronger copyright enforcement is a characteristic of the Democratic party. The movie, TV, and record companies have always been staunch supporters of the Democrats, not Republicans.

The best chance for copyright reform was under Republican control of government. OTOH the best chance for banking/finance reform was under Democrat control of government. Decisions, decisions...


By Solandri on 7/9/2011 3:05:16 PM , Rating: 3
Surely you're not citing a single Hollywood entertainer turned politician as evidence of political affiliation?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?in...

Like I said, the Democratic party is in Hollywood's back pocket, just as the Republican party is in Big Business' back pocket.


By superstition on 7/9/2011 5:50:50 PM , Rating: 3
"Surely you're not citing a single Hollywood entertainer turned politician as evidence of political affiliation?"

Of course I am. Sonny Bono is an outstanding example of a Republican perspective on copyright.

His legislation lives on (as will copyright terms)!

"...Democratic party is in Hollywood's back pocket, just as the Republican party is in Big Business' back pocket."

False dichotomy. Moreover, wasting time on partisanship makes these guys 'n gals laugh all the way to the vault.

Who supported Gramm-Leach-Bliley? Who owns that? The Texas Republicans who created it? Bill Clinton who signed it? Who cares?

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter that Sonny Bono was a Republican, beyond contradicting the false assertion that the Republican party is a safer bet when it comes to abusive copyright and such.


By rika13 on 7/9/2011 3:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the banking reforms that cost Chase so much that I was forced to cancel my formerly free account because it rose to $12/mo (getting a job in Illinois?, lmao) because they couldn't make money off dumbasses who overdraft their accounts?

The banks heavily donated to Obama for President. After biting the hand that feeds, his personal friends running Chase are now giving him the cold shoulder.

The banking reforms did permanent harm to the banks and the economy.


By abhaxus on 7/9/2011 11:24:46 PM , Rating: 5
Because the banks were always looking out for your interests, right? Not the same banks that were deliberately changing the order of posted transactions to swindle as many overdraft fees as they could from checking customers. Search "Fifth Third Overdraft Settlement" on google. Heaven forbid that the new laws allow people to opt out of the "overdraft protection" that made things like that possible.

Quite frankly, I don't see how doing "permanent harm" to bad banking practices is a bad thing. If they charge people for a checking account, who cares? I'd rather pay 12 bucks a month for a checking account than run the risk of some banking exec coming up with a new way to profit off people's misfortune.


By kmmatney on 7/10/2011 1:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well - I like this better than a crazy $50K lawsuit that the RIAA might do.


By drewzijfn8938 on 7/11/2011 12:54:17 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, I never realized that forcing restrictions and regulations onto private industries (ISPs) was a Republican thing to do. Guess I'll have to re-read that part of the handbook.


The New America
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2011 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 1
Where the government threatens companies to do their bidding.

Hope you Obama idiots are happy. But the media will largely ignore this.




RE: The New America
By Iaiken on 7/8/2011 2:05:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hope you Obama idiots are happy.


If you don't think the Republicans would have done the exact same thing then you're kidding yourself. Look at how the vote went down. The media lobbyists bought both sides and both sides voted accordingly.


RE: The New America
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2011 5:24:46 PM , Rating: 3
What vote? There was no legislation here.


RE: The New America
By Gzus666 on 7/8/2011 3:32:50 PM , Rating: 4
DUH, my name is FIT and I think Democrats are responsible for everything. I also think the president has more power than he actually does.

Anyway, I have no idea how you still propagate this stupidity. Do you think you win something if Republicans get back into office? They will also screw you, cause it is a money making scheme, not a government at this point. People like you and the exact opposite ruin things for everyone. Too busy bickering over stupidity of winning, this isn't a sports team, it is the damn country, stop it.

It is that "our team" mentality that ruins this country more than anything. I realize that sports have taught people to think everything is a game and you gotta win. Well guess what chief, we are all losing. You aren't on the Republican's team, they don't care about you and just want your money, accept it. You won't win with either side, they will both screw you, just let them both go and vote all of them out.


RE: The New America
By rdawise on 7/8/2011 5:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
You trying to argue logic to Fit, this will never work. It's like talking logic to Reclaimer....


RE: The New America
By KCjoker on 7/8/2011 6:42:11 PM , Rating: 4
It's funny how when Bush was in office it was only the Repubs fault. Now that Obama is in office and he's doing similar and often worse things the mantra is it's both parties fault.


RE: The New America
By Gzus666 on 7/8/2011 8:06:34 PM , Rating: 4
It's more funny how you make up things that never happened and no matter what stance I take other than "Obama is a muslim", I have to listen to some halfwit defend something insane. Once again, I don't care what stupid party you root for, they both have and will continue to fail us.

I don't know you, but I hate you. Not so much because you are some person, but because to me you and those like you represent the ideal that destroyed something I really like, a country built on freedom. Constant bickering over nothing, team rah rahs and the stupidity that is voting against the people you dislike instead of voting for those who would actually do a good job.

This country will fall, much like any empire in history. It is a shame and we can only blame extremists on both sides. But blame won't solve anything, it will just continue to spiral till the average moron doesn't have anymore Coors Light and Sports Center, then the revolt begins and a sociopath will take the lead and control the usual sheep.

The average person pines to be controlled and told what to do. They will tell you they want freedom, but they really just want a mom for their whole life telling them everything is OK, they are special and they deserve the world. Looks like they got what they want all while lining the pockets of the herders.


RE: The New America
By mindless1 on 7/9/2011 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not you disagree with someone, your entire credibility is lost when you start out trolling. Making points that (seem, in your mind) may be true, doesn't take away from the issue of selectively considering only the points you'd like to use to prop up your troll post.

