Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 10:45 UTC
Legal We always try to avoid politics like the plague here on OSNews, but sometimes, it's hard to avoid it. Take the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who could be liable for over 1 million USD if the Recording Industry Association of America gets its way. While many hoped for a change of pace when it comes to these matters, Barack Obama's Department of Justice has squarely sided with the RIAA.
Order by: Score:
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

As in the case of Clinton before him, who was no foreign-policy dove, people will eventually wake up to the fact that Obama is just a politician, subject to the same pressures that any politician has to face from lobbyists and sectional interests. All these people will have to say to him now is "support us or see jobs go", and bang, you have Obama on your side, since no President in the current climate could afford to run the risk of having been part of a further decline in US fortunes.

And besides, there are things like this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

Who are the many that hoped for change here? Methinks they were fooling themselves.

Edited title - can't figure out Unicode

Edited 2009-03-24 11:15 UTC

Reply Score: 7

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Absolutely. Obama is a talker, nothing more, not that most politicians who get anywhere near the top in our government do anything but talk and follow the money like a dog on a leash. I still can't decide whether he really believed he could change and is now realizing he can't do any of the things he insisted he could do, or if he knew all along, though I lean toward the latter situation. But no matter who gets elected in our system, you're simply going to have the same crap repeated daily. Inertia has a power all its own, and short of a massive reform and removal of the current politicians and government structure, it won't change at all. Our own system works exactly the way it was designed to work, and yet works against and underminds itself now, collapsing under its own inefficiency and those who milk it for everything they can.

Reply Score: 7

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

But no matter who gets elected in our system, you're simply going to have the same crap repeated daily. Inertia has a power all its own, and short of a massive reform and removal of the current politicians and government structure, it won't change at all.


And who are you going to replace them with? The corruption you see comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. In other words, the people who are crying for change in the corporate world and the white house are the same ones leeching off of their neighbor's wireless internet, and/or (as the topic suggests) online downloading stuff they never paid for.

As I look around and see the people I interract with on a daily basis, it's hard to find anybody who is truly incorruptable, and people just like these will eventually move on to become politicians and CEOs, and the cycle starts all over again.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Absolutely. Obama is a talker, nothing more, not that most politicians who get anywhere near the top in our government do anything but talk and follow the money like a dog on a leash. I still can't decide whether he really believed he could change and is now realizing he can't do any of the things he insisted he could do, or if he knew all along, though I lean toward the latter situation. But no matter who gets elected in our system, you're simply going to have the same crap repeated daily. Inertia has a power all its own, and short of a massive reform and removal of the current politicians and government structure, it won't change at all. Our own system works exactly the way it was designed to work, and yet works against and underminds itself now, collapsing under its own inefficiency and those who milk it for everything they can.


What do you expect. It is a system running on incest thanks to the clause that only American born citizens can become president - the net result; do you get new ideas, new approaches to fixing problems, a different perspective to foreign policy decisions? of course not. Its the same rotten ideas being passed down from generation to generation, with each thinking that this is 'normal' whilst the rest of the world braces themselves for another 4 years of stupid decisions made by individuals whose understanding of the world is non-existent.

Until you allow new blood to enter the system and flush out the old rott - the US will continue doing the same stupid decisions over and over again; heck, you'd think that the US would have learned from the Vietnam war but the Iraq war proves that either the US public are suckers for punishment or their memory is very short term.

Reply Score: 3

OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14



What do you expect. It is a system running on incest thanks to the clause that only American born citizens can become president - the net result; do you get new ideas, new approaches to fixing problems, a different perspective to foreign policy decisions? of course not. Its the same rotten ideas being passed down from generation to generation, with each thinking that this is 'normal' whilst the rest of the world braces themselves for another 4 years of stupid decisions made by individuals whose understanding of the world is non-existent.

Until you allow new blood to enter the system and flush out the old rott - the US will continue doing the same stupid decisions over and over again; heck, you'd think that the US would have learned from the Vietnam war but the Iraq war proves that either the US public are suckers for punishment or their memory is very short term.


Are you retarded? You realize that the United States has a ton of immigrants move to the US, become citizens, have children, etc... It's not like we live on a little island like New Zealand where nobody wants to go to live or something.

Yes, the US will continue doing the same thing. You should be thankful for that - otherwise you'd be speaking German.

Your jealousy is laughable. New Zealand...hahahaha

Edited 2009-03-25 14:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04



AbuHassan, I clicked your link, and found the most absolute nonsensical drivel, typical of the anti-Obama smears during the campaign. Why the hell did you post this garbage? It has zero to do with the issue at hand. It also paints you as a cerified wacko. The same goes for anyone that mods you up or voices agreement with your post. Good grief, there are lots of unhinged people walking around.

Those of you that are pissed about the DOJ's stance on this piracy thing, you'd do well not to throw your lot in with AbuHassan and his ilk, unless you want to lose all credibility for yourself and your cause.

Edited 2009-03-24 15:09 UTC

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Ralph Tirebiter for President. You can trust him - he's always right and he never lies.

