The weirdest thing about this case is that every party might have actually thought they were doing the right thing. The problem is that even bullies think that very same way. MIT claiming “neutrality” is the same proclaiming innocence. When bad things happen, even by inaction or ignorance, there is plenty of blame to share amongst all the participants. Hiding behind bureaucracy is in reality a “head in the sand” approach. (Psychologically, kind of boring. Is this grade school?)
This behavior also falls under the category of “angel theory.” Its extremely common for criminals, corrupt officials, bullies and the ignorant alike to don a halo the moment their errant/stupid/thoughtless/brutal/etc activities are discovered or brought under the hot light of critical examination. There are several obvious stages of progression in such school room misbehavior.
Stage One: The bullying and miss-behavioral activity(s) itself. The Aaron Swartz case ended in death. Yes he took his own life but of the apparent bullying and outright threatening made upon the life of Aaron at the knowing or unwitting hands of MIT, JSTOR and the DoJ? (The likely scenarios are murder, belligerence, negligence or even corruption?)
The magnitude of the accusations and threats/bullying were so large and out of proportion, to the actual suspected deeds, that its easy to sympathize with Aaron's plight. (no charges were filed, only sealed indictments, which is serious enough) This is way to polite an explanation for completely and obviously shameful behavior.
Stage Two: Place the Halo over the head and smile like innocent angel. Who, Me? No way! All JSTOR, MIT and the DoJ wear bright and shining hallows of innocence but is there a bit of tarnish on the hallows backside? Is that a wire holding up the halo on the sides? Is that an electrical cord threaded through the pant leg and plugged into the wall outlet? Dose it look crooked when looked at from another angle?
Stage Three: Blame. Its basic procedure for a guilty party to blame everyone else. (Its your fault I did it.) If that does not work then blame society and culture. (It was the legal climate at the time that made me do it. I killed you because of orders from a superior officer. “Fire!”) Finally an insanity defense however a “hail Mary pass” that might be. (It was my gut instinct.)
Its a credit to MIT that they do not publicly assign blame to Aaron Swartz. Its possible that MIT's imaginary halo looks more respectable? They at least wear it better.
Stage Four: (Only if you are Bart Simpson) “I didn't do it!” “Nobody saw me!” “You cant blame me!” MIT will likely perpetuate its claim of neutrality but is their report itself a tacit finger pointing upon the DoJ? The DoJ, likely, claims that everything was proper and legal? That all their behavior was righteous and correct? That no procedures were violated? In this case does the DoJ credibility wear out?
The next batter up in this mortal/horrible reality is the DoJ. What is their response? Its likely they might need some prodding since the case is probably filed under the DoJ's carpet by now. Possibly even the round file cabinet.
Halo's aside. Keep in mind that this is only a “report” produced by the upper uppity ups of MIT. As such its classic that they are one sided publicity minded, public relations worded, fluffy fluffy newspeak. Any insider generated and edited report would most likely skim over any institutional embarrassments and provide some, even if weak, plausible reasoning for their actions. This is not an overly cynical approach when average institutional behavior is factored in.
Of course where is the evidence. The e-mails and other correspondence internal to the DoJ for examination? Who really made the original accusations and who then perpetuated them with such obvious virulent manor that Aaron felt he had no recourse? DoJ transparency?
Unspoken is the relationship between MIT, JSTOR and the DoJ. Who was egging on who? MIT's report suggests it would be the DoJ who was the instigator and driver of the overbearing relentless prosecution of Aaron.
MIT's statement of neutrality sounds nice but they did not say they would not testify, or at least resist testifying, in the case. Neutrality, after the fact of the original statements, was not be good enough to prevent an eagerly and relentlessly perused prosecution. Neutrality is really saying “do what you want.”
To bring charges against Aaron the DoJ assumed damages to MIT (p140) at a value of $5,000 bucks. This is a questionable amount since JSTOR only settled for $1,500. (attorney’s fees may be awarded but they are not damages.) Since no justification or anything is submitted by MIT to back this up its just speculation.
Not mentioned is the legal action of JSTOR against Aaron Swartz which had settled. Its hard to say they have clean hands. JSTOR (p42) is listed as receiving $1,500 usd plus $26k attorney fees from Aaron Swartz. It may have been a mistake for Aaron to settle for this amount. Once a man eating tiger gets the scent of human-meat/money... Pounce! (p52)
JSTOR (p141) was quite explicit in outlining the digital duplications performed as harm upon their usage load (nonsense) and business model. (The real profit from publicly funded research “ugly reality” rises.) Although they did state they did not support any further criminal proceedings they did not say they would not testify. (More supposed neutrality nonsense? Public relations doublespeak?)
No damage to the computers was done and nothing had to be repaired or reprogrammed. No physical harm was done in any way. There might be a weak rational for unauthorized locker access but unlawful is way overboard. (p135) In fact its common, and even encouraged, for university students to come up with novel approaches to limited facilities. Its not like he violated the university's TOS or rules of usage or anything. (which is what the CFAA charges were based on?) Since MIT already had copy privileges from JSTOR that point is mute. Calling it White Hat hacking is even too much.
The CFAA is so poorly/badly worded that its one of “those” laws that makes EVERYONE a criminal. No exceptions. Other examples of law that everyone (you, your kids and grand parents...) is guilty of violating: Drug and Copyright monopoly laws. For the prosecution to peruse such an obviously weak case with such an apparent rabid way is beyond any reasoning.
Was Aaron guilty of anything at all? Certainly. He was and activist who acted on his beliefs and as such reached an ideal rarely achieved by the common person. His stated goals were well within the realm of American Culture of Freedom of Ideas and Knowledge. Especially when the knowledge and ideas (research) he wanted to provide access to were funded by the American public.
Who knows. There are obviously many more things unknown about Aaron Swartz's untimely death than is currently understood. Why are such cases so non-transparent? Since the statements, or silence, by the involved parties seems empty the flags of suspicion are raised higher.
Since almost all Constitutional points have been ignored by the DoJ its another shocking loss of American Culture. Even after over 35,000 signatures were gathered in a petition for his relief.
Surely society was overly harsh on him for its own culture of selfish commercial/industrial reasons.
Public and Congressional opinion swings are only the cultural waves and tides upon the ocean of societal opinion. They wash in and out with timely shifts in level but rarely vary away from predictable behavioral patterns. Do the US voters and congressional members recognize a paradigm shift or is this just another wave or tide of popular opinion? What are some of the justifications of such a shift and possibly what and how can any change be articulated?