If you weren't so upset by what other people wrote, perhaps you would see this, that you are doing the very thing you argue against, trying to WIN by troll arguing instead of presenting a balanced assessment... probably because you have no qualms about people being screwed so long as it's the other guy and you benefit.


RE: The New America
By mikeyD95125 on 7/8/2011 8:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its where Corporations (or any other concentrated sources of economic or political power) influence the government to threaten companies to do their bidding.

Welcome to Corporate Fascism. And yes the media will ignore this, because big media firms are the ones paying for this kind of policy.


Welcome to democracy in the 21st century!
By thisisaname on 7/8/2011 1:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where everything can be bought in congress. I'll take anti-piracy legislation with a side of fries and a coke.




RE: Welcome to democracy in the 21st century!
By lightsire on 7/8/2011 4:36:51 PM , Rating: 3
We're a republic and not a democracy so you should be writing a letter to your elected representative to express how you feel as agreed upon living within a republic.


RE: Welcome to democracy in the 21st century!
By JKflipflop98 on 7/9/2011 7:27:35 AM , Rating: 3
Me elected official doesn't care because I can't provide him with a $7M tip.


By Omega215D on 7/9/2011 10:56:18 AM , Rating: 4
Which is why, in the worst case scenario, the only tip that "representative" deserves is one that of a bullet.

A government is supposed to be afraid of its citizens.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/10/2011 12:25:18 PM , Rating: 4
Well this will simply mean that piracy will start being encrypted end to end even on the smallest scale. It really is a minor annoyance for pirates, and one they have planned for years ago. Idiots.


Here's what you do...
By Motoman on 7/8/2011 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 3
1. If you have a choice in your area, change ISPs and inform the one you left why you did so - because they supported this.

2. Contact your legislators and let them know they won't be getting your vote if they condone this.

3. If you have no other choices for ISPs, let your legislators know that you are unhappy with the government-mandated monopolies and duopolies that exist in many areas, such that you are left with no choice but to stick with an ISP that you don't want to do business with.

4. Refuse to buy services/products from involved parties as much as you can...and inform them that you are doing so when you have such an opportunity.

...ultimately, just one more example of why lobbying should be illegal. And for that matter, political parties.




RE: Here's what you do...
By Conner on 7/8/2011 3:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
Um just a few questions:

on #1, so leave your modern ISP and go back 30 years...

on #2, you realize that a good politician is an oxymoron right? Until citizens that contribute to the world start running for office which by definition means they've stopped contributing.. um I forget where I was going with this.

I totally agree with #3 and already contacted my congressman.

and finally #4 I quit Paypal cause of the wikileaks thing and I've never been able to use my credit card with paypal since. Big corporations have unnaturally extending reaches when its a duopoly. It comes with a regulated market. It's not like Mac vs PC here, these are utilities that we need.

quote:
...ultimately, just one more example of why lobbying should be illegal. And for that matter, political parties.

+1 for anarchy!! ;)


RE: Here's what you do...
By Gzus666 on 7/8/2011 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 4
Agree 100%, lobbying and political parties should be abolished.


I think i just...
By wiz220 on 7/8/2011 5:15:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
She says conscripting ISPs to act as copyright police is the key to "win the future"


..yep, I just vomited in my mouth, a little bit.




RE: I think i just...
By Etsp on 7/8/2011 8:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think she's been partying too much with Charlie Sheen.


RE: I think i just...
By superstition on 7/8/2011 11:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Obama himself used this revolting Orwellian drivel.


Oh Joy
By zoogoober on 7/8/2011 12:13:10 PM , Rating: 5
Excellent, yet another reason for Comcast to arbitrarily throttle my connection to the internet.

"No Comcast rep, we were not downloading a movie illegally. I was simply watching Netflix in one room, streaming Pandora and playing an MMO in another. Yup, it maxed out my download. No I will not spend another $50 dollars a month for the next tier of your terrible internet monopoly."

/Rant




http://www.peerblock.com/
By johnnymac2 on 7/8/2011 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 4
Dont be scared!!!
By tanjali on 7/8/2011 3:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why is everyone blabbering trying to find term about political corruption calling it Fascism, socialism, totalitarian and similar crap? It’s nothing of that it is just plain old unregulated corrupted Wild West Capitalism.
So you can freely say and don’t be afraid it is not being unpatriotic calling it, capitalism gone wild.
And just don’t tell me capitalism should be left unregulated and calling it socialism because it’s not it is Anarchism then.




RE: Dont be scared!!!
By Nutzo on 7/11/2011 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to call it corrupted Capitalism, but it's been so corrupted in this country that it would be a mistake to call it capitalism.

We are much closer to a combination of Mercantilism and Socialism, than we are to capitalism. The marrage of big business and government is why this country is in such a mess.


VPN Questions
By gorehound on 7/8/2011 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
How do you make yourself anonymous and encrypted on the internet so the ISP does not see what you are doing ?

we should have a story on how to do this and then we will also see comments from helpful people out there.




RE: VPN Questions
By xyzCoder on 7/8/2011 4:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
Although I understand your sentiment and don't doubt that you just need to search a bit to get your answer, I have to say that what you just brought up is probably the clearest reason why this RIAA BS is so dangerous to the security of the country.

The most directly harmful people out there (eg: terrorists or organized crime) are generally not savvy enough to figure out how to secure their communications effectively - at the very least, they are likely to make mistakes without techies like us to work out all the details. As more and more of the population feels the need to anonymize itself, the avenues for such things becomes only ever easier, and the government's ability to act legitimately against these aggressors becomes ever less than before.