We all know his platform - it's six inches off the ground so no hurts themselves if they fall off. He promises a guaranteed annual year - and one organism, one vote.

So vote Tirebiter - he's not insane!

(sponsored by the Tirebiter for political solutions committee)

Reply Score: 2

Just a thought
by ssa2204 on Tue 24th Mar 2009 12:16 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

Maybe it would be wise to get a clue as to the role of the DOJ in this? Just a thought.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just a thought
by mabhatter on Tue 24th Mar 2009 17:21 UTC in reply to "Just a thought"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Maybe it would be wise to get a clue as to the role of the DOJ in this? Just a thought.


The DOJ represents the "President's" opinion on how the executive branch sees the issue and would "ask" the courts to proceed. In many ways they are just sticking to the "letter of the law".. at least that's a good political defense when the public lashes out.

On the other hand, they could have "advised" the courts that the fees in a years-old case against an individual do not represent the "intended" application of the maximum penalties. In general a court would take the DOJ's "suggestion" as a pretty good indication of how to rule if the law is subjective.

In this case, they choose to give the "IP nobles" the maximum "pound of flesh" allowed... like in Dickens' novels where the small boy gets killed by a carriage and the parents get sent to debtors' jail because the wheel was damaged, and the noble's suit was bloodied and made him late for an important business deal.

Reply Score: 2

US two-party "democracy"
by saso on Tue 24th Mar 2009 12:27 UTC
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

I just love to see the way the US sells its political establishment as a "democracy". They condemned the USSR for its 1-party system, but as soon you add +1 to that number, totalitarianism automagically becomes democracy...

What's even funnier is they way these two parties are organized. Most western countries have right-wing and left-wing parties, with the political landscape sort-of representing the natural struggle between private (/conservative) and socially-oriented (/progressive) economical views. In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing. Regardless of whichever you vote for, you get the same politics, only supported by two different industries.

Reply Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by magineer on Tue 24th Mar 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
magineer Member since:
2009-03-19

You actually have zero understanding of the US government and political structure. For one thing, both parties have been converging towards socialism for the last 15 years.

I hear a lot of ignorance spouted off these days regarding the way the US should work or does work from people who do not even live here and/or do not have any concept of how a democratic republic should work. Of course there's corruption. There's corruption in every form of government, from top to bottom, in every case.

However, I think you'll find (if you take the time to read) that the US government's structure has the most checks and balances built in to do ultimately what is in the best interest of the people. You won't find that happens in communism or socialism, and you won't see it in one or two terms of a US President's administration. You have to take the long view to see it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by h3rman on Tue 24th Mar 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09


However, I think you'll find (if you take the time to read) that the US government's structure has the most checks and balances built in to do ultimately what is in the best interest of the people.


Please don't tell me you're serious.
How many countries has the US Army invaded or the CIA messed with that those magical "checks and balances" apparently failed to rescue? There are dozens of them.

You won't find that happens in communism or socialism,


Well, it may surprise you but communist/socialist states do have parliaments, courts, constitutions, etc. If you say they are often a joke, well so they are in capitalist states. There has been more corruption and lawlessness in Russia from the early nineties up to now than there was in the 1970s and 1980s. Homeless people did not have to freeze to death in the streets of Moscow under communism.
People often get heart attack when they learn that not *everything* was bad under communism.. :-)

and you won't see it in one or two terms of a US President's administration. You have to take the long view to see it.


Sure, there are democratic victories over plutocratic government in the United States. But it's exactly those that the reactionaries are trying to roll back, often successfully, all the time.
Perhaps some Americans still feel good about their political system. The victims of American imperial policies beg to differ.

What American citizens ought to do now is to rise up against the kleptocrats who are taking over the country more openly than ever. They are waging a war against the people, you know.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by RshPL on Tue 24th Mar 2009 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

Homeless people did not have to freeze to death in the streets of Moscow under communism.

Or at least there weren't any free media to inform you of that ... have you thought of that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by weildish on Tue 24th Mar 2009 21:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

Please don't tell me you're serious.
How many countries has the US Army invaded or the CIA messed with that those magical "checks and balances" apparently failed to rescue? There are dozens of them.

You're absolutely right, I'd say. Except that the checks and balances are there... they've essentially been in place since the United States Constitution was instituted. A lot of people in the government are just finding ways to tiptoe around these said checks and balances, I think, and have been since the beginning of the US-- just plenty more these days and much more obvious than in centuries past.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by Ressev on Tue 24th Mar 2009 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Just a note: the USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by jwwf on Tue 24th Mar 2009 17:47 UTC in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

I just love to see the way the US sells its political establishment as a "democracy". They condemned the USSR for its 1-party system, but as soon you add +1 to that number, totalitarianism automagically becomes democracy...

What's even funnier is they way these two parties are organized. Most western countries have right-wing and left-wing parties, with the political landscape sort-of representing the natural struggle between private (/conservative) and socially-oriented (/progressive) economical views. In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing. Regardless of whichever you vote for, you get the same politics, only supported by two different industries.


