Should it be our goal, in structuring media distribution, to ensure that "artists" (many of whom make crappy, totally derivative, unoriginal noise, by my own standards) all make a million dollars. I, for one, will not be sad to see rock stars with enough money to pay for totally trashing hotels at every stop, and to buy enough drugs to short circuit their own productivity.
More importantly, should it be the goal of any real "artist" to achieve the rarified level of "ROCK SUPERSTAR" and multi-millionaire?? Because that's been the carrot the labels have used for years. Not "we'll help you make your music, promote it and you'll make some money" but "we'll take all your contract bonus in recording and A&R fees, neglect to promote your music and pay you a pittance per sale BUT!! You MIGHT become Led Zeppelin!"
Oh dear, another one that didn't get the memo? You didn't see it? It was, like, a piece of paper, with a bold header!
What did it say? Ummm..."getting an education and then taking a job you're overqualified for". I think that was it. Part of it, yeah. And you won't get 'rich' but the work will be easy and you'll still have a lifestyle that kings from 200 years ago would kill for. "Lowered expectations..." Yeah.
Sometimes it seems, at least over the last few years, that "fame" is the only criteria for being on TV or in movies, and "greater fame" the only goal. I mean, when getting a role on a 3rd tier reality show because you were once 2rd runner up in a Bachelorette series is considered a "career in show business", it's clear that fame is the only currency...not talent, not the ability to actually, you know, DO something, but only 'being known'. I mean, born with enough money to do anything she wanted, Paris Hilton could think of no higher goal than to become famous.
It's a weird phenomenon, but perhaps Carreon is convinced that becoming more famous is an unalloyed good.
lol. I thought the same thing but I've been conditioned by example after example to just assume my poor thought processes and pathetic analytical tools (logic, reason, empirical testing) were inadequate to understand the absolute legal necessity of otherwise completely opaque statements. (never mind that the legalisms creating said necessity are often as batshit insane as the response)
Teka, your summary is perfectly analogous to the actual content of the shakedown letter.
What we see here IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF "GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION", YA MAROON.
Jebus. WHAT, in this story, suggests MORE of would be better?? AT&T flat out refused to correct a well-intended amendment to the "free relay calls for deafies" giveaway, and they were allowed to do so DESPITE your so-desirable "governmental oversight and regulation" because the political actors involved were paid off with campaign support and donations.
Giving the government more of any power only allows them to sell their services off more. The libertarians you so lamely mock in your post would say, "Do away with the giveaway in the first place." Sure, it's only tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted (or should I say "unfairly siphoned into the coffers of an existing Big Corp"?), but add up enough similar frauds and waste and you're talking about generations of Americans paying off the debt from your beloved oversight and regulation.
You're either a)trolling b)stupid c)lying or some combination thereof.
AT&T was NOT being asked to "monitor the content of phone calls" which you then bogusly conflate with ISPs monitoring the content of internet browsing. Nothing remotely similar to what you state, but you then rush off, trailing straw, to make a completely invalid point. Not impressive.
AT&T were simply being asked to confirm that the people trying to use the (very profitable) relay-call system were US-based. Easy to do, but when they were ordered by the gov't to do it, they somehow were unable to figure out how to do it. So the revenue stream of tax dollars continued, and this is no more or less than fraud.
Your lecturing, condescending tone is made even more offensive by the fact that you are, as stated, trolling, stupid or lying. An ugly thought process in there regardless, and I'm guessing the rationalization involves a paycheck amirite?
@The Devil's Coachman:
In a budget-reduction move that will cost only $2B, the Department of Redundancy Department has been folded into the Office of Bureaus and Departments (though retaining its name, budget and physical resources, to be housed in the new $5B "Senator Redacted Memorial Office Building Complex Center")
It's not FUD at all, it's reductio ad absurdam, which, while itself a logical fallacy, often has value in forcing a re-examination of the starting assumptions.
Now, use of a logical fallacy does not guarantee a false result. In fact, in this case, the starting assumptions are proven to be pretty accurate, foremost among them "IP owners (not artists) have no guiding principle save greater revenue generation from the 'property'." and "This has nothing to do with art, the common good, or established legal and moral principles." Then you examine the steps they've taken already, extrapolate, go a little farther and see what you get.
And look! The reductio turns out not to be so absurdam after all.
ps) "Ceci n’est pas un box" is a sweet and appropriate reference to Magritte's Surrealist painting "Ceci n’est pas un pipe"