Frankly, I can't help but feel that given the way our government has decided it now has the right to spy on Americans without warrants or due process (unbelievably illegal stuff, but Obama and the rest want it, so we have it), it's only a matter of time before I switch to encrypted channels for all my communications, with data stored outside of the US.

Good luck to our FBI and the rest when the majority will have made that switch. Good luck to US tech companies who try to offer solutions to customers when everyone, globally, knows that our government is data mining EVERYTHING for nefarious purposes! (With 'better' algorithms and hardware each passing year...)


Er... okay
By Belard on 7/8/2011 4:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... okay.

If you are not pirating movies and music (and still, a media company has to complain), nobody is going to contact you.

- you get warnings to stop.

Getting a warning from the ISP is better than going to court and facing $5000~50,000 in fines + legal costs ($200+ per hour for your own lawyer).

That has noting to so with Nazi or WWII. Are such people that stupid.

The USA has always been a Socialist-hybrid country. Having public libraries, schools, roads, an Army, etc... those are social. Especially Social Security, Disability support, etc.

Again scared children, get you "news" from a real news source - not some Right-wing wacko fascists foreign owned group. (Muslim owned)




RE: Er... okay
By xyzCoder on 7/8/2011 4:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
Let me quote you right back where you seem to feel most confident:
quote:
Are such people that stupid.

What you seem to not be understanding, as smart as you may be, is that this move by RIAA is just more of the same: they don't want to adapt reasonably. They are middle-men trying to keep the same 90% cut as before, even though the internet and other technological developments mean that every year, these middle-men's cut should be getting ever smaller, as their own costs go down. They don't care about the content producer (unless they own them) - they care about owning the content and then maximizing the returns on that ownership. Rather than compete amongst themselves to offer the best service for the lowest price to the producer/consumer, they collude with Congress to protect their middle-men interests.

So us 'stupids' are supposed to feel happy about the fact that nothing is improving, that it's just more of the same?
quote:
Getting a warning from the ISP is better than going to court and facing $5000~50,000 in fines + legal costs ($200+ per hour for your own lawyer).

-> either way, people are still going to keep massively pirating media, and a tiny number will get slammed hard if they are unlucky enough to get caught.

This is just another attempt to stop-gap patch the broken model that RIAA/MPAA are trying to protect.

So, yeah, it's not the end of the world, but it certainly isn't anything that should be ignored or understood the way you wish.

And you say we should be getting info from a real news source? Is DailyTech
quote:
some Right-wing wacko fascists foreign owned group. (Muslim owned)
? If it is Muslim-owned, I have no problem (I'm not racist like you, it seems), but it certainly doesn't seem to be either right-wing or fascist. What exactly are you talking about?

In any case, here's what's the real shame: I basically stopped consuming most of the media that they provide. I won't buy it the way they offer it, I don't want to pirate it (too many hassles + risks + it's immoral), and frankly I figure I've got way better things to do than bother with their mostly unoriginal crap, anyway.

So who's the real loser in all this? The content producers, once again. Netflix makes clear the fact that people are more than happy to pay for their content, so long as it is simple and relatively cheap.


sigh...
By lagomorpha on 7/9/2011 11:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
Can't vote for Obama, can't vote for Bachmann...




RE: sigh...
By xyzCoder on 7/9/2011 12:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why limit your options to just what the establishment offers as choices?

I will never again vote for a Democrat or Republican - just the fact that a given candidate has survived their nomination process means that they are inherently bad. That 'process' is defined and implemented by AIPAC and all our other 'special interest groups', so BIG no thanks.

That being said, anyone out there have any good urls with info on independent candidates? I have managed to find some interesting non-mainstream news sites (eg: counterpunch.org), but what I really wish is something that would let me input my zip code and then get info on upcoming elections with drill-down into candidates / referendums, including, for each, crowd-sourced/lightly-moderated info and deliberations.

In any case, between now and the next election (1 yr + 4 months away), I bet that things are going to get a lot worse and that far more people will be sick of the BS on TV and in newspapers, leading to real chances for independents in a very short time frame. I'm pretty sure we can find someone better than Ross Perot, especially since you don't need even thousands of $ to run a website...


HA!
By quiksilvr on 7/8/2011 11:42:38 AM , Rating: 3
Statistically, half the internet torrents files. The other half is on Netflix.




By shin0bi272 on 7/8/2011 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 3
When I told you that he'd use net neutrality as a backdoor to regulate the internet? Who'd crazy and/or stupid now? You see people this is what you get when you just shout hope and change and dont look at what policies the person has in store when he says he wants to "fundamentally change America"... yeah lets vote for that guy.... and you call republicans stupid? Really?




Can someone explain this to me...
By Hakuryu on 7/8/2011 12:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
Here in Cleveland, there is a big scandal over public officials misusing their power. In essence, it is a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' thing, and I can't help but think what the lobbyists and goverment officials are doing is the exact same thing, but out in the open.

They give money to senators, and in return get bills they want passed. How is this any different (in essence) from a contractor doing $10,000 in work for free for a public official in order to get a lucrative contract?




By jobardu on 7/8/2011 12:59:05 PM , Rating: 3
There is a real danger to respect for this law and to consumers with this new "law". In another forum a small ISP posted actual letters from 'agents', or people saying they were agents, of the MPAA/RIAA. The agents were using intimidation techniques outlawed for bill collectors. They used automated mail merged form letters to individual (the letters posted were identical in wording with different addresses. They all demanded payment. The cost per request was minimal. If someone spoke up they initially responded with more vitriol. If challenged in court they got the ISP and a list of songs. The new law allows the RIAA/MPAA to bypass the courts and file against individuals.