I hesitate to reply, simply because I am not an expert on European governments. But I think I can make an imperfect analogy that might help explain the two party system a little: The two parties are like permanent coalitions. There are, for instance, hard-left socialists in the Democratic party, and there are also old line Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement. There are neoconservative Republicans who think government is benevolent and a useful tool for acheiving policy goals, and there are old-line conservatives who believe that government is always the problem. Both parties have a big business base, (last season Wall Street donated several times as much money to the Democrats than the Republicans, yet people generally think of the Republicans as the business party) and both parties contain a lot of "regular people" who are only mildly ideological.

Both parties, then, contain a lot of difference in opinion, which is probably why they can start to look similar - lots of competing agendas average out. People generally remember Nixon as a conservative villain these days, but in his time, he imposed wage and price controls (not very conservative), and yet also disagreed with Eisenhower because he thought Eisenhower was too close to business interests to the expense of ideology and that made him not conservative enough. Point is, there can be a lot of serious difference within a party.

And by the way, we did not condemn the USSR for a 1 party system alone: that it killed tens of millions of people in the last century via labor camps and forced famines was also a factor. The fact that anybody thinks the comparison is a reasonable one to make shows that we have it pretty easy these days.

Reply Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:07 UTC in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


The OP probably is speaking from his own political paradigm. From a Dutch perspective, both of your parties are far-right, for instance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

""In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


The OP probably is speaking from his own political paradigm. From a Dutch perspective, both of your parties are far-right, for instance.
"

Educate me on the Dutch, if you would. Is the far-left, to the Dutch, considered dictatorships, and the far-right considered to be socialists? (not asking to argue, I'm just curious as to the Dutch's perspective since you said that socialism is considered far-right)

Edited 2009-03-24 18:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"[q]"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


The OP probably is speaking from his own political paradigm. From a Dutch perspective, both of your parties are far-right, for instance.
"

Educate me on the Dutch, if you would. Is the far-left, to the Dutch, considered dictatorships, and the far-right considered to be socialists? (not asking to argue, I'm just curious as to the Dutch's perspective since you said that socialism is considered far-right) [/q]

Socialism is a sliding scale as much as any other -ism. What Americans call "socialism" is called "liberal" in The Netherlands. Weird, I know, but that's just the way it is.

Then again, most Americans equate socialism with communism, which makes about as little sense as a dog eating the moon. I's especially hilarious because most people don't even have a clue as to what "communism" means - and that there has never even BEEN a communist state, only dictatorships that CALL themselves communist.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: US two-party "democracy"
by jwwf on Tue 24th Mar 2009 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: US two-party "democracy""
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

Then again, most Americans equate socialism with communism, which makes about as little sense as a dog eating the moon.


Would you elaborate on your view of the differences? At the moment I see it as the two having essentially the same end-game goals but different opinions of how to achieve them--essentially, a disagreement on whether society should be forcibly reinvented, or changed incrementally through the existing legal system. At any rate I am surprised that you think there is no common ground.

I's especially hilarious because most people don't even have a clue as to what "communism" means - and that there has never even BEEN a communist state, only dictatorships that CALL themselves communist.


Perhaps that there is something in human nature which makes it impossible, in the same way that perfect peace is impossible?

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Would you elaborate on your view of the differences? At the moment I see it as the two having essentially the same end-game goals but different opinions of how to achieve them--essentially, a disagreement on whether society should be forcibly reinvented, or changed incrementally through the existing legal system.


Socialism strives to create a certain amount of equality, social justice, and solidarity. It has little to nothing to do with the key point of communism, which is the common ownership of the means of production and property in general. Socialism means nothing of the sort.

Perhaps that there is something in human nature which makes it impossible, in the same way that perfect peace is impossible?


Obviously. Communism is not in our nature.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: US two-party "democracy"
by jwwf on Tue 24th Mar 2009 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: US two-party "democracy""
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

"Would you elaborate on your view of the differences? At the moment I see it as the two having essentially the same end-game goals but different opinions of how to achieve them--essentially, a disagreement on whether society should be forcibly reinvented, or changed incrementally through the existing legal system.


Socialism strives to create a certain amount of equality, social justice, and solidarity. It has little to nothing to do with the key point of communism, which is the common ownership of the means of production and property in general. Socialism means nothing of the sort.
"

Fair enough. I wonder though how we should think of those who "split the difference" between these two criteria? Some American socialists have a strong collectivist bent which others (me included) find alarming.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Tue 24th Mar 2009 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

Thanks for the clarification Thom!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: US two-party "democracy"
by Haicube on Wed 25th Mar 2009 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: US two-party "democracy""
Haicube Member since:
2005-08-06

Socialism is a sliding scale as much as any other -ism. What Americans call "socialism" is called "liberal" in The Netherlands. Weird, I know, but that's just the way it is.


Dear Thom,

It's actually the other way around. When they say Liberal in the US they refer to what the dutch would call a socialist. Socialists in a dutch sense adhere to Democratic party in the US, and the republicans are conservatives in general.