The intelligence gathering ramp up before the Snowden revelations/whistle-blowing has become quite the profitable business. The rampant NSA/Government-spying-agencies use of National Security Letters explains the silence of the computer/Internet/cellular/phone/etc tech industries. Its likely that most of the CEO's, and other execs in the know, felt that their tongues and hands were tied by the gag orders included in each letter.
Now that the NSA Schroedinger security cat is revealed it is hopefully measured as completely and entirely dead. (sic) Will the mostly silent tech firms now find a new political voice for being, as it were, taken advantage of? Who knows.
The habits of Congress the House and Public are hard to change given the, normally huge, political flywheel effect. When changed do occur its drastic and wholesale in nature. The Amash amendment narrowly voted down in the House was a good first effort but its relatively weak wording full of weasel wording that would likely be expanded on in the subsequent Senate debates. New public poles showing a marked trend of worrying more about government spying than terrorism might also be significant.
It does mark a significant point in that its nice to actually listen and consider actual reductions in current industrial/military/government security paranoia. Since this paranoia seems to be harming the actual people employing them (citizens and industry alike) its gotten way, way out of hand. So our of control that it now seems to be “biting the hands that feeds”. Greed, Power and Control only go so far.
Its normal that the American public wakes up every 40 or so years and intervenes in some huge corruption/injustice (civil rights, banking or trade scandal) or squashes a monopoly (ATT, Oil and Railroads) or three. This time the injustice is larger than usual and encompasses the entirety of the Constitution itself. (Question: Are the B and A parties considered monopolies?)
In some horrible nightmare all the, 'oft shoo shooed by government lobbying groups and industry, “conspiracy theories” are becoming true or at least undeniable. The shock is enough to temporarily paralyze even the most stoic of analysts let alone the average citizen. There is just way to much conspiracy theory out there to sort out immediately. (and thats already disregarding UFO's, Aliens and Ghosts.)
Its is a common theme in every totalitarian country that they spy upon the very industries that provide their own tax sustenance. In those contries each firms greatest fear was not forgein industrial spies but domestic government spying. It seems just like police are sometimes found to confiscate drugs and sell them on their own... (or raid drug housed with their buddies on their spare time) Spies do the same with their industrial intelligence gathered in their own countries. Sound harsh? Yes it is. Its extremely common that international spy agencies share data in some bizarre form of back scratching culture.
Its so common that in China its become a fable. Spoken is the concept that no matter how great or skilled a craftsman becomes they should never, ever create something perfect (or even close). Perfection draws the attention of emperors and empresses and such a focus of higher powers is rarely survivable in a corrupt state. Since the US is becoming renowned for its industrial/commercial/governmental corruption this might be a serious concern.
There some, possibly many, who claim that there is no problem, nothing to see please move along? Motivation of questionable decisions and activities always raise the flag of suspicion. What do these people have to gain? Follow the money;
Large campaign donations, friends or family business connections and other more hidden and scandalous things might be easily revealed since most of the time their is tacit approval for such obvious, and easily fallen into, corruption. Such, known by insider(s), corruption is often used as a tool/leverage/blackmail by other, even more corrupt, politicians/office-holders/bureaucrats.
Its early to say which way because any change will require a concerted and coordinated attack on all the ways that personal property, liberties and freedoms are being affronted. Privacy is just the latest of the dominoes to fall. Three fallen/falling dominoes of freedom and liberty follow;
The extremely failed (in every way; Societal, economic, moral, policy, Constitutional, etc.) war on drugs took away many property rights, prescription medication purchasing rights, traveling privacy rights and more. The only benefit was to be able to lock up hippies that were not going to vote for party A or B. (Please read up on the psychopathic-like president Nixon and Watergate if you have the time.) When police/DEA/other have the ability (not a right thats for sure) to confiscate, keep and spend any amount of money for any whim of a suspicion this cannot be good.
In the past 10 years copyright (-monopoly) has been criminalize and has possibly become the new tool of choice to harass the “officially” unwelcome cultural groups in society. Copyright-Porn Trolling is a good example of one part of society. The crucifying of some (fill in the blank) publicly shamed group by allowing unscrupulous lawyers to sue them into poverty or even jail is the modern witch hunt of the new century. No good can come of this and the louder that media firms decry its benefits the more harm and damage its likely doing.
Since the 1960's it seems the official “unwelcome cultural group” is been expanded from just racially based societal crimes so that now any industry, that has enough donations to lobby congress, is allowed to participate in this, real societal and cultural, injustice. When government allows any well enough financed industry to “feed upon our own” its hard to see any societal benefit whatsoever. (Cotton industry, Sugar industry, Coffee industry, Oil, Steel... on and on)
Many times have laws been used unequally and unfairly. Most of the time its called “profiling.” Just ask any colored male driving in a car with three other of his male friends says about that. (instant drug suspect pullover in large/medium sized city.)
Today we have recently uncovered a secret campaign to rid us of even our smallest privacies. The NSA/other spying scandals are shocking in the extent that now its likely that any evil or crime by government is imaginable.
Since its possible that even if the activities of theNSA/others are declared illegal they will break the law and continue their wayward ways anyway. The only way is to defund. Drastic draconian defunding will help to close the new, huge waste of government funds, data storage center in the southwest and the like.
Its also likely these people/firms/agencies responsible for promoting/running such constitutionally questionable programs will have similarly hugely demoted egos and will be loudly defensive if not dangerously reactive. Keep in mind that they are already doing questionable activities. Can one imagine the unemployed spies/data-trollers picketing out front of the NSA and White House chanting slogans while waving signs “hooray for our side”. (“Sign, sign. Everywhere a sign”)
New laws probably wont stop the NSA/FBI/CIA/others from spying as once a group is corrupted its difficult to root out. Empowering the telcos, tech and Internet firms with legal tools and incentives to throw out the spying sons of bitches on their asses would be nice. If this is paired up with congressional defunding efforts, transparency of the FISA court and more, they wont be able to do much about it.
Its probably a good thing when overzealous government agencies/politicians/officials whine about not having enough power. As China has shown the way to steal their citizens freedoms through using industry policing we can win ours back the same way.
The question hanging is; Which way will this shift flow? A stronger backbone for congressional members or NSA back supports issued for all?
Liz; “That's OK. A lot of U.S. politicians don't care about 47% of Americans anyway.” So true in so many examples. When the drug laws were passed the majority was only just over 50% approval and it was passed like WHAM-BAM. (lots of controversial polling methods just like today too.) The only beneficiaries of the drug laws were more police employment and the prison industry. Not one single nonviolent offender benefited from being fined or thrown in jail.
arcan; “i wonder how long until they combine but.. but... terrorism with FOR THE CHILDREN!!!” They already have:
There are only two sides to the culture. Creators and Audience. Creative people create various forms of culture through several modern choices of format. The public either loves it and emulates it by incorporating it into their lives or they don't. Music, Cable/TV shows, Radio, other are shared with the public over various media including Radio, Digital, Internet or even bit-torrent and its either popular or not.