The danger here is that the cost of settlement is less than the cost of prosecuting the case. The companies will make a lot of money, both innocent and guilty people will be caught in the net, and no penalties are set up for those copyright holders and their agents abusing the system.

This one sided and easily abused system will only make copyright pirates more favorable in the public eye and otherwise law abiding citizens lose respect for copyright law and the perpetrators of this abuse, especially as victims of the system get their stories told. Not exactly good long term self-interest but good for short term profit.

I hope Obama and the congressional supporters are getting a lot of money for this because I can't see it winning them any votes. What is needed is a policy that people of good faith can support and that punishes abusers on either side.




!(*$
By Conner on 7/8/2011 2:55:27 PM , Rating: 3
1984




Arrest 'em all!
By CrazyBernie on 7/8/2011 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
That way there will be no one left to spend money on movies/music/etc. Woot!




This should be fun
By bh192012 on 7/8/2011 12:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
How will this work for large universities, they should get six strikes in about 20 minutes. Or how about the internet cafe? My neighbor?

How easy will it be to nerf my ex-gf's internet connection, by sending Comcast, "notices of infringement?" Does this system require any proof?

How is it possible, we're going after "the people" when somehow businesses who spam us can get away with it w/o fear of being tracked down? Ignore the computers that are attacking other networks, we're too busy tracking down IP infringers. This is ridiculous (and I'm anti-piracy!)




This could work
By Darkefire on 7/8/2011 12:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
If this is enough to pacify the media giants, I could go along with this. After all, this isn't all that different from what many ISPs do now, sending along notices from copyright holders who've been combing through torrents looking for violators. The only difference now is that there's some agreement in place that they'll do "something" once a customer has hit five or six strikes. The ISPs won't ever cut someone off entirely without some law in place and they're not about to shoulder the expense of monitoring every bit of traffic, so this is pretty much all for show.

The cynic in me knows that this isn't the end of it, though, ACTA is still coming and the media gestapo won't rest until they're being paid handsomely for every pair of eyes and ears that ever hears a song or views a movie. I still can't believe that campaign contributions slipped by the founding fathers, it's basically legalized graft and bribery and the current system is set up so that no politician can ever be elected unless he takes part in it.




Anomos to the rescue
By Pirks on 7/8/2011 12:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
http://anomos.info <- a middle finger to copyright cops




Shocker
By hellblazer970 on 7/8/2011 12:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Is it bad that I can tell that Jason Mick wrote this article simply by the title? You should just start putting EDITORIAL in all your article headlines.




Ooh the irony
By MeesterNid on 7/8/2011 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's some change there for you! I guess this is another "accomplishment" that we can chalk up for the ol' Pres, eh? Here's hoping this dude's out next time around!




Little doubt
By mdanielm on 7/8/2011 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
In my case I download a lot of x264 movies, after having bought them, simply beacuse I have my media center set up with xbmc and lots of space, and it's obviously better to have everything on the hdd; and the rippers out there have more experience or at least they do a much better job than a could ever do ripping.
I think i'm not doing anything illegal because I have the original blurays, so how could an ISP know that? How could it discern if i have the right to download something i legally can, even if it is from the pirate bay or sites like that.
Or am I missing something?




Senator Wyden, I choose you!
By CharonPDX on 7/8/2011 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, time to sic my Senator on this! I'll write up a letter later today. (And to think, I was hanging out with one of his aides at a fundraiser this morning, and specifically brought up the great support he has from the tech/rights community! If I had known about this, I would have brought it up.)




you mean ...
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 7/8/2011 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
you mean like the ipod Obama gifted to the Queen of England?




...
By DKantUno on 7/8/2011 3:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
How is this going to work exactly? Are they seriously thinking this could in any way be automated? Ok let's say there's keyword filtering, and the 'Avatar' torrent got taken down. How long is it going to take for someone to re-upload it as 'Blue People', 'that big-ass 3D movie' or anything else? Are they nuts or just plain senile?

The only thing to do is to make the process of legally obtaining content easier and closer to people. Most people I know who do download pirated stuff, do so because it's the easiest fastest way for them to get the content. If instead, the movie was available on iTunes or Netflix (without annoying region restrictions) on day 1 at a proper price, if broadband was good enough to support them, if it was easy to watch that movie where I want, when I want it -> downloading a torrent is going to seem a lot more painful and unnecessarily convoluted. MOST people are simply not going to do it.

That's not because I believe most people are inherently good (no), but because most people are inherently LAZY! If they are getting something cheap enough and easy enough, they'll go for it.

This is just a case of the stick being used when a slightly juicier carrot would have done just fine.

I can't believe how idiotic and blind this move is.




2 questions
By cruisin3style on 7/8/2011 3:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Any way to tell if Cox signed the bill?

Does this only affect P2P?




By joebobwilson on 7/8/2011 3:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
1) Calling this socialist is just plain ignorant of the meaning of the word.

2)Anybody who thinks this has anything to do with the politics of either party needs to pull their head out. This is pure and simple about money. Republicans and Democrats alike taking care of large corporations who fund their campaigns.

Be angry, but be angry about the right things!