However, Liberal in a European sense would likely adher to the Libertarian Party in the US which is a completely different story http://www.lp.org/

As well as the Greens have Ralph Nader as their ally in the US (if not mistaken).

US politics is very much different from european. The system in the US has better accountability mechanisms due to voting for individuals (President/Senators etC) rather than simply a party as is often the case in many european democracies where accountability is a joke at best.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The OP probably is speaking from his own political paradigm. From a Dutch perspective, both of your parties are far-right, for instance.


Hell, we have the same perception next door to the US (Canada). Even our current "Progressive" Conservative prime minister would probably be labeled as a communist if he ever tried to run for office in the US.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Mar 2009 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


Obama very very far left wing? what bloody planet are you on!

Compare Obama to the policies of the very far left in New Zealand, Australia, German, the UK - Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe.

Maybe you Americans should wake up, realise that the cold war has ended, and the centre left or centre right is in power in most countries. It is you the American's who have this obsession of labelling anything you don't like as apparently 'very very left' or 'very very right' when in reality it is neither of them.

Edited 2009-03-25 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Wed 25th Mar 2009 14:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

""In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


Obama very very far left wing? what bloody planet are you on!

Compare Obama to the policies of the very far left in New Zealand, Australia, German, the UK - Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe.

Maybe you Americans should wake up, realise that the cold war has ended, and the centre left or centre right is in power in most countries. It is you the American's who have this obsession of labelling anything you don't like as apparently 'very very left' or 'very very right' when in reality it is neither of them.
"

We're not talking about New Zealand or any other country. The subject, since you're incapable of keeping up, is about the United States and the politics in the United States. Since I've lived in the United States my entire life, and have been involved in political campains, it's safe to say that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you ever will. Stick to your "Linux sucks, OSX and BSD rule" rants.

In the United States, Obama is extremely far left - probably the most liberal person to ever become POTUS. Obama's platform is based almost entirely on Socialist ideas (which is extremely far left in this nation). He believes (as does those that support him) that the government's responsibility is to provide everything to all citizens by taxing those that work for a living, and giving that money to those that are too damn lazy to work for a living. Now Obama's Administration is looking to seize private companies (non-banking ones at that). Whenever the government begins to seize private industries and controlling them at their whim, that's NOT a good thing. Nor is it a good thing to punish those that work for a living while rewarding those that are just useless members of society living off of our tax dollars.

I could care less about what political leanings other countries have. That doesn't affect me, nor does it concern me. I have no desire to see the US becomelike any other nation, or insignificant like New Zealand on the global scale of things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by MollyC on Wed 25th Mar 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

""In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing" Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
Obama very very far left wing? what bloody planet are you on! Compare Obama to the policies of the very far left in New Zealand, Australia, German, the UK - Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe. Maybe you Americans should wake up, realise that the cold war has ended, and the centre left or centre right is in power in most countries. It is you the American's who have this obsession of labelling anything you don't like as apparently 'very very left' or 'very very right' when in reality it is neither of them. "

You would do well not to lump all Americans together like that. I'm an American and I recognize that our Democratic party is center-left. Most Americans would agree with that assessment. If they thought it was a "far left" party, they wouldn't have voted it into complete power (both the presidency and both houses of congress) in the last two elections.

The Republican party, on the other hand, was smashed so badly in those two elections that what remains is the extreme right-wing of that party. It was center-right, but today it's just plain right. One could even argut that it's "far right", in that it's to the right of every major party in the Western world, but it's not "far right" when compared to parties of the past like Hitler's Nazi party or Mussolini's Facist party.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: US two-party "democracy"
by ari-free on Thu 26th Mar 2009 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: US two-party "democracy""
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

"Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe. "

he's talking about reducing tax deductions for non profit charities. That's pretty 'fringe' to me. That would screw a lot of poor people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: US two-party "democracy"
by ssa2204 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: US two-party "democracy""
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe. "

he's talking about reducing tax deductions for non profit charities. That's pretty 'fringe' to me. That would screw a lot of poor people.


Fringe? So your argument then is that people only donate for the right off, and thus will no longer donate because of an adjustment to the rate? Keep drinking Rush's Kool-aid, it certainly is providing you with a lot of deep insight.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Thu 26th Mar 2009 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

""Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe. "

he's talking about reducing tax deductions for non profit charities. That's pretty 'fringe' to me. That would screw a lot of poor people.


Fringe? So your argument then is that people only donate for the right off, and thus will no longer donate because of an adjustment to the rate? Keep drinking Rush's Kool-aid, it certainly is providing you with a lot of deep insight.
"

Stats will back up the fact that the red states contribute a much higher percentage per capita than blue states. Go ahead, do a Google search. You'll find that I'm right about that one.