It is tempting to label the content creation chain as Creator → Copyright-monopoly → Audience but that is not culture its called oppression or better yet censorship. Their can be NO controls on any culture if that culture is to be open, free and uncensored. NONE. These are the same basic American cultural values of freedom that the Constitution, and various amendments, was based upon.
Lets face the facts.
If you purchase a song/CD/album/mp3/whatever and you cannot sing it in a public nonprofit affair or even a private party... What good is it? if you get fined/sued or thrown in jail for just singing a stupid song? In few ways does this show up better than with Karaoke. Copyright-monopoly is a crime upon Freedom of Expression.
If you purchased a movie/video/TV-show/etc on DVD/BR and are not able to act our a skit for your school, private party or company Christmas party? What good is it when its a criminal offense? What rational does one use to purchase such a liability risk? Best just to throw them away and not watch them. People are spontaneous, especially when drunk, and to put laws on such makes only for bad experiences. Performance law is a crime upon Freedom of Association.
If something is broadcast over unencrypted public airwaves such as radio or TV the why cant some bar or grocery store show/play that to customers or employees? Whatever news heard over the TV or even the Internet should be fair fodder for any public gathering be it for profit or not. Copyright-monopoly is a threat to Freedom of Speech.
The new rights under attack are Fair Use Rights. What good are Fair Use Rights when you get a bogus take down notice or sued anyway? What threat to the basic rights to use news, ideas, hot current topics and whatever quotes and even melodies in our opinions? Why do we have to worry about blogging being different than paid for press when often bloggers are better reporters than a possibly (even if self) censored media? Copyright-monopoly is a threat to Freedom of Press.
Copyright-monopoly imagines itself as an important part of the creation of culture but in its present form cannot be anything but a limiter and controller of culture. A roadblock to open and free culture based on American citizen's rational, logical, (or even illogical) whims and fancies. Current copyright-monopoly law is an obvious shame and most likely a business scam in itself.
All monopolies are scams whether they are government sanctioned or not. A short temporary license was imagined by the originators of the Constitution but, possibly because it was wrongly labeled “copy-right” (-monopoly), it has grown to such out of control proportions that basic human rights as Freedom of Speech/Expression, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Association have all but been erased.
(Not to get off topic but lets not forget the damage current Drug law has done to property rights and how also victimless/harmless copyright accusations have been enacted with armed raids.) It seems one loss of personal rights compounds another. To be treated like that for basically (what are/should be civil offenses on both accounts) is not a good sign of respect for good and harmless citizens. (possibly written overly politely.)
The copyright-monopoly based industries are drunk and addicted to the funds generated by laws that interfere with the normal cultural growth of American Society. In the same way that one cannot patent Ideas (although the TPP and ACTA are trying to do just that.) copyright-monopoly is trying to profit on the normal functions of healthy culture and society that vitally needs to share information, concepts and such in whatever/however way it feels like.
Congress already getting high off of money from copyright-monopoly industries. This money is somehow squeezed out of American culture and is it a surprising that the new copyright-monopoly biased hearings allows an agenda that perpetuates that? Not at all. Money and power are their own objectives. The spawn of the two are aways evil and twisted beyond imagination.
The RIAA and MPAA have, beyond anything anyone can imagine, given so many signals that they are like criminal organizations that a list of such supporting politicians could serve as a blacklist for voters? (one wonders what the correlation to NSA budget approval and copyright-monopoly favoritism is?) Can the Copyright Alliance (created in the image of RIAA, MPAA, other) be anything less corrupt? Possibly more corrupt?
In light of the obvious shenanigans (way to polite) of the RIAA and MPAA would not this new Copyright Alliance be some sort of circus sideshow shell game to keep their obvious taint obscured? These things usually are effective when dealing with the public and Congress.
Forgotten mostly in these talks is are the Creators but the Audience not even mentioned. In not one talk, speech or article is the fact that culture is only a two sided coin. More importantly; Nowhere is the fact that copyright-monopoly is a roadblock and limiter to open, free culture and society! If this is not the MAIN topic then these talks have no cultural meaning (thus no meaning) to America society at all!
Its more likely another disguise for a new tax, toll or monopolistic overcharging. What is at steak are laws that make it a crime to speak, listen or just snap a picture. Sound silly? Most have/are/don't pay attention to such details till they pay the fine, the scurrilous demands of lawyers or sit in jail. Since these are already current law things can only get worse under the current regime/legislators/policymakers/two-party-system/bureaucracy/monopolies/u-name-it.
Since the only included speakers are media distribution and copyright-monopoly business based...
Can we expect more laws that allow indiscriminate lawyers to effectively rape average citizens for their cultural choices and preferred media choices? Likely.
Can we expect more censorship in the name of copyright-monopoly's ever greater need to fund their already huge political donations/bribes? Obviously.
Can we expect respect for our cultural choices and the society that results? Not likely at all. Culture is how we live our lives and share with other what we learned or think is cool. Sharing culture with our acquaintances and friends must be considered as good as it is healthy.
Can we expect more reductions in Fair Use Rights including crushing the faint hopes of the Deaf and Blind? Certainly. (One would thing at least one shred of kindness and decency exists but this does not seem to be the case.)
Can we expect further copyright-monopoly industry theft from the already greatly diminished Public Domain Rights? Surely Perpetuatal copyright-monopoly terms longer than the lives of its Audience/Listeners has no cultural value at all. (to the Audience/Listeners)
How can an organization with little or no oversight on freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the Press, be allowed to propose guidelines on these very vital cultural American foundations. To remove these critical pillars of American societies is an affront to the basic vlaues that define American Democratic values of freedom.
What the proposed DoJ rules protects is only possibly the opinion of current administration(s) and the loose gun behavior of the political party in power at the time. (Ummmm... was that party B or A???!!! Or was that A or B???!!! Whats the (choice/pick C) Constitutional difference?) Especially since it does not include protection for the obvious news sources like the normal news site blogger and even the lowly Facebook (etc) event entry.
Its an uncomfortable truth that present media does not actually do much reporting or journalism. (nor are they paid/rewarded or given enough time/resources to do so) They rely greatly on the opinions, journalism, reporting, fact gathering OF BLOGGERS and contributing writers. (letters to the editor etc.)