Good luck
By overlandpark4me on 7/8/2011 11:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
This guy better focus on not sending the countries economy down the tube and get some jobs going instead of paying off the bribes, oops, campaign contributions from the MPAA and RIAA




Obama doing illegal stuff again
By rika13 on 7/9/2011 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
Copyright is solely within Congress' authority (along with war, something he is doing illegally too). The President has zero legal authority to create copyright law. According to the article, Obama was smart to avoid the human rights violation (and browbeating by Republicans) of disconnection right before an election year, where disconnects would happen and harshly affect his voter base (the poor).




dsfdsfsdf
By zxcvb20 on 7/10/2011 7:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ifancyshop.com

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




fdsgdfgfsd
By ninainaidbuxing on 7/11/2011 7:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ifancyshop.com

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




vcvxzv
By tangtangtan on 7/11/2011 9:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




fdsa
By weiwei1 on 7/11/2011 9:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
Free transport
http://www.benzlogo.com/




By BladeVenom on 7/8/2011 12:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
The media industry likes to say they do these things on behalf of the artists, but here's how they really treat the artists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR4EtaKkOMI
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/03264014...




ISP Cops
By Horusbedhetys on 7/8/2011 1:10:59 PM , Rating: 1
You have published this misleading headline which makes you a liar or worse. Nowhere in the article/blog, do you show the responsibility or even connection between the ISP law and the president. This move is the result of lobbyists representing media moguls, rich guys, not the president. I see by the comments of your readers that they reacted to the headline and probably didn't read the article.




This was a corporate choice!
By Cr0nJ0b on 7/8/2011 4:51:17 PM , Rating: 1
As far as I know, Comcast and the other ISPs mentioned are not representatives of the government. 90% of the responses are all the typical "gov't is evil" we are giving up our freedom, blah blah blah...but this is not the government in action. This is corporate America in action. And all of you conservatives should be 100% behind business doing whatever business wants to do.

Obama didn't sign a law and the legislature didn't write a law that forces anyone to do anything.

Argue all you want about the very last little sentence that implies that Obama is strong arming the ISPs...but it's up to the ISPs to choose this path or not. Many (most) are not signing up for this...you can argue that they might in the future. You can argue that this was coercion, as Jason states, but in the end this is a business decision by companies, not the evil US government.

I personally think that the largest ISPs are happy to have a bad guy to blame for a change that would help get rid of the extra load that pirates put on their network. I would guess that someone did a calculation, that says they can save Millions per year by dropping or squeezing the big file sharing users out there. This new program gives them a way to do that without looking like they are acting alone.

I would compare it to movie ratings that were strongly pushed, but not legislated by the government. In the end it was a choice that the industry made.




By Philippine Mango on 7/10/2011 11:53:34 AM , Rating: 1
fdsa
By babanbang on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
OK...
By Sazabi19 on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: OK...
By cgaspar on 7/8/2011 12:10:13 PM , Rating: 5
If you don't want to sound like a nut, please look up the word "socialist". The word you're looking for may be totalitarian, or fascist, or something else. But socialist makes no sense in context.


RE: OK...
By Ristogod on 7/8/2011 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The tactics here remind me more of Nazi Germany Pre-WWII.


RE: OK...
By Scootie on 7/8/2011 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
Except the fact that ((most)) of the german population was quite happy with it while us population is not ...


RE: OK...
By kaosstar on 7/11/2011 2:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that. These politicians keep getting elected. There's a 100% change Obama will be reelected no matter what he does or says.


RE: OK...
By michael67 on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: OK...
By MeesterNid on 7/8/2011 1:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh come on...those were government-run schools.


RE: OK...
By Souka on 7/8/2011 2:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

Big businesses (ISPs and Movie industry) are married to Republican montra of "Keep government out of business's business"

Yet often enough they LOVE goverment if it gets them more money...aka this policy.

Funny funny....


RE: OK...
By borismkv on 7/8/2011 7:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
And yet this policy is being created and pushed by Democrats. Oh, and remember the DMCA? Yeah. That one was Clinton's. Wasn't he a Democrat, too? Funny funny...


RE: OK...
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 9:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
Republican vs Democrat is a way to generate publicity and get people mobilized as a group to pool their votes, effectively cutting newcomers out unless they join one of the established parties.

Once in office they favor the people who pay the bills. China has one party rule, we have two party rule with similar results.


RE: OK...
By superstition on 7/8/2011 11:09:37 PM , Rating: 3
RE: OK...
By seamonkey79 on 7/9/2011 10:24:55 AM , Rating: 3
...a bad skier?


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 2:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
You find one Republican, who was a joke hack singer who never should have been elected in the first place, and that makes your whole argument? Sonny Bono, really!?


RE: OK...
By superstition on 7/9/2011 5:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
RE: OK...
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 9:54:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because I really wane know how Nazi tactics are comparable with this. 0_o
Please explain, because I really don't get it!

Pre-war Nazi tactics when the party was in the process of taking control of the country. These tactics also showed up in Italy in the same time period. It is usually referred to as Fascism. The pre-war Nazis were Fascists as well as being headed by an organized crime ring led by Herr Adolph Hitler.

For a look at politics in the run-up to the war you can read Insanity Fair by Douglas Reed, published: April, 1938. Written by a journalist working in the German Republic and the final chapter written immediately after the annexation of Austria. For some reason the author was expecting a war that would be started by the Nazi leadership. Events of the months following his book show him to be correct, though based on his comments it came a bit more quickly than he expected.

The book is available free from Google Books & Project Gutenberg as well as a sequel written 10 years later.

For the author, this was not history. This was current events occurring in the streets outside his window. Perhaps your history teacher could learn from those who lived through this bit of history.


RE: OK...
By michael67 on 7/8/2011 11:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
Again
quote:
Because I really wane know how Nazi tactics are comparable with this . 0_o
Please explain, because I really don't get it!

I know the history, I even have read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", to learn the Pre-War mind set, because history is always written by victorious.

If anything is comparable. then it is the NeoCon's that use the same FUD to keep control over the masses.