Reply Score: 2

Upload, not download
by IndigoJo on Tue 24th Mar 2009 13:06 UTC
IndigoJo
Member since:
2005-07-06

This man downloaded the tracks from Kazaa, which is a peer-to-peer system in which the user uploads the files to whoever else is on the network as well as downloading them for himself, so he would have been complicit in dozens of others receiving the tracks without paying. It's not just illegal copying for his own use.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Upload, not download
by Michael on Tue 24th Mar 2009 13:55 UTC in reply to "Upload, not download"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

The user uploads about as much as he downloads. Even if he had uploaded a dozen copies of the seven songs, $500 is ample compensation for the lost revenue.

Reply Score: 5

RIAA
by hussam on Tue 24th Mar 2009 13:47 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

I'm quite fond of RIAA and I'm extremely impressed by them. I hope they get more public support.

Reply Score: 2

RE: RIAA
by helf on Tue 24th Mar 2009 15:04 UTC in reply to "RIAA"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

*falls over laughing*

You, Sir, are hilarious. You need your own late night comedy show.

Edited 2009-03-24 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: RIAA
by hussam on Tue 24th Mar 2009 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE: RIAA"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

*falls over laughing*

You, Sir, are hilarious. You need your own late night comedy show.


Thank you ;)

Edited 2009-03-24 19:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Obama's DOJ?
by Alex Forster on Tue 24th Mar 2009 15:33 UTC
Alex Forster
Member since:
2005-08-12

Obama is at least three levels removed from this decision. It has has absolutely nothing to do with Obama.

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/president-elect_obama_announces_ke...

This is who Obama appointed and why. You'll note that the names mentioned are not in the linked article, nor in this masterpiece which is where I believe it originated: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-sides-wit.html

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

an offered settlement. Once you do that you're saying, "I'm going to take my chances and risk being punished to the furthest extent of the law." I don't think he should be fined a million dollars, but he made his bed.

The law is on the books. The DOJ is just getting out of the way, as I read it. The defendant provided no compelling reason for the DOJ to interfere in this matter.


Those of you saying that this proves that Obama is just another Bush are displaying your ignorance. There are issues on which the Obama DOJ has changed policy from that of Bush. For example, the Obama DOJ has ceased enforcing federal anti-marajuana laws against patients that use marajuana for medical purposes in states that allow for that. This is a change from Bush. But see, patients that use medical marajuana have a valid and moral need to do so. Pirates have no need to pirate, so why should the DOJ interfere with the law as its written (especially when the defendent passed up the chance at settlement)?

Obama didn't run on a platform in which "change" included softening the government's stance against piracy. Obama's a writer himself, and did audio versions of his books as well. He understands that creators don't want their stuff copied around without authorization. So I wouldn't expect him to instruct the DOJ to take a soft stance here. I doubt he instructed the DOJ to do anything at all. The DOJ decided this on its own, as it does for 99.999% of cases.

Edited 2009-03-24 15:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zaine_ridling Member since:
2007-05-13

Obama's a writer himself, and did audio versions of his books as well.

You are joking I presume. Obama has accomplished nothing in his entire life except being handed affirmative action positions. He started running for president when he had only been in the Senate for 143 days. This is the same guy who keeps his academic records and "writings" locked down. The same guy who edited the Harvard Law Review but did not author a single article for the publication! Besides, anyone who has penned TWO autobiographies of himself before the age of 46 is megalomaniacal at best, narcissistic at least. This is backed up by his very weird desire to be on TV every single day doing nothing more than reading a teleprompter, Ronnie Reagan style. Seriously, when is he not on TV?

Wake up. He has already spent all the money the Chinese are willing to give us. Now his treasury is printing what amounts to Confederate money, backed by nothing but the paper its printed on. His presidency is over as his own Democrats are now backing away from him to ensure their own political futures. He talked a good game and the media enabled him all along, but your messiah did not deliver.

Total fail in record time.

Edited 2009-03-24 16:02 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Please come back to reality
by fretinator on Tue 24th Mar 2009 16:05 UTC in reply to "Please come back to reality"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

As soon as we are done discussing politics, maybe we can do religion next. I am sure it would be just as productive!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Please come back to reality
by ssa2204 on Tue 24th Mar 2009 17:55 UTC in reply to "Please come back to reality"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22


You are joking I presume. Obama has accomplished nothing in his entire life except being handed affirmative action positions.


God your right, he has done absolutely nothing. Well, except for becoming President of the United States. And what exactly have you accomplished in this world?

Just too bad for you we could not get that uber-intellectual Sarah Palin huh?

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I could've read your post at any right-wing blog over the past 18 months, and the American people soundly rejected your "arguments".

I'm surprised that your drivel has been modded up to a 6 as I write this; I had presumed that this site's membership had progressive political leanings. I'm surprised that it's a right-wing site wrt the politics of the members.

Anyway, you totally missed (or ignored) my point (not surprising for a mindless ditto-head). My point was that A. the defendant in this case provides no compelling reason for the DOJ to interfere on his behalof; B. The DOJ has changed policy from Bush in certain areas, so there has been "change"; C. the areas where the DOJ has changed policy are those where those affected could provide compelling reason to change policies, one example being whether to federal enforce anti-marijuana laws against patients using medical marijuana in states where that is permitted (whether one agrees with this change in policy is not relevant to my point).