Opinion is/has always been covered by law so why compromise such a basic constitutional right with a badly written DoJ policy as this? This is not just a small slip down the slippery slope of totalitarian power. Journalism is almost entirely opinion.
This proposal as written has the “lets protect big corporations and ourselves (as we like to do whatever we like)” unofficially written all over it. Not spoken is the unwritten likely attempt to “lets propose the most ridiculous free speech/constitutional violations possible and see what we can get” kind ofpolitical/public psych-out. Is this a (power) fishing exercise by the DoJ?
In addition the to the obvious “power fishing” the DoJ seems to be casting a propaganda/whistle-blower clause. Such a stupid suggestion attempts to over-right several earlier, insightful, laws (trying?) to protect the honest whistle-blower. When administrations are at contrast the public surely must be aware that some vital issue is involved. (hint, hint)
In NO way can this kind of policy protect reporting, journalism or Freedom of the Press Rights. Its just not possible. Unless sources are unilaterally included/protected there can be no Freedom of the Press at all. NONE!
When incompetent or bad/stupid/corrupt people are in a position of power/authority it takes a huge amount of public awareness to counteract their corruption (or at least stupidity). Its actually unlikely that Congress or the House will be able to fathom how much they loose when listening to such politically biased tripe and Constitutional nonsense.
Anyone can be a reporter, journalist or news source just by entering an event to their best recollection or an opinion that tries to explain/justify/reason-out/fathom/historically-justify/whatever an event/action/concept/other. Its a wide open field that cannot be put into a sentence let alone a word.
If such a (DoJ) policy stands then there most certainly will be no such thing as reporting let alone responsible journalism. Where will they get there spark of creation without being able to rely on current bloggers and other widespread sources of public opinion/fact?
Basically everyone is a reporter, journalist news source and opinion maker. ALL are protected under the Constitution. Most are persecuted by the last few presidents? There is no real difference between a professional reporter/journalist/writer to a blogger/respondent/letter-writer. All are the same in the watchful eye of the Constitution of Independence.
This brings to light...how far down the slippery slope have we gone? To persecute whistle-blower is a shame. To persecute normal reporters and journalism may (at best) be described as a propaganda campaign.
Personal note; The slash notation/whatever/expanded-meaning used. How to say so much with so little? The posts are already so wordy that few read comment on them. (And take so long to write that they are at the bottom of dead TD articles.) Want to write a book or two on each cool TD article.
AC; “When you define journalism, you can control journalism.” So concise!
AC2; Are ALL journalists and reporters truthful/accurate/objective/impartial/fair/accurate? NO, FRIGGING WTF ABSOLUTE, WAY! (same for politicians/lawyers/doctors/government/government-officials/etc) Are all bloggers/writers/respondents/letter-writers the same? No. (No emphasis because such analysis is the same for the normal/average pedestrian.)
What is important is the critical review of the reader. (!!!)
AC3; “The Department of Justice is attempting to abridge the first amendment which specifically states that it "shall not be abridged."” Brilliant observation!
Rapnel; What is needed is actual criminal penalties for certain bad behavior of GOVERNMENT and MILITARY officials. Clean and clear cut jail sentences (and revocation of pensions) for spying on American citizens private lives. Jail!
Agreement in that one cannot have freedom without privacy. The real question is: do the citizens of America control their government or does the government control them?
Translations of foreign material/media/books/vidios/news/newspapers can be best described as freedom of the press with elements of freedom of speech included. How can such an innocuous thing be so important? Well. Its been almost 60 years since to world had to endure the obvious oppressiveness of the Nazi regime and few from repressive regime's (Russia, China and North Korea are good examples) are permitted to speak of their horror experiences.
Was the word Nazi mentioned? Do you think thats too harsh? If the word censorship was used (and properly at that) but that would be sugar coating the main issue. The issue, is culturally based but, involves communication and trusted news and information translation sources.
At the heart of the news/information issue is trusted translation groups/societies/sources. Which seems obvious when stated as such but it goes, way so much, deeper. Deaf and Blind individuals rely on support groups to translate/interpret/animate auditory and visual real life situations along with stories/news/movies/songs/etc.
Because there are unlimited ways to translate from one foreign language to another...Translations are nothing but opinions. Opinions are fully legal in every way! No possible law, organization, political, firm or individual can assail this! NONE! (And if they do they should be simply tossed out.)
Have already made several posts mentioning this. (There are other posts about the Blind being victimized by industry, special interest vultures, but these mention trusted translation sources as an important consideration.)
The TD article title “Swedish Rights Holders Order Police Raid To Shut Down Fan Translation Site” Says it all. Did the “Rights Holders” consider the rights of the Deaf to have a trusted translation source in any way. Did they consider the rights of ordinary Swedish citizens to obtain a translation from another source than the movie/video/radio/media/etc?
What we are talking about are basic humanitarian rights. It's an abuse to deny ANYONE a translation source that they can at least compare the official news/movie/radio/newspaper/etc translation with another more impartial source. Books are NO exception.
Note; because its easier to relate to written translations, have mostly articulated problems of copyright and translations for the Deaf. The Blind need to have verbally articulated translations of foreign media/news/movies/newspapers/books/etc also but its basically the same issue. Trusted translation sources are rare and even good sources need to be checked/compared/peer-reviewed.
The reasons for this are always the same. Would anyone trust some translation by the NSA about foreign or domestic spying activities as reported in another country's language? Now could anyone trust a Nazi translation of how they treated their own Jewish communities? If Stalin provided translations of the ethnic cleansing of its own German and Jewish populations wouldn't it be called a “Siberian Education” instead of death?
There are many movies and documentaries that some misguided patriotic producer/firm/rights-holder might never want to give a true and accurate tranlstion for obvious commercial profit reasons. Also they might be forced by a fascist government to whitewash their criminal activities.
-Rant over- (will now actually read TD article...)
Its normal that any party that has proof and evidence of a crime can file a complaint with the local/regional police in an attempt at justice. Any individual or firm can do so with no problem except when they make up the evidence. If any firm or individual lies or exaggerates their claim they can be prosecuted and put in jail. (thats normal too)
Undertexter.se seems to be an exemplary translation site well within all laws and reasonable critical opinion a legal site. Not just a legal site but a vital Handicapped community resource!
The police did a raid on the servers/site? What damage did they do to the support community of the Deaf? What damage did they do to the ability of Swedish citizens to compare and critically review any “official” translation? Please explain what societal benefit is conceivably obtained with this extremely violent behavior on normal, beneficial, Swedish cultural activities.