RE: OK...
By marbel on 7/8/2011 12:24:30 PM , Rating: 1
Sazabl19 is right. Socialim IS totalitarism. I've lived in socialist country for almost 20 years, so I know what socialism is. What experience do you have with socialism to say it's something different than totalitarism?


RE: OK...
By StanO360 on 7/8/2011 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
that Socialism (in the Euro sense) is facism lite? If Facism is government controlled by elites and dictates to businesses and/or takes them over literally or via regulation and law. Then Socialism would be taking over key industries via nationalizing and via regulation?


RE: OK...
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 10:14:09 PM , Rating: 4
The main difference is that socialism is an economy, totalitarianism is government rule.

It is possible to have a socialist democracy with voters electing the people who run the economy.

It is also possible to have totalitarian capitalism with the government dictating the rules governing how commerce may operate.

In a Socialist country, the government operates the commercial infrastructure. How that government is formed has nothing to do with Socialism.

In a Totalitarian country, the government sets the rules based on the wishes of the leaders only. How the economy operates depends entirely on the whims of the leadership and may be pure unbridled Capitalism or rigidly controlled Socialism, but is usually something in between.

Socialism and genuine Communism are similar. Under Socialism citizens own their possessions, under Communism all property is owned by the government and the citizens are permitted use of their possessions. As odd as it may sound, it is possible to have a Democratic Communism since Communism is an economy, not a government form. Do not confuse communism the economic form with the political parties that have co-opted the label and generally try to establish a Totalitarian-Socialism or Totalitarian-Communism.


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/11, Rating: -1
RE: OK...
By lexluthermiester on 7/9/2011 12:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, This and some[not all] of the posts here are, if think about it from a certain point of view, very much relate to the problems this article address'. Do you not agree?

And I agree with you, Obama has gone to far, as has much of the rest of the government concerning IP. But I won't start that debate here as my opinions are well known[read GRRR FRICKING ARRRGGG DOLTS!]...


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 10:54:04 AM , Rating: 1
No I think to a large degree this is indicative of the gross double standard that exists, not just on Daily Tech, but in our entire society. Democrats are seemingly able to get away with anything with barely any media coverage or uproar by the people.

I expected to see a topic such as this filled with concerned people for the future of the Internet and country as a whole. Instead it's a big circle jerk on the proper use of socialism and Marxism!

How can one man and a few cronies ruin an entire country in just a few short years? I seriously feel like we're in 1930's Germany, and I have to sit helplessly and watch this happen all around me.


RE: OK...
By lexluthermiester on 7/9/2011 12:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Fritzr, compliments to you. It has been some time since having read a more lucid and competent iteration of explaining the differences you pointed out here... Thank You for having posted this.[NOT sarcasm]


RE: OK...
By shin0bi272 on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: OK...
By ClownPuncher on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: OK...
By Targon on 7/8/2011 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 4
The PEOPLE of the USA hate this crap, yet really have no control over who gets nominated to get into politics. Do you REALLY think that the general public would support a bunch of lawyers when it comes to who represents them?


RE: OK...
By ClownPuncher on 7/8/2011 5:45:42 PM , Rating: 1
When money is involved, that is the outcome. I guess the solution is to make as much money as you can so you can shape policy on your own.


RE: OK...
By ipay on 7/8/2011 6:54:59 PM , Rating: 3
Socialism is a form of economic policy. Totalitarianism is a form of government. The 2 are completely different concepts.

It's like capitalism and democracy. The US is both, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. You can have a capitalistic society with a totalitarian government like most of the world's dictatorships, or socialism with democracy like most of Europe is today.


RE: OK...
By michael67 on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: OK...
By ebakke on 7/8/2011 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the dreams those great men had.
Pipe dreams that are bankrupting the world, while enticing/subsidizing collective laziness. Boooo!


RE: OK...
By frobizzle on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: OK...
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2011 2:25:45 PM , Rating: 3
While Roosevelt had a "vision" of how America should be--and great weight put on his shoulders from both the Great Depression and World War II, his views in no way should be construed as completely representative of our Founding Father's original vision for America--nor the Contitution's.

That's right. Our Presidents do not dictate to us nor do they determine what America is. The Bill of Rights and our Constitution do that.

Hence, even though Roosevelt did institute a great deal of social programs, they were no means a direct representation of what America was or really is.

Just look at Europe now. Germany is the strongest economy followed by France--the rest of them are struggling now under the weight of the broken ECB(European Central Bank)... which, even as of its inception, was a complete joke. This is why the United Kingdom refused to join when the Euro was created. They knew that none of the countries would be able to get along and that the system was flawed.

It turns out, it is. The ECB is a joke, it has no centralized authority over complete monetary policy in a country-by-country basis and now, with great economic threat to the region, country after country is in dire threat of folding. Folding under the weight of their great social programs that cost them a tremendous amount of money.

While you might be a fan of Roosevelt's vision--it was simply a ruse that hid the real truth. You can not have a glut of social programs and expect them to remain viable in a great economic downturn--unless you either want to create tremendous amounts of debt (which will eventually topple) or shake it out of your citizen's pockets when they don't have any.

Let the people decide when they want something with their wallets. When they can't afford it, they can't have it. That won't take the Government down unlike when they are guaranteed something through an act of Congress.


RE: OK...
By Iaiken on 7/8/2011 4:55:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When they can't afford it, they can't have it.


I've been to a few countries where if you can't afford to live, you die. Just saying...


RE: OK...
By MrBlastman on 7/8/2011 5:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
The sad thing is--our current crisis is due to regulation... failing us.