You ignored that and went on a right-wing anti-Obama smear attack, and got 5 right-wingers to join in on your nonsense.

Reply Score: 3

Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

I could've read your post at any right-wing blog over the past 18 months, and the American people soundly rejected your "arguments".

I'm surprised that your drivel has been modded up to a 6 as I write this; I had presumed that this site's membership had progressive political leanings. I'm surprised that it's a right-wing site wrt the politics of the members.

Anyway, you totally missed (or ignored) my point (not surprising for a mindless ditto-head). My point was that A. the defendant in this case provides no compelling reason for the DOJ to interfere on his behalof; B. The DOJ has changed policy from Bush in certain areas, so there has been "change"; C. the areas where the DOJ has changed policy are those where those affected could provide compelling reason to change policies, one example being whether to federal enforce anti-marijuana laws against patients using medical marijuana in states where that is permitted (whether one agrees with this change in policy is not relevant to my point).

You ignored that and went on a right-wing anti-Obama smear attack, and got 5 right-wingers to join in on your nonsense.


Very well said. These tiresome, bitter right-wingers are so upset that they are now out of power, that they resort to these pathetic hit-and-run straw man attacks at any opportunity. I bet this fool copy-and-pastes his remarks on every forum he can get an account on, hoping he can make it seem remotely relevant if he just changes the first sentence.

Pillock.

Reply Score: 2

red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

Those of you saying that this proves that Obama is just another Bush are displaying your ignorance. There are issues on which the Obama DOJ has changed policy from that of Bush. For example, the Obama DOJ has ceased enforcing federal anti-marajuana laws against patients that use marajuana for medical purposes in states that allow for that. This is a change from Bush. But see, patients that use medical marajuana have a valid and moral need to do so. Pirates have no need to pirate, so why should the DOJ interfere with the law as its written (especially when the defendent passed up the chance at settlement)?


Oh Puh-lease! You must be kidding. This is why I find myself so disillusioned by politics. People just want to support whatever "side" they are on and they'll argue the most ridiculous things EVER to justify who they voted for.

Are you really going to tell me that someone who downloaded 7 songs should have to pay THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS? Do you have any idea how much money that is to most people in the world? This whole attitude of "he should have just paid it and saved the trouble" is the ENTIRE point that the law students representing him are trying to make. The RIAA is being granted the right to levy these ridiculous fines against people who are then forced to pay them because defending themselves against the RIAA's army of lawyers and lobbyists is an impossibility. They are essentially acting outside the system of justice and being granted ridiculous amounts of power and like Thom said, thats a scary freakin' prospect.

Now, as for this whole Marijuana kick you decided to bring in out of nowhere, it just makes me laugh even more. Medical marijuana is a joke and if you've been to LA you know you can get all the 'legal' weed you want by saying you have insomnia or arthritis or back pain or any freakin' load of bull you want. There are in my opinion NO valid moral reasons to use Marijuana, but certainly if there are any, there are not even a tenth as many people who need it in the whole country as there are currently getting prescriptions to buy it in California. Any action to move away from enforcing the laws on these jokes of 'medical' marijuana clinics who are nothing more than smart drug dealers is a move to legalize weed altogether, and it should be interpreted and judged as nothing less.

So listen buddy, go smoke your ganja and pop in your favorite Bob Marley CD you paid twenty bucks for, and keep telling yourself that Obama, or any politician, is the answer to your problems.

Reply Score: 4

RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

So listen buddy, go smoke your ganja and pop in your favorite Bob Marley CD you paid twenty bucks for, and keep telling yourself that Obama, or any politician, is the answer to your problems.

Obama or not Obama, if I say that people should be allowed to smoke whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people, would you advice me to go smoke my ganja as well? That is the sort of ad persona arguments I hate the most.

Reply Score: 1

red_devel Member since:
2006-03-30

Obama or not Obama, if I say that people should be allowed to smoke whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people, would you advice me to go smoke my ganja as well?


No, I would tell you that you have a very naive, limited, and western point of view of the world. When you buy and consume Marijuana you are supporting an industry of organized crime and death. You think you are affecting no one, but in countries like Jamaica, where I just returned from, people die and suffer so Westerners with too much money and time on their hands can get high, eat cheetos and watch Super Troopers.

Reply Score: 3

RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

"Obama or not Obama, if I say that people should be allowed to smoke whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect other people, would you advice me to go smoke my ganja as well?


No, I would tell you that you have a very naive, limited, and western point of view of the world.
"
Funny how I have western point of view coming from Central Europe. Cheers westerners. ;)

When you buy and consume Marijuana you are supporting an industry of organized crime and death.

That's quite an irony if you consider that in the times of alcohol prohibition buying beverages would support mafia and grew the legend of Al Capone.

It's astonishing how many things have already happened in history with no conclusions drawn out of them.

Reply Score: 2

JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"When you buy and consume Marijuana you are supporting an industry of organized crime and death."