IP protection is a nonsense argument. The politically made up phrase “Intellectual Property” (IP) seems to defy the Constitutionally guaranteed concept that Ideas are un-patentable, un-copyrightable, un-trademarkable and ownership deniable. (Note; Swedish law seems more Constitutional than US law these days so its a tough call from outside. Gomen!)
Surely there is some copyright based sickness growing withing the core of the Swedish justice system. Since it does not make any contribution to society or its various positive cultures some other reason must be examined.
If a court has to look beyond that then there is something else involved. Biased opinions are a polite way to say that some judge might have stock in Disney or other media firm? Possibly a membership in some media based protection society?
As Sherlock Holmes stated "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" Bribes? Corruption? Bad attitude? Vigilantism?
These are not illusions when the needs of Swedish society (handicapped or otherwise) are trampled upon. What is really going on? (...)
Violence is always a bad thing whether from a terrorist, lone psychopath or duped police force. What matters most is freedom of the Press and freedom to disseminate opinions (translations) freely. It is a tragedy of justice that government sanctioned violence frequently (but not always) unpunished.
The raid on Undertexter.se definitely is classified as violence because it is a physical intervention. There can be no excuse given to justify the violent uprooting of a positive cultural activity contributing to society. These things are just not done by a healthy Democratic government.
The pirates can not be found in the members of the honest and just group undertexter.se. Hollywood itself is surely acting out the true roll of a pirate upon culture as they are stealing/taking/removing normal/good/positive/vital functions from society.
The creators and owners or the translations are undertexter.se and or the members themselves. Translations are fully covered under current copyright law as original works. For any copyright agency to shut down such a cool/great site is at the best hypocritical. At the, most likely, worst its a criminal activity called conspiracy or worse.
With current copyright law Hollywood can not really be considered creators nor contributors to culture and society. Nothing contained withing copyrighted works can be used withing the listener/viewer/reader lifetime. This is because the terms of copyright are longer than the lives of the audience. Again, it is Hollywood itself that is behaving as the real pirates.
Since it does not mention that undertexter.se has copyrighted their translations they are acting like heroes. If they do copyright the translations it will likely be some Creative Commons license hopefully the one with no restrictions.
The shutdown of undertexter.se is nothing but censorship and destruction of healthy positive culture. If Sweden ratifies a Blind AND Deaf treaty this activity would be covered under its umbrella of beneficial legal cultural activities. Here we have the crux of why Hollywood idiots want to destroy such a great and wonderful treaty.
AC1. It is likely that the Swedish police/enforcement-agencies have been whitewashed about the criminality of individuals stating their opinions/translations. Because of the (normal?) belligerence of typical police/enforcement agencies they will never admit fault. Even if convicted otherwise. (this is standard organizational behavior of which many books have been written about.)
AC2's refference and quote from U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier was brilliant and concise. It took the pirating activities of the copyright industry 17 years to overcome the reason and positive cultural logic.
Another AC3. The current insanity of making copyright violations a criminal offense is exactly that; Insanity. It makes EVERYONE a criminal for just snapping a photo with your cell phone.
For example lets say you are are visiting a foreign city and you ask directions from a native who then shows you a map which of course you then snap a quick picture of. Bingo! You are a criminal and might be thrown in some jail to be beaten up by both prisoners and prison guards just for annoying them with your presence.
Current copyright law is beyond anything a real Democratic society can permit.
Privacy; is an individual private issue. There is nothing public about privacy. Its an oil and water non mixable concepts kind of thing. Only lies and deception can blur the two separate issuers.
Yes some people lead very public lives. Hollywood (idiots). Public office elected officials (mostly liars). Writers, Reporters and Journalists for the various major media publications/productions (mostly Public Relations parrots.) like TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines and Trade Journals. Prolific bloggers whose individual reasons are complicated. Reality-TV weirdos who seem to be trapped by the money and or life situation of the moment. Other. (not covered)
Many are hunting for fame in vane pursuit of glamor, glitz and ego related complications. Others are just looking for notoriety and or industry recognition. Some are searching for more sinister emotional rewards in pursuit of power and glory for an control-ego trip. Some others just look at the situation as a jumping point in their life/careers. Many just want to live a private life.
The point is that in all these cases everyone choose to lead that public life. One can argue that some coercion was used by promoters and producers though as money is a powerful motivator. There are other limiting factors as that only parts of their lives are shared and likely/possibly in a controlled way.
Just because some people choose to lead public lives is no way a measurement on other people who want to live private lives. Its an apple and orange augment. No comparison at all. Because some people lead public lives is no reason to violate the constitutionally guaranteed privacy of others.
Reality-TV is anything but reality. Its a produced/contrived/greatly-scripted fake reality made to simulate plausible life-like situations/events/environments. Lets face it; Normal lives are boring and sleep inducing with nothing entertaining about them other than the 5 seconds it took to break your arm and the maybe 30 min drama getting to the hospital/doctor. A normally once in the life event.
Its normal for a producer of a Reality-TV show to hastily script in an event/accident/disaster/comedy-skit/etc into a show thats loosing viewers. Its even more likely that the plots were previously written just for such an (expected?) occasion. Spontaneity? Anyone who can master that is a genius/star in the making.
Despite how apparently intimate and personal Reality-TV seems to be in most cases privacy is not violated much at all. They are produced, scripted events, with many supervisors to keep the peace.
Dating/Romance Reality-TV shows are a good example. Two strangers meet and go on a date which, somehow frequently, ends up in a hot tub with both in scanty swim apparel. This is in no way reality. Without the film/camera crew keeping watch as effective chaperone's this scenario just does not happen on the first date. Its not reality.
Its likely the FBI, CIA and NSA waste millions (billions?) to monitor TV/Cable nonsense and likely jerk off to it as much as the average viewer. Sound harsh? Well, thats reality for ya. Remember that these guys are mostly unsupervised.
Note; Don't be so one dimensional when figurative masturbation terms like “jerking-off” terms are used. People “get off” on many things and the sick/perverted often do it to follow voyeurism, ego, power and control personal issues. Things psychologists get paid to sort out.
Bloggers are a more complicated group who despite their possibly prolific writing/blogging they do not necessarily want to lead a public life. Many are members of some specific/unique group posting about some topic they care greatly about. Hobbies, Games, Politics, Public-issues (like privacy, global-warming/environmental) and many others.
Many bloggers fit into the intellectual types that follow difficult to describe motivations. People who write their opinions on the Internet are one of the great real treasures of a Free Democratic Society. Through the sharing of ideas, concepts and opinions using whatever media formats/forums society can come to some consensus about many important issues/topics that vex us.
