Is it super creepy to anyone else how it seems to be the common norm for our businesses to regard the people, including their own customers, as a hostile, belligerent force?
In contrast to us being the people to whom they want to serve their products (in exchange for our money), they feel our wallets are something they can take for granted or could if only they could manipulate us to open them up and let them take what they want.
So long as an officer has any way to shift the fee to someone else, it's not a sufficient deterrent.
Corruption needs to have life-ruining consequences, especially since corruption makes for countless innocent lives being ruined daily.
Since, for instance, police officers can lie on the stand without consequences, they do routinely to secure convictions, regardless of guilt. We cannot possibly determine how often innocent people serve time, but it's probably no longer rare.
And prison ruins lives. Not just the life of the convicts, but it destroys their families as well. And the people of the US don't give a fuck, because they're convicts.
Children start picking up reciprocity fairly early on, as best as they can understand the circumstances.
If that weren't the case we'd require policing by a much larger portion of the population.
Indeed, in tribes of under a hundred people, crime is rare. The problem is large populations in which some people don't consider each other people. e.g. Love your neighbor as you do yourself not applying to those bastards from the church across the street.
Re: Re: Re: The "Good Faith" exception should go away
I thought the Good Faith except was meant to allow law enforcement officers to bypass fourth-amendment protections by claiming they were acting in Good Faith.
Is there a standard of Good Faith? Or does the officer merely have to claim it? What shows evidence of good faith, or evidence to the contrary? When is an officer acting in Bad Faith that he's not guilty of some other crime as well?
Good Faith has always been a response to the emotionally troubling problem that whenever a police officer does not follow procedure, or whenever a new right is acknowledged by the courts (e.g. email privacy) that someone awful gets acquitted.
That isn't stomachable by some people, hence they invented good faith, as if that were a thing that could be determined.
"in a manner comparable to amounts paid in the old system"
Most artist got little to no money based on the old system. The labels are notorious for cheating actual artists out of their cut.
So for most of us, we're actually better off taking our chances getting our stuff on the net and offering on the services.
Between web-sales and tours, John Coulton (known mostly for his Portal song Still Alive) makes about $150K. I'd rather take my chances for half of that then risk facing Hollywood's opaque accounting system.
That's actually what Snowden did. He was in Hong Kong (which had a good reputation for providing asylum) when the revelations went public. He didn't anticipate that the US could successfully lean on Hong Kong to deny him.
He ended up in Russia because he was in transition there when his visas expired. Putin has been generous, probably on the grounds that he's an enemy of my enemy, also that he embarrasses the US.
Heaven forbid the US and Russia establish benevolent relations before Snowden gets pardoned.
That justice is not had in the United States legal system, rather it is and continues to be an engine by which status quo is preserved, and revenge is exacted on those who cross those who have power, even if action was taken for benign or even noble reasons.
This nation is not the United States I was promised as a child. I resent it every day.
TOS featured a lot of writers who were not Gene Roddenberry, which lead to quite a bit of inconsistency.
Indeed, Roddenberry imagined a future in which we had long since gotten over our Puritan sexual hang-ups (A common theme in 50s and 60s sci-fi), but the 60s writers weren't comfortable with that (Nor were the 80s - 90s writers of TNG) and TOS and TNG ended up only emphasizing how insecure we are.
Star Trek gained a lot -- as with most creative works -- standing on the shoulders of giants.
People tend to want to defend their revenue streams...
...no matter how corrupt or damaging or inflated they are.
Just look at all of law enforcement with regards to civil forfeiture.
The labels have been not just poor custodians of the music industry but outright heinous in how they actually treat content-creators.
The sorts like Prince or Roger Waters or Gene Simmons who actually made their bank are the exceptions. Buried in the ground on which they stand are the countless artists who never saw a penny for their work getting publicity.
And the RIAA still has the gall to say that they support the artists.
PS: They'll lie without hesitation in defense of their methods, so don't expect any of their numbers to be fact-checked.