That is only because marijuana is illegal. Legalize it, and the industry of organized crime and death, at least as it pertains to marijuana, is completely eliminated. And oh yeah, once it's legalized, it can be taxed. And some of that money can be put into rehab centers, and education (regarding excesses with using said drug). Instead, it's illegal, and all the money is going into the "industry of organized crime and death".

Remember what prohibition did in the 20's? Same thing here.

" You think you are affecting no one, but in countries like Jamaica, where I just returned from, people die and suffer so Westerners with too much money and time on their hands can get high, eat cheetos and watch Super Troopers."

I like the last part of your sentence. ;-)

But again, if pot is legalized, places like Jamaica can become richer, and that money would not be going to organized crime.

It's really quite simple.

Disclaimer: I am not a marajuana usser nor do I ever plan on using it. I just know that prohibition does not work.

Edited 2009-03-24 19:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

When you buy and consume Marijuana you are supporting an industry of organized crime and death.


Interesting, I know people who buy and consume said substance for medicinal purposes, and the people they buy it from grow it locally for medicinal purposes.

Here in California, USA - we're pretty "progressive" ;)

Me personally, I don't care for the shit.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Me personally, I don't care for the shit.


Same here. Never even smoked or touched a cigarette, let alone a joint. Well, I did touch a joint a few times but that was just to pass it on to whoever was sitting next to me ;) .

I hate the shit, but I see no problem in a decent legal system around it. We in The Netherlands are almost there, with possession of the stuff being "allowed" (not legal) in small quantities. However, growing and distributing is illegal, leading to this retarded situation where coffee shops are allowed to sell it, but not produce it or have it shipped to them.

The ultimate goal, in my book, is to make it a state affair, so we can tax it, as well keep an eye on the quality of the drug, and try to lower the amount of THC (which is rising like crazy, which is dangerous).

The government would control the growing and distributing of the stuff, coffee shop owners would still be the ones to sell it. any other individual growing or distributing the stuff gets harsh punishment.

Reply Score: 1

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Sounds good to me. How much for a half?

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I would tell you that you have a very naive, limited, and western point of view of the world. When you buy and consume Marijuana you are supporting an industry of organized crime and death.


If that's your rationale, then I can only assume that you've never purchased gasoline before, or used any mode of gasoline-powered transportation. Not to mention bananas, or coffee, or pretty much anything sold at Wal*Mart. Unless you're a complete hypocrite, that is.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

the Obama DOJ has changed from the Bush DOJ, and the reasons for that, in contrast with the reasons they would not choose to interfere in a copyright case. (medical marijuana patients are more sympathetic figures than pirates, particularly pirates that pass up on a settlment then complain at the prospect of getting hit with huge penalty). Whether you agree with the change in the enforcement of federal marijuana laws against medical marijuana patients in medical marijuana states is not relevant; my point was that there has been change from Bush, even if softening the government's stance against piracy is not one of them.

And no, I don't smoke it myself, though I see nothing wrong with others doing it as long as they don't affect others; for example, they shouldn't drive while under the influence of pot, just like with alcohol.

Reply Score: 2

corberlaw Member since:
2009-03-25

The RIAA wants to destroy american jurisprudence. How? They want it so that merely filing a lawsuit entitled them to a judgment. No proof necessary. If they had their ay, leasving a CD on th doorstep weould constitue "making available." Most of the music being donloaded is worthless crap. Should the might of the whole US government be protecting us from kids who want to hear worthless crap? Or from those who would fly jets into skyscrapers? Where is there more danger? We don't have unlimited resources. Stop squandering them.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Medical marijuana is a joke and if you've been to LA you know you can get all the 'legal' weed you want by saying you have insomnia or arthritis or back pain or any freakin' load of bull you want.


"Why... it's nothing but a tin of red herrings in heavy oil!"

That argument boils down to "because there are people who use it for frivolous reasons, there must be no medicinal value." When I was in high school, one of my classmates was actually stupid enough to overdose on Gravol - does your reasoning apply there as well?

So listen buddy, go smoke your ganja and pop in your favorite Bob Marley CD you paid twenty bucks for


Personally, I've never smoked in my life - but now I'm strongly tempted to. If just to dissociate myself from the sort of idiocy displayed in the above quote.

Reply Score: 2

JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

All politicians are beholden to lobbyists, corporate and special interest donors, and the polls. That's true on both sides of the aisle.

That said, I'm slightly disappointed in Obama in this one particular issue (siding with RIAA).

Both parties are very influenced by their corporate donors and lobbyists. But the Republicans tend to be more sympathetic to corporate interests than Democrats. Witht that in mind, I would have expected Obama to be more balanced on the RIAA issue, and be more sympathetic to consumer rights, and fair use rights. But in this case, Obama is blinded by RIAA money and lobbying.

Yes, the lines are often blurred, due to "politicians being politicians".

