There's a litany of reasons for that though... First, 100 years of propaganda are hard to dispel in a few years. Second, think about how our political system is inherently undemocratic. Our electoral system ensures a ton of money going to a few states and against the will of the public. So capitalist supporters have overrepresentation in the three branches of government.
This doesn't even get into how conservatives whine about liberals on every issue, which has been a winning strategy since the time of Newt in the 80s.
We really need a democratic way of electing officials and so far, we don't have that and very few mechanisms to implement it.
At some point, the politicians backing these programs are going to have to realize that almost no one who actually understands this stuff thinks what they're doing is the right way to go about this.
I just want us to be clear on this...
President Obama takes a LONG time listening to a known liar that tries to make him look small and poorly informed. And yet, when people are telling the president that they want to inform him and make him smarter on how to make things better, he brushes them off.
Not all spying is bad. The biggest problem we face right now is the new technique of indiscriminate mass surveillance, where governments are seizing billions and billions and billions of innocents’ communication every single day. This is done not because it’s necessary — after all, these programs are unprecedented in US history, and were begun in response to a threat that kills fewer Americans every year than bathtub falls and police officers — but because new technologies make it easy and cheap.
And here is where I disagree with Snowden. These programs aren't unprecedented. The 1970s brought about a number of programs which were indeed the precedent.
MLK was watched and surveilled by Hoover for fighting for civil rights.
The CIA is known for uprooting democracies all over the world for decades.
The NSA's main objective is to cull dissent as has been shown so much by now.
COINTELPRO, anyone? How about Nixon and Cuba? JFK and Russia? Nixon and Iran?
The list goes on. We've had a number of precedents in the shadows where the law falls silent. America has uprooted lives and destroyed people in regards to witch hunts for Reds, Communists, Socialists, environmentalists and anyone with a hint of wanting new types of change in America. We punish the innovative with laws that work for Hollywood but not for the mass amounts of people. We have laws in place that support Monsanto's globalization and leaves the rest of the world weak against them. We have trade agreements that support the largest companies and they employ a number of alphabet Law Enforcement... I'm sorry, "national security" groups... but leave the regular person in the dust.
And our society suffers from those disparities. How many people are locked up for private prisons to support the state? How many lives are destroyed thanks to the Drug War, the war on Piracy, the war on the Poor, and other issues?
There are indeed precedents set by the worst of men who went into the government to change it into a very large police state.
That's what should scare us the most. We have a plutocracy instead of a democracy.
Hollywood Accounting ensures that the movies never reach the public domain. They make money for studios which will never reach the public domain so long as copyright exists.
Yet, people make movies and series despite the investments in Hollywood. Hell, I create content for people in regards to political discussions on my blog and YouTube channel. I put my stuff in the public domain similar to Techdirt so that people can spread the knowledge.
And hour long presentations take time to research and present.
The quality is in the presentation and I can make movies with a Nikon camera, a group of friends and some cardboard if need be.
So here's my question... Where is copyright needed? Why should I worry about a movie studio that made billions as if their profits represent the entirety of movie making in the US?
Who needs copyright if it doesn't serve their own interests? Reduce copyright to 30 minutes and see what happens. Prove to the public that corporate interests need copyright, not that the public needs to have more.
Yes. When the RIAA had a monopoly, they made billions. When they lost the monopoly, they lost money. It's not rocket science. People paid more for discs than necessary because the RIAA had control of the means of distribution.
Now they compete with the entire internet and that scares them. They aren't innovators, they are parasites exposed for what they are.
They wanted Kim Dotcom in jail because he was a competitor. DJs get harassed for selling their own CDs. Independent artists get less platforms to work with because of laws that stifle free speech in the name of copyright.
And law enforcement... Oh, sorry... "National Security Agents" waste time and resources being the private police force for companies that make billions instead of actually doing something useful like going after real crimes.
So when you say they are losing money, I do believe you. Karma is coming to kick ass without bubblegum. I'll grab the popcorn.
I would think a public commission that works outside of the police force would help alleviate some of the issues as well as a community outreach which the public controls in some way. Not the government, I mean the citizens who are being told that the police are doing a great job to dismiss complaints.
That's two ways that the community could be given more power over the police which would work to review the complaints and have more dominion over recommendations than a prosecutor who works closely with the police every day.
Cave Johnson here. We got a few bean counters out back that we "recruited" to test out our new fancy schmancy thingamabobber. It's very expensive and does exactly what we needed for a few people in even nicer suits.
Now yes, we've conquered the moon and I know that the science experiments haven't gone according to plan, but this is research!
And we finally got the control group thing fixed (or at least hiding from OSHA) so we're going to throw MORE science at the wall to see what sticks.
And that's where you come in folks. This large computer is what the bean counters tell me is the future. And we're gonna test it. Not all at once. Just a few tests to make sure it works. I'm sure you'll love it.
The Walking Dead isn't available overseas and for some people, it's far more convenient to download the episode to talk about it when it comes out.
Compare this to Dr Who where they decide to wait two weeks for the American episode over the British one?
Guess which group pirates more?
The thing about globalization is that the street moves both ways. Someone in Norway who can't access the show but wants to talk about it has more incentives to download to enjoy and partake in the conversations than giving him $5 access to Netflix, cheaper broadband, and ensuring that ads go to you along with legal services for them.
Piracy has never been a moral issue. It's always been a service issue.