That's right, the Government, had they done their jobs, would have had a dramatic impact on the outcome. They didn't though (both Clinton and Bush admin) and look at where the United States is right now.

So, the argument for more social programs and more Government is really moot.

I see what you're getting at--but, as has been shown, using the Government as a crutch really is not always the best option. Besides, someone has to pay for the program, the money isn't just printed (well, it was in the U.S. but look at all the trouble we are in because of it).


RE: OK...
By Iaiken on 7/8/2011 5:45:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
our current crisis is due to regulation... failing us.


I would argue opposite, but I'm not going to bother really.

quote:
the money isn't just printed (well, it was in the U.S. but look at all the trouble we are in because of it).


The problem with US money policy is that every dollar that enters the system, does so pre-loaded with interest by the Federal Reserve (an institution that is neither Federal, nor does it have a total reserve). So money MUST be created simply to satisfy the burden of interest, thus guaranteeing inflation. Interest so realized by the FRB is then payed back out to the investors of the bank (mostly multinational banks) or used to pay back their fractional investment in the FRB. That's right, they didn't even put up the actual money that makes up the reserve, they put up credit on that reserve amount that they can pay back at rates that are not available to the public.

Did you know that the Bank of Canada (a crown corporation) is one of the major investors in the US Federal Reserve Bank? They can legally use liquidity swaps to take US money out of the Canadian economy in exchange for printed Canadian Dollars and then lend the money through the US Federal Reserve. This allows the Government of Canada to generate revenue off the US and keep Canadian currency valuations in check. China does the exact same thing, but to a very different end, they do it on a scale that allows them to inflate the currency at a similar rate as the wage increase. This allows cheap Chinese goods and US dollars to keep flowing into the United States.

It's like a having remote control to the White House through the Treasury Department. There is no conceivable benefit to the Federal Reserve being in charge of the money instead of the people that are currently service the debt via taxes. Instead it is just another avenue for corruption with implications on an international scale.


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I've been to a few countries where if you can't afford to live, you die. Just saying...


Ah yes, the tried and true Liberal tactic. "If you cut back social programs and entitlement spending, people will die and children will be forced to roam the streets."


RE: OK...
By Iaiken on 7/9/2011 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Make up a fictional rhetorical position and argue against it... the tried and true Reclaimer77 tactic.

The point I was making is that, at some point you have to draw a line... Where that line is will change with the situations prevailing at the time. Though, that would require you to accept the notion of flexibility, something I don't think an extremist like you is prepared for.


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 1:55:55 PM , Rating: 1
Sophomoric rhetoric. You aren't saying anything, really. Of course "at some point" you have to draw a line. But guess what? We've already crossed any line a rational person would make. The line hasn't been crossed, it's been obliterated.

Can you freaking understand, Iaiken, that I live here and I'm concerned? You get to sit in your country and dispassionately debate these things will all the time in the world, because it won't affect you. Well I don't have that luxury. You can call me an extremist if you want, fine, I don't care. I feel as if my back is against the wall and everything I hold dear is being threatened.

So excuse me if I don't always step back and try and look at things from all sides and be "flexible". When the train is bearing down on you, there's no time to do that. Things get a lot clearer.


RE: OK...
By Iaiken on 7/9/2011 4:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it won't affect you


Again you're wrong. Even though your government doesn't recognize it, I'm a dual citizen (my wife is from California) and I work and pay taxes in both countries.

I also approach the politics of both countries differently because of the political climates and characters of the nations are quite different. For example, I know that federal universal healthcare in the states will never fly because of burdens that the provincial systems in Canada don't have to deal with.

quote:
When the train is bearing down on you, there's no time to do that.


Some of the best advice ever given to me was "Don't be in a hurry to make a mistake."


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 4:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even though your government doesn't recognize it, I'm a dual citizen


Can you explain this to me? I'm not being a jerk at all, but what do you mean you are even though the government doesn't recognize it? If our Government says you aren't a citizen, well no offense, but you aren't.

quote:
For example, I know that federal universal healthcare in the states will never fly because of burdens that the provincial systems in Canada don't have to deal with.


And yet you spent like 3 days last week going at it with me about Universal Healthcare and how great it was and why I was wrong in saying it won't work in the U.S.

quote:
Some of the best advice ever given to me was "Don't be in a hurry to make a mistake."


Good advice, now if only Democrats and the President took it to heart. Instead everything is being rammed through Congress without even the slightest bit of debate. Most of the people who voted for Obamacare admitted they didn't even have time to read the bill. Now it looks like Obama has decided to skip Congressional support altogether and simply executive order his way to everything he wants.

My country has been radically, and probably forever, changed from what it was just a few years ago. And you're telling me to relax and not be 'extreme'! It's all going to hell around me, man.


RE: OK...
By Iaiken on 7/9/2011 7:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you explain this to me? I'm not being a jerk at all, but what do you mean you are even though the government doesn't recognize it? If our Government says you aren't a citizen, well no offense, but you aren't.


I'm sworn in as a US citizen and have a passport, but they require you to forsake all other oaths, so they don't recognize my Canadian citizenship despite my being born there and spending most of my time there as of late. Hope that's clear enough.

quote:
And yet you spent like 3 days last week going at it with me about Universal Healthcare and how great it was and why I was wrong in saying it won't work in the U.S.


No, I was arguing for universal health care on a state by state basis, trying to force it down from above on states like Arizona/Cali/New Mexico where it just won't work because of budgetary and illegal immigrant problems is not the solution. It's something that must come up from below on a state by state basis. Likewise, there are numerous states like Washington/New York/Mass that would be well served by a state health care system for residents.