But, to those who are saying Obama is more of the same ol thing (after Bush), there already are some important differences:

- Obama is not giving big tax breaks to the rich.
- Obama is refocusing efforts away from Iraq and towards Pakistan and Afghanistan, Al Qaida strongholds.
- Obama is pouring money into alternative energy R&D
- Obama is investing in infrastructure
- Obama is reversing Bush policy on stem cell research, and stating "we won't ignore science in favor of poltical idealology".
- Obama is actively soliciting bipartisan support for legislation, in direct contrast to Bush's "f#%& you, you're either with us, or against us" stance. True, many of the Republicans are still being obstructionist, and even the Dems are giving resitence to some policies. But Obama is actually trying.

And there are plenty of other examples.

Although I'm disappointed in Obama in this RIAA thing, and I don't think Obama is "all that and a bag of chips" (he's another politician), I am mildly pleased with what he's doing so far. It's a breath of fresh air after 8 years of Bush.

Reply Score: 4

They'd love to kill free speech
by danieldk on Tue 24th Mar 2009 16:45 UTC
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

Not only their efforts to change law are dangerous, so is their 'public education'. In The Netherlands BREIN tries to create the image in Dutch media that all downloading or copying is illegal. The guy running this gig (Tim Kuik) has stated in a major Dutch newspaper that downloading something freely is always theft [1]. These people try to hide rights such as the Dutch 'thuiskopie' (private copying, through paying a levy on media), nor do they mention that a wealth of free music (including NiN's recent efforts) and software is available.

Their efforts to become a institutionalized police force should be stopped, and we should stop attempts to restrict free speech to protect a dying industry.

By the way, this comes from someone who has bought 99.5% of every album he owns. But my distaste for the practices of this industry and how they treat their (potential) customers, music lovers, has grown so much, that I am not buying (with a few exceptions) albums from RIAA labels anymore.

There's CDBaby, and there are a lot of small labels like Dischord that have decent prices and give decent pays to their bands. For RIAA music there is a healthy second hand market.

[1] http://webwereld.nl/article/view/id/54389 (Dutch)

Reply Score: 2

"digg it" button?
by tupp on Tue 24th Mar 2009 16:46 UTC
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

How do I "digg up" this story?

Reply Score: 2

Seriously.........
by OMRebel on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:03 UTC
OMRebel
Member since:
2005-11-14

Is anyone surprised? If anyone actually thought there would be "change", they very obvious didn't do their homework on the guy.

Sadly, this is how things will continue to be in the US until we can get Congressional limits in place and have a real third party that can keep up with the spending of the Dems and Repubs.

Reply Score: 3

This is a joke, right?
by RandomGuy on Tue 24th Mar 2009 23:19 UTC
RandomGuy
Member since:
2006-07-30

1 million USD in damages? Yeah, like a 16 year old could buy 1 million USD worth of music. And yet, some clowns are actually trying to justify this!

How is "Let's completely ruin this kids life to scare the millions of people we didn't catch" a morally sound strategy? Like somebody in "Steal this movie" said this is like putting the heads of a few culprits on spears on the city wall in medieval times.

Reply Score: 3

Tenenbaum
by pepa on Wed 25th Mar 2009 06:16 UTC
pepa
Member since:
2005-07-08

His name is Joel Tenenbaum.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by blitze
by blitze on Wed 25th Mar 2009 13:39 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Getting back to Marajana, lower the THC, legalise it and regulate it. Solve a lot of problems. Now here's something you folk mightn't know about Hemp.
- It's good for clothing and rope and paper
- A great crop for rotating out and using to rest soil
- As a crop rotated out with Hemp, no pesticides are needed as hemp is a natural pesticide.
- Also grows in crap conditions and is great for improving soil quality.

Want to know why it was banned in the first place? It was due to the DOJ in the 20's who was married into the Dupont family. Dupont came up with NYLON and the only competition to Nylon was Hemp. All about control of the market and capturing those Petro $$$$

As for Obama, I'm watching but at least he doesn't come across as a moron like Bush. If he can break the Private Banking cartels hold on the US and regulate international Banking institutions with his peers, there could be some hope. Also, the nationalisation of troubled US banks is more about stopping the Chinese from buying them out.

Now back on topic - boo RIAA. Blood Sucking Leaches if ever there was some, them and the MPAA. Let's hope we don't globally skip down the path of Corperatist Fascism anytime in the future. Not a good place to be, ask a chinese factory worker (oops, they are meant to be "Communist", I can't tell the difference as it ain't what Marx was writing about).

Reply Score: 3

Just refuse to participate
by sbergman27 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 22:17 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Instead of railing incessantly about the RIAA and the new President, why not do something contructive, not to mention non-hypocritical, and enjoy the large collections of cool new music at Magnatune, where the artists get a 50% cut of any money you care to spend?

The music is far better than most of the popular crap that many seem to want a license to steal.

Want good music? Go to Magnatune. Want to reward the artists? Go to Magnatune. Want to hurt the RIAA? Go to Magnatune.

The solution is already here. And if you are not taking advantage of it you are still part of the problem. It's time to get with the program and become part of the solution.

Reply Score: 2