I tend to play with language a lot so I've been coming up with new digital and analog analogies anyway. It's just how I see the copyright issue which seems the best way to talk about it moving forward.
In questions of statutory interpretation, isn't the court just figuring out whatever it was that Congress actually wrote?
Judicial review is the Court deciding what Congress says. But there's a problem. You have them basically turning over laws even though the public has high support for them such as the Civil Rights Act or copyright law to make it more supportive to corporations.
This power is NOT in the Constitution no matter how you look at it. This is a legislative power that Congress has power over.
What you're suggesting is that the government decides how to rule over the public without the public having a say so in those laws. That isn't quite how a democracy should work.
I believe the best way to coin the term is to call copyright exactly what it is: Corporate Rights.
The public has rights to access information until they come under corporate right law.
For the past 50 years, that has been what corpoate rights have been all about. Extending copyright to the benefit of corporations. Fair use has been decimated with knowledge, innovation, and sharing the things most harmed.
What this has been is a way for the legacy studios and industries to control the past. They no longer have to compete with new competitors or new fields and shut down independent artists and writers who work outside of their systems of governance. That's been the way to control the markets. Why can't artists make money on Spotify? The market is controlled.
Why can't people go to the big six publishers for a fair shake or deal? They're too busy trying to collude with Apple to control the markets.
And why can the MPAA spy on people through TWC, force startup companies to shut down for innovative use of technology and basically resist any form of adaptation?
And that control spreads to the TPP, India, Brazil, China, Australia, Belgium and other places where the individual rights of the public are trampled to give more and more rights to the corporations that have stagnated.
In WWI, we had that very same type of corporate governance that became unbearable on a country. It was called the Treaty of Versailles. Now we call it the corporate sovereingty of the TransPacific Partnership.
It was never about the control of the artists. It's always been about the control of how much money the artists make. The more that goes to the legacy industries, the more stagnant we become.
The question isn't "Why is any country supporting this?"
The question is "Why haven't we stopped this corporate abuse of power?"
I thought people understood that the law enforcement officials have been at this game for centuries...
If the police doing executions and having them sanctioned later, the DoJ willing to hesitate to put Greenwald, a journalist, into jail, the CIA doing corporate espionage on friendly countries, the NSA willing to spy on anyone and everyone, the extrajudicial killings of drone strikes by the president, or the many other myriads of problems weren't an indicator that things are wrong...
I don't know how to show you that America has some deep structural problems it can't quite face.
Okay, so let's think about the past 30 or 40 years... The telcos have been consolidating to remain the dominant market holders even though they've been broken up thanks to everything before the Carter administration.
What does this surveillance give them?
That's what I have to think about. This surveillance ensures that they have a government monopoly that serves their purposes. They can impede on competition such as local internet access which I'm sure is what happened in Wisconson with their local internet.
So where would I look? I'd have to see if there's any collusion occurring between the CEOs and government through corruption laundering. I may just look into this in the near future given how the incentives are matching up to basically protect AT&T and Verizon mainly.
With their connections to the government that have occurred since the 80s, it's hard to ignore that the laws have indeed been changed to protect the companies such as requiring every cell phone to be bought with a driver's license and ID.
So honestly... Who are the laws currently protecting? The public, or the telcos?
This is a helluva lot bigger than people should be expecting. Microsoft is asking for customer's data on their Xbox One. Now you're telling the same people that if they give their addresses and their other products, that's basically going to harm their reputation.
There is NO point to get the Xbone. They take money from private marketers to make more money.
And now you're telling me that as a company, that has multiple products, you can't get your bean counters to work to make the user experience better?
I actually HATE to substantiate his arguments, but he does have a point.
There are two things that can happen with the austerity we're seeing now. One is that we can tax the richest people, who are going to try to hide their money as much as they can in offshore bank accounts and whatnot.
The other thing we can do is borrow the money from the rich, which has to be paid back in interest.
Let's remember that higher taxation on the wealthiest Americans would help our deficit by forcing the rich to pay their fair share. I recall that corporations pay 0% in taxes through all of the loopholes when they buy politicians to lobby for the loopholes and launder corruption.
So yes, we need a 100% tax rate for the richest Americans. IE, a maximum income. The government then uses that money for job creation, road repairment, and other needs. FDR did that in 1932 thanks to pressure on him from grassroots activism.
If we borrow the money, we have to pay the loan to people that haven't paid their fair share. It's a great shell game, but it causes the very same problems that came with the 2007 crash.
So it comes down to which we should do... Tax or borrow?
I'm reading this story and I have to wonder. Why do these people continue to believe the information is safe and secure?
The fact that it's apparently not that difficult to get NSA employees to cough up their login info shows that for all the talk of careful review, audits, limits and security -- humans remain a very weak link, and there are all sorts of ways to get at information even if the NSA believes it's locked down and carefully monitored.
Okay. Here's my suggestion for this. If you all want that information, you have to watch it 24-7. It's that simple. We get Diane Feinstein, James Clapper, Keith Alexander, and anyone else supporting this into the big room to make SURE it's safe. They remove all suspicion when they're the ones being monitored with this and can show how all the info is under lock and key. They go through each step. Bit by bit.
They remain in the room to show us how this can help save lives. They remain in that one room to maintain national security.
That's my suggestion. You keep them in the room with the information that they have to watch. No senatorial duties, no general duties, and no administrative duties. They just watch the information for national security.
Meanwhile, we can fix the problems they brought up by making these programs much more secure and transparent. They can look, they just can't touch.
Tapio's company Mental Capital Care received 790,000 euro in funding from Finnish investment board Tekes last year to test out a game designed to cure the symptoms of ADHD.
Perhaps there's a different perception to ADHD that should be explored.
One of the people I follow would be Thom Hartmann who has a number of books on the issue of ADHD. He explains it to be a gene that people are born with.
It may explain the types of hypersensitivity that certain individuals have in different arenas to which they have to learn how to adapt to a different environment to one that our omnivorous ancestors grew up in.
It would be very intriguing if they picked up the research and saw if it worked for what they needed it for.
Look, when Germany had their 1932 (33?) moment in Reichenstad(?) where a "terrorist" bombed a building, that was a moment when they needed to combine the efforts of all of their intelligence. Germany also had their prime minister nominated, not elected. And he kept doing things against the wishes of the people. When the SS was created, it had the exact same mission to protect the Homeland while doing more questionable things as the World geared up for WWII.
We call it the SS now but that was their Department of Homeland Security.
It's been a colossal failure to have all of the LEOs under one roof. It's more of a failure that this bureacracy hides so much information from its citizens while trying to stamp down on their rights.
We're truly looking tyranny in the face and all it can do is ask for a standard 4-51C paper to file.