RE: OK...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, I was arguing for universal health care on a state by state basis,


States have tried that before and failed. I think three states now have adopted their own universal health care plan, and every time the same thing happens. The state cannot maintain a budget and has to cancel the programs. Because states cannot print their own money like the 'Fed can to keep unsustainable programs running.

quote:
Hope that's clear enough.


Yes, thank you. Traitor :P hehee KIDDING! Honestly.


RE: OK...
By michael67 on 7/9/2011 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ECB is a joke

For all its flaws, at least we don't get ripped off by our central bank, every time they print a new bank bill, and put the country in greater debt.


RE: OK...
By Amart on 7/8/2011 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 5
I'll bite... You're somewhat correct - "Socialism" an inaccurate term to use because no full Nationalization of the ISP industry is occurring - the government is being abused to resolve a business dispute. However, this also has nothing to do with "Fascism" - a completely unrelated ideology. Calling this particular decision "Totalitarian" is as correct as squashing a fly with a sledgehammer.

This ill conceived law is a product of overpowered corporate lobbying and political corruption - and this should be the terms to protest against.

The misuse of terms to sensationalize an issue instead of addressing it's specifics is a common method of discourse among political "nuts", regardless of party affiliation.
I find it incredibly annoying, and highly damaging as it replaces the actual necessary debates that have to take place in our society.

P.S. The different between the National Socialist and Communist Socialist is an interesting subject - due to the inconvenient truth that it was mostly symbolic, and the consequences of both movements were near mirror images. Their struggle against each other does not make them the polar opposites they are advertised to be - aggression, invasion, political persecution, concentration camps, massacres and the diminishing the value of the individual. The bottom line is the same - the difference is only in Public Relations and Image-making.


RE: OK...
By Janooo on 7/8/2011 2:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Well, the thing is that a language is alive, evolving.
The words "socialist", "socialism" are almost equivalent to totalitarianism, fascism in some parts of the world.


RE: OK...
By bubbastrangelove on 7/8/2011 12:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you 100%. A local message board that frequent is consistently furious over illegal immigration and how it's affecting jobs for students, size of classroom, costs to law abiding citizens etc. I tried to organize a trip to our states capitol on a Wednesday on a day when one of our local congressmen was going to be present and show support and get our voices heard. Out of probably 500 people 3 volunteer to show up. Americans will scream and yell over the internet and sign a petition (as long as it's on the internet) but when it comes to getting off their asses and doing something there's always an excuse.

It's hard to feel sorry for people who deserve what they get.


RE: OK...
By TheDoc9 on 7/8/2011 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think deserve has anything to do with it and this is bad argument and will only serve to push people away from taking action.

Truthfully people are busy or can't imagine the big picture and what all of these changes mean for them down the line. They may be able to understand the words and explanations, but to actually know at a deep level what the experience would be of living in the world that's being created is another concept entirely.

Also, most people mistakenly believe that they have too much to loose and are living a 'good enough' life. It won't be until people have lost everything that they will start marching.


RE: OK...
By Ristogod on 7/8/2011 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 5
The government is forcing private entities to do it's bidding. They claim it in the name of protecting intellectual property and copyrighted material. But once they have their foot in the door and the means to control and enforce it, where does it stop? How soon before it's controlling content of any kind? How soon before anti-government speech is being policed in the guise of of these ridiculous policies.

I would advise anyone voting in the near future to consider voting in only those who are not aligned with either of the two big parties. It's clear to me that despite which party is in power at any given time, they are both equally destructive to our protected rights as citizens defined in the constitution. At least if the government was filled with a variety people who could agree on anything, nothing would get done, which in my opinion is exactly what we need. Because when they do get stuff done, it doesn't serve our interests as citizens, but solely their own interests and their financial backers.


RE: OK...
By TerranMagistrate on 7/8/2011 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 4
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's too late for that, my friend. Voting for either party will make little to no difference in the greater scheme because it is all about the bucks now and everything else is conversation.

It's every man for himself and greed rules the day in our perverse generation.


RE: OK...
By piroroadkill on 7/8/2011 1:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
You know that what's occurring is the exact opposite of socialism, right?

This is the very definition of capitalism, but I guess you're literally mentally deficient or brainwashed.

This is about protecting the desires of big business, but has NO PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL.

That is capitalism.


RE: OK...
By ddh on 7/8/2011 3:40:44 PM , Rating: 3
We are where we are because we fail to heed the wisdom of history and our forefathers. The current administration accepted ~760 million in contributions in 2008 and is seeking 1 billion for the 2012 election, business and groups (foreign and domestic) expect a return on that kind of investment, this is nothing more than a reflection of that mentality and our failure to heed the wisdom of those that came before us. Read what George Washington wrote in his farewell address and try and tell me he wasn't a prophet of our current political situation.

test from his farewell address in 1796. Read this and stop drinking whatever cool aid from whatever party you believe in and begin to think for your selves.

"20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. "

My message is Written by a sober and sane man who loves his country and the liberties we have and those we have lost. Begin to participate as citizen legislatures and activist and stop being party stooges, vote for and support the best candidate not the one mom, dad, uncle john, or your co-worker or boss recommends. Read legislation so you can intelligently discuss it instead of living off media snippets and spins. Wake the helx up America before we are denied even this simple privilege.


RE: OK...
By Uncle on 7/8/2011 9:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your already there. The usa is more socialist then most countries in europe. Your still wearing those horses blinders, take them off and it will scare the bejesus out of you. As a matter of fact I'd start looking at how your leaning more into a Fascist state.


dsfvdss
By nvnvlai3535 on 7/9/11, Rating: -1
dsvd
By juansm123 on 7/9/11, Rating: -1
“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki