Considering the likely result of the Levenson inquiry is full scale regulation of the press, I find it a little difficult to be hopeful about anything arising from it.
Now the SNP has finally secured a referendum for Scottish independence, they are being pressured to explain their policies on, well, everything. Peter Wishart MP (SNP) has likely been told to pick a side, any side, so SNP can show they have thought about both copyright and the internet.
Google made its money and gained its power by supplying a superior product and not relying on government protection. Google relied entirely on the market (i.e. giving the customer what they want).
For the last thirty years Hollywood has made its money by asking the government to protect and enforce its business model. They have no confidence in their product to they use force to get people to buy it. They gave up on the market and demanded a government enforced (and, therefore, artificial) monopoly.
The public decided that Google was in the public interest.
The government is not asking you to hand over some specific documents with respect to a specific case, it is asking you to handover every document you have with respect to your entire life.
It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
It gets worse: technically, under the European Arrest Warrant rules, any EU country can have you arrested and sent to them for acts illegal in that country (e.g. Hungary) but "committed" in another (e.g. Britain).
Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
Ah, but in a judicial law system traditions and precedents can be overturned in one ruling by a judge deciding that it no longer, or never did, make sense.
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets.
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
The only reason they exist at all is so they can *claim* to be self-regulating whenever external regulation is discussed.
Perhaps because the press SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED!
The phone hacking scandal has actually shown that newspapers are regulated - by the market and laws unrelated to journalism.
The newpaper that was primary culprit no longer exists - that's the market at work.
Most of the "hacking" that took place is hardly worth the name. Is what has been done unethical? Yes. Should it be illegal (with the government dictating journalistic behaviour)? No.
Does anybody really then government and, therefore, police, involvement in journalism and newsworthyness is a good idea?
Not Hopeful
Considering the likely result of the Levenson inquiry is full scale regulation of the press, I find it a little difficult to be hopeful about anything arising from it.
SNP Positioning Prior to Referendum
Now the SNP has finally secured a referendum for Scottish independence, they are being pressured to explain their policies on, well, everything. Peter Wishart MP (SNP) has likely been told to pick a side, any side, so SNP can show they have thought about both copyright and the internet.
SOCA, SFO and the Right to Remain Silent
I have to wonder if SOCA has been extended the same powers as the SFO when it comes to fraud investigations; i.e. suspects have no Right to Remain Silent.
SOCA not SFO?
Aside from all the other bullshit; the SOCA splash page states that the site's owners have been arrested for fraud.
What the hell is the Serious Fraud Office for then?
Re: Re: Re:
No need we're discussing the "science" part - which makes it even more ridiculous.
Re: Are they really in the public's interest?
Google made its money and gained its power by supplying a superior product and not relying on government protection. Google relied entirely on the market (i.e. giving the customer what they want).
For the last thirty years Hollywood has made its money by asking the government to protect and enforce its business model. They have no confidence in their product to they use force to get people to buy it. They gave up on the market and demanded a government enforced (and, therefore, artificial) monopoly.
The public decided that Google was in the public interest.
Re:
The government is not asking you to hand over some specific documents with respect to a specific case, it is asking you to handover every document you have with respect to your entire life.
See the difference now?
Re:
"Then all we need is some new law classifying TSA as part of border control and we can all be royally and officially buggered."
To think, your ancestor's fought a war of independence so you would never again be royally buggered.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
As has already been stated charitable giving is higher in countries with lower taxes - the larger the welfare state the less likely people are to give to charity.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like that you complain about Laissez Faire and prohibition in the same post.
You realise that those that want properly free markets are generally against prohibition, right?
Re: Re:
How many contractors do they use?
Just because there are few employees does not mean they are not creating jobs.
Re:
Are you suggesting they steal the use of "wholesale" from NBCUniversal?
Re: United (Horror) Kingdom
It gets worse: technically, under the European Arrest Warrant rules, any EU country can have you arrested and sent to them for acts illegal in that country (e.g. Hungary) but "committed" in another (e.g. Britain).
Not exactly what most people think the a European Arrest Warrant is for, is it?
(untitled comment)
Hu? ong? Who? ang?
Royal Society Copyrights Timetravel
Who would have thought that it would be copyright, not patent law, that would be the "incentive to create" timetravel.
Re: Re: Fair use only a defence
I meant common law, of course. Judicial law is basically what I was complaining about with regards to Supreme Courts.
Re: Fair use only a defence
Ah, but in a judicial law system traditions and precedents can be overturned in one ruling by a judge deciding that it no longer, or never did, make sense.
While the world clamours for "clarifying" legislation (which will just produced question marks over something else) we should be really praying for test cases like this.
In the end it is only a Supreme Court that can really screw up the law with a bad interpretation of legislation. Once the Supremes have ruled new legislation is required to overturn it (unless a new set of Supremes decide to revisit it). There really should be a mechanism by which lower courts can begin to treat Supreme Court rulings as simple precedents again after a certain period of time.
In the US, of course, there is one particular Supreme Court ruling that ensures that will never be considered.
Re: And another thing... SOPA vs Robin Hood vs Skynet
Fewer more considered transactions with a level of diligence attached ironically mean more stable markets.
Not true: those fewer transactions will also be large and unbalanced by lots of smaller transactions - which would be economically unviable. Fewer, larger, transactions leads to more volatility not less.
Re:
The only reason they exist at all is so they can *claim* to be self-regulating whenever external regulation is discussed.
Perhaps because the press SHOULD NOT BE REGULATED!
The phone hacking scandal has actually shown that newspapers are regulated - by the market and laws unrelated to journalism.
The newpaper that was primary culprit no longer exists - that's the market at work.
Most of the "hacking" that took place is hardly worth the name. Is what has been done unethical? Yes. Should it be illegal (with the government dictating journalistic behaviour)? No.
Does anybody really then government and, therefore, police, involvement in journalism and newsworthyness is a good idea?
Re: Had these been regulated, perhaps they'd have been more cautious:
Seriously? You're using GM as your example? A company that is only still in existence due to a government bailout.