Many boggers post with the expectation of privacy. Yes they don't want people calling them up and asking difficult questions. Anonymity is a power exercised by even the writers of the Federalist Papers which were one of the prerequisites to the Constitution. (and persecuted by the British)
Privacy is vital in many countries with oppressive regimes who would kill off or jail the competition. The favorite method popular these days seems to be that everyone is guilty through lifestyle laws enabling anyone to be persecuted at any time.
Such a diverse group would suffer most from overt government spying.<>b Unfortunately it is the US government that wears the tin foil hat these days. More unfortunately are the efforts of political groups (mostly A and B) trying to influence such public discussion. Its would be even worse if public funds were used.
Using the machine gun style of the DMCA take-down notice even private organizations can abuse... Anyone can legally edit the Internet. Often just to dump on the competition. Worse are government site shut downs, sometimes at the bequest of private industry. A good example would be the Kim Dotcom MegaUpload enforcement DoJ disaster.
The US has taken a turn for the worse and is almost undeniably heading toward totalitarianism. The recent move by major credit card vendors Visa and Mastercard to restrict payments to VPN services does not bode well for privacy rights in the US.
Its always a bad sign when any government has ANY kind of opinion at all. Politicians have opinions but government? No way.
As for the opinion of Frank Rich? Phhttt. This TD article on his latest Nymag article does not make anyone want to read more of his work. His arguments seem mostly based on mass media statistics which is no way to base an intellectual argument like privacy.
Read some of article, tossed 1k word rant. (this is already getting wordy) Mostly agree with TD article
There can be no good purpose/reason for government representing a Free Democratic society to collect indiscriminate data on its citizens. None. ALL of the scenarios lead directly to political abuse of such data in the same way that IRS is used to punish political rivals and groups.
Corwin; thats a great analogy comparing the voluntary publishing of personal info as sex to the involuntary taking of personal info as rape. Clean and clear.
Lets look at real sex on the living room couch. Did you purchase an X-box one with the facial/activity/movement recognition system? Did the system identify who you had sex with? What positions did you enjoy? Were any sex procedure based laws violated during the act? (varies from state to state) What cries of joy and ecstasy were emitted during the event? What age was the involved members? Etc.
All of this will be recorded and transmitted to various government and commercial agencies. How would one feel about an extremely specific advertisement/mail/email sent directly to you about some vibrator/sex-magazine/sex-position-tutorial/whatever? Did the various local/state/fed law agencies get a copy of the data if your partner looked to young or the positions used were considered hearsay?
Good luck proving your innocence! Charges will be filed electronically and all parties will be required to testify in court. (sic?)
The symptoms being emitted by the Mayor of New York City Michale Bloomberg seem to be historical echoes resembling the Balkanization, way down to the city state, of Europe during the Middle Ages. Each waring city-state/country had its own army, ruling class and monarchy although each had different names for each.
It is well known that the success of each city state was dependent on their economic success/structure. Each had assets to draw upon such as local mining withing their surrounding hamlets/territories or a deep harbor in the right location. Transportation was almost always the key for success.
Fair taxes and tariffs also played a large role in individual city profitableness/growth. (Considering how zoning, unions and Guilds are almost always used to quash new upstart rivals its a wonder they are even allowed to exist at all.) Fairness is of course a speculative and relative value.
Lets look at the value of NYC as a City State.
New York City was once a major shipping and immigration hub as its deep-water harbors were perfect during the booming maritime industry of the early US growth years. In later years the lucky cities like NY became railroad and manufacturing hubs which if leveraged correctly would lead to major Interstate Highways being built directly to them when cars and trucks became major transportation means.
Basically the major transport hub reasons that have founded many large cities like NYC have diapered. One might argue that the rising prices of gasoline have put a damper on that and they would be right. There are of course other sources of energy to use for transportation and the best these days for industrial/commercial fleets of cars is Natural Gas.
Because of the economic demands of building a business within a large city (taxes, tariffs, guild union and other licensing woes) (don't forget the bribes to corrupt city officers) many businesses have migrated out of the large cities and moved to the suburbs or farther. NYC is no exception as the character of its business has shifted from maritime shipping to manufacturing and railroad to currently service and office oriented enterprise.
Among the tangible business assets of NYC are Wall Street, media firms, sports and the United Nations which generate considerable business travel and spending. A generally robust and still successful city that has changed along with the economy.
No bets taken on whether if, or how soon, NYC will end up the same way as Detroit city in Michigan state. (Detroit used to be the automobile manufacturing center of the world but thats another union story.)
So where is NYC trending?
Current political trends in the United States have been toward an Orwellian Police State. Its likely arguable how far down the slippery slope, to totalitarianism, has been progressed. Its, also arguably, generally agreed that the citizens started to lose its grip on government with the start of the drug wars under former President Nixon. (Nixon the obviously certifiable psychological nut-case)
NYC being the location of the 9/11 attack is of course under tremendous pressure to both prevent a repeat and survive the public pressures from such a potentially oppressive enforcement. Much sympathy given for their suffering. However this has no bearing on the ultimate success of NYC. These pressures also tend toward more police state policies.
Its not surprising that Mayor Bloomberg has followed the general overall US totalitarianism trend adding to that the natural pressures resulting from the 9/11 disaster. (and a few others) Although understandable its not really forgivable in the Constitutional sense.
The TD article mentions several quotes form the NYC mayor including “,military organization or paramilitary, command structure.”, “I have my own army,” and possibly the most damning possessive “his/I”.
The next step would be to put up city walls and draw bridges across the natural mote the Hudson river makes. It would also need to annex its water supply source in the Adirondack mountains to the north from the State of New York...
So is Michale Bloomberg's going to succeed New York City from the US and possibly declare war on the state of New York? Who knows.
What we have here is a large red panic button. You know. The same huge, 3 ft round, red button drawn so cleverly in a Gary Larson cartoon with the caption underneath; “I wonder what this button does?” Its normal that we don't push it until we come to a situation that we do not understand or fear.
This directly effects even kids and ordinary citizens who joke, parody or comment explicitly on current events or affairs. Its probably a crime in itself that the overreactions of these mistaken/misguided officials are not criminal offenses in themselves.
Yes. We are pointing to the panic button pressed by clueless, careless and obviously ignorant government officials, explicitly highlighting, law enforcement officers. More explicitly is the history of such a large and overly used panic button given out to overly terrorist sensitive officials at every level.
Peabody; Set the wayback machine for circa 2000 sept 11th (Bullwinkle) when Bushy Boy needlessly? pushed the panic button. This act literally stopped US commerce dead in its tracks for way over a week at untold trillions of lost business. While, the rest of us cleaned up the mess he, and his vice, cowered in deep armored bunkers. Safe?
None of this was necessary. (as especially these very same scenarios were written in books long before with some countermeasures described.) Of course this is only for those paying attention to commerce and democratic values. (an, unfortunately, great minority) US economic decline was unfortunately just beginning. (trillions lost is... lost!)
In the eye of many forevermore will the nickname Bushy Boy be never forgotten. Bush, Bush Jr. and W were erased from memory as disgrace. A legacy buried amidst the rage expressed in future wars and secret national security projects that might be a psychological crutch to make up for being scared.
Once one panics, the normal response is to, try and make up for it by justifying ones actions. Terrorists make a great disguise to bury ones fears in. It sounds rational and gets even normal citizens/voters to consider it as plausible. Plausible enough to violate Constitutional Rights?
Of course. One may be forgiven for panicking once, or twice, over some extreme incident or provocation. When one does not stop panicking then there is cause for psychological concerns about the obvious impact, of actions taken under, duress. Chronic medical reasoning comes into effect.
For the recored; A panicked individual almost never admits the affliction. Defensive maneuvers are normal. Fear is something that destroys everything about oneself/the-individual. The big question; Would Bushy Boy destroy an entire American Culture, economy and nation because of his own fears and the medically obvious psychological responses?
History suggests the panic button was not pushed once, but many/multiple times. This would feed right into the hands of a waiting, also paranoid, bureaucracy which would do nothing but expand upon the likely gullible fears of the current president.
>Push the panic button; Spend unremittingly on US security programs and waste billions on creating huge useless new agencies and departments. All of which would violate the Constitution.
>Push the panic button; Go to war. (Twice! Does that count as two pushes of the panic button?) Waste untold trillions while telling the public it would only cost billions. (like that was any reason to go to war?) Effectively lie about the actual reason (claims of WMD) to go to war.
>Push the panic button; We're broke! (not publicly claimed at the time) Publicly spoken; “We need a national stimulus plan to stimulate the economy!” Of course what was not spoken was that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq had bankrupted the US government and they needed to keep spending so their black-box/defense contractors (be) happy.
Black box contractors... now where did all that, national stimulus plan, money go? Not the US economy thats for sure. Unless you consider all the [redacted] spending on NSA national security operations let alone the [black box] private contractors. (In support in foreign warfare?)
(mantra) No money was spent on a extremely profitable (however risky) space program, no national Interstate highway system, no railway system and not even a very questionable health-care program however wasteful. (etc.) National investment strategy? (...) None!
Revenge? Bushy Boy... What are you thinking? Does national economics mean anything? What does a vector mean to you? Where are you headed and do you want to lead America,as a whole, with you? Bleah.
>Push the panic button (again); Keep spending on NSA nonsense. Huge amounts in extremely constitutionally questionable programs. Things that Stalin, KGB, Stazi and Hitler would be proud of. If we are talking that Constitutionally correct law is good...
Then Bushy Boy is waaaaayyy out there in nutso land. Very bad. Way out of American Cultural values.
So we end the Bushy Boy presidential term with the TSA, DHS and the newly empowered NSA. (and whatever classified nonsense) And. Obama takes over But, where does he lead?
A police state is, presently, not undeniable. Under any administration. Where are the elected judges who care about and claim constitutional values in their campaign election speeches? (Who's listening?)
So... we have Justin Carter arrested and in jail for... the insecurities of a past president? What form of Constitutional justice is that? Texting an inappropriate message is not in any way “reasonable cause”.
Is this analysis wrong in any way? (many points, and button, pushing was missed, am sure)
silverscarcat. Its so wild, terifing and yet understandable that the soccer mom will freak out once its their kid being accused of some weird imagined terrorist threat. These days even throwing a firecracker is connived into some wild threat to mankind.
Dave Zanatos. Yes its the random reports from “soccer moms” that are the most dangerous. They are a panicky bunch. Soccer moms are a danger to democratic society?
Andy; “But if we give in to that then the paranoid, delusional soccer moms will win” Yes! Its a shame that these very same delusional soccer moms will have their houses/cars/belongings confiscated when their sparkling kid/son/daughter will be accused of drugs. (delusional is a good term here)
All personal messaging should be encrypted especially amongst friends. Some shared (10k+) key would be best. Its kind of normal once u think about it. Its unfortunate that most people don't think.
AC, Vincent Clement and Urriel238; Its good when police officers surrender their badges and guns when their shift is over. When they are normal citizens they better empathize with constitutional norms.
Hohn Fenderson; “”We reeeeally need this old generation to die off as fast as humanly possible so we can go to work on the monumental task of getting the world back on track””
Most WWII veterans are, currently, dieing of shock and remorse for dieing and fighting freedom... in vein. (!!?!) (...) All that they fought for is being lost in front of their eyes. Its a horror of liberty that goes beyond speakable atrocities.
The great problem is voter apathy; “We vote for party A or B because...?” we don't know any better?
AC; “The terrorists, and every other enemy of the U.S. are laughing at us right now, for in our fear and terror, we have lost the freedom has been a defining characteristic of our nation since its inception. We have lost the freedom that men and women fought for and died defending for nearly 300 years, and we lost it practically overnight.”
Very well put. Actually, we gave it away in panic an fear? Who do w we consider “strong” leaders; Ones who profess skill, power and maneuvering over ones who claim Constitutional mastery?
Loki: “But without these arrests, confiscations and seizures, how else are the NSA, FBI and such going to be able to have claimed having stopped over 50 potential terrorist plots?”
Anonymously Brave; It is likely that Justine Carter will be included as the 51 terrorist threat thwarted by the NSA in their next report to Congress.
Somewhat paying attention to the MPAA's blatant misuse of power concerning copyright matters and the Blind (and formerly Deaf) international treaty their latest despicable antics still riles feathers.
After already torpedoing any relief for the Deaf Treaty they still seem insistent on shelling the Blind treaty into smithereens. For what kind of relief? Relief from corporate copyright nonsense that should have never been legislated in the first place. Never.
As if this kind of physical and psychological need by the handicapped should ever have been left on the political sideline.
Lets be plain and simple. Fair Use is not good enough as it is. The MPAA wants to substitute something that is not good enough with silly exceptions? These weak allowances (exceptions) will likely later be marginalized and minimized because its written so arcane and complex the Deaf and Blind could never articulate it let alone the public at large.
Why? Because its easy to pass off the loss of an exception rather than a Right. For the Blind, Deaf or American public.
What is needed is that Fair Use be elevated greatly into Fair Use Rights. The word RIGHTS should be firmly and proudly included with the phrase Fair Use. It should be an act/bill all by itself. Its probably that important.
Why? Because if not then the individual “exceptions” will be whittled away and argued off as inconsequential. As they have been in the last 30 years or so. Currently, it seems, the MPAA has future plans to take/dispose/steal/theft/pirate the entirety of Fair Use (Rights).
There are other issues of free speech derived through using, hopefully trusted, translations. It is actually imperative to ANYONE who reads foreign material/books/videos that they obtain a trusted translation. So may cuss words and other cultural essence are frequently edited away. Poof. Once the dirty words are rationalized out of the translation the reinterpretation does not stop there.
If your wanted to read about China would you trust the official version? No. Russia? No. Fox news? The NSA? hahaha. Its like listening to any administration official try to say this is good when its bad. (or vise a versa depending on what side is talking)
Even a real reliable news source can be mangled through a bad translation. Its normal.
The Deaf and Blind actually only want something so basic that the meddling of the MPAA only likely worsens their already ugly crime like legacy. But the MPAA is used to such scars and battle wounds already and wont be swayed by name calling.
At no time in the present or in history can the MPAA involvement be called beneficial to the American Culture/public let alone such a vulnerable group as the Deaf and Blind. Every time they have sponsored legislation they have TAKEN from American Culture/people and now they want to crush more of the hopes and dreams of a handicapped community.
WHO CARES about movie producers. Screw them. In fact let me put it to them/they/idiots; Since copyright terms have been extended to almost in perpetuity (who cares if it expires a zillion years after we die)... What contribution have they ever made to American Culture that the public can actually legally use and enjoy?
The constant reduction of Fair Use (Rights)? It gets a little boring sometime doesn't it?
What bedtime stories do copyright maximalists tell their kids when they tuck them in at night. Do copyright faeries dance like sugarplums as they steal even their own kids culture, rights and privileges? Are they told the truth that they are not defending movies but surely stealing American culture?
Sing along now...A song we can never sing? A movie we can never perform skits from for our friends? A video we cannot back up? (its a mantra already)
On and on with the worthlessness abuses of copyright law not to begin to elaborate on performance rights (sic) law.
“,Motion Picture Association of America, which says the accord could undermine protections important for filmmakers, publishers and other major industries. “ Cant see what they are talking about. Nothing so far written in both the Deaf and Blind treaties bothers even a canary.
““What happens here could affect other future treaties,” said Chris Marcich. “ You bet Chris. You might hopefully see your empire shrink a bit.
“Hollywood is strongly resisting language in the draft that mirrors the concept of “fair use,” long embodied in U.S. copyright law.” To bad. Go home and stop causing damage with your no helping policy.
“,it is neither necessary nor would it be reasonable or desirable in view of the mentioned difficulties to include an express reference to fair use or fair dealing in the proposed instrument.” Wrong. It IS necessary. Probably for the exact reasons the MPAA claims it isn't. Fair Use IS the point.
“At a time when the fair use doctrine is considered by many as a cure for all ills, this would clearly be the wrong sign.... ” Wrong again. It would absolutely be the right sign. The MPAA will never understand this in their selfish game of market domination but what does a Deaf or Blind person care about their unlimited ambitions? Its obviously fooled the average American Already its possibly expected of them to try and push it on the handicapped and helpless.
“Consequently, for all the foregoing reasons, the reference to specific ways of implementation such as fair use or fair dealing should be omitted from the proposed instrument.” Wrong even again. The Fair Use and Fair Dealing must be included to produce a clear document that can be understood by the average Blind or Deaf person.
Of course the MPAA's obvious policy has been to create totally obfuscated and complex law that only they can decipher.
MPAA; Your cause is just not credible enough. Your organization is certainly damaging the reputation of the US consulate, American values and culture.
How much/many campaign contributions were necessary to compromise a good and done deal?
The MPAA seems to act more like a criminal enterprise than any sort of reputable entity. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt seem to be the best from them.
Yes it seems that the past several US administrations have been enamored with the MPAA's money and movie glitz. They have mistakenly/unwisely appointed copyright expansionist sympathizers into government including lawyer and other positions.
This tack might supposedly will lead some legitimacy to the theft of American Culture but how long can that last? Administrations come and go.
There is NO WAY the MPAA can be a defender of Fair Use Rights. None. If they have claimed so at any time in the past or future it is almost certainly a lie. The National Federation for the Blind (NFB) must still be hurting from the likely attack/bruising/ambush earlier.
The MPAA does not get it that the treaty for the Blind (and hopefully the Deaf will not be tossed on the wayside) IS and expansion of Fair Use (Rights). Thats the bottom line. The name of the game.
For the MPAA to waltz in and dictate a complete turnaround and make the treaty for the Blind a worthless piece of paper and waste all the years of goodwill and time invested into it is unspeakable horror.
Correction; the Mr Johnson voice was supposed to be a Agent Smith voice from the movie The Matrix. (The Wachowski Brothers, of Babylon 5 fame) The neutral, almost robotic, yet still human, monotone voice that seemed critical of everything human. Used in an anti-ironic manner.
“What if 'fake' killing is a good safety valve?” What a great human emotional psychological concept. Many people read Fantasy, Horror, Action and War fiction books for release, excitement and adventure. There is no way to deny that Video Games might perform the same human psychological function.
“What if we learn about real issues by playing instead of doing?” Another good point. The plot of Video Games is an important intellectual component providing many opportunities for the player to learn about life, politics, technology, geography, historical-events/history and more. It has the ability to do this without a (boring bully infested) classroom.
“Did everyone in the pre-video games generations who played cops 'n' robbers, cowboys and indians, and war against germans go out and kill as well? Those were 'violent' gratuitous.” A good point/example.
Dr. Oz; However wrong in his opinion... still gets to have his opinion.
NSA pestering Congress for a new law to exonerate corporations for enabling mass spying? This. After all the earlier whining and begging to get the telecoms off the hook for their part in the Bush-Obama spying Watergate scandal. Something does not fit.
What this action reads like in body language is; There is so much more spying and whatever violations of the Constitution involved that MORE blanket hall-passes are necessary. As if that was needed in this mad schoolhouse already taken over by the kids.
Lets imagine a potential worst case scenario. By leaks we already know that Microsoft, Google and AOL (Mozilla) have been infiltrated/subverted by NSA moles/equipment/force/threats. These three tech giants control the three main browsers that the majority of the worlds users use.
So far all we know about is the particularly nasty habit of the NSA's bulk data gathering ninja technique. Nothing was admitted about back doors deliberately put into the original manufactures programs. (the trojan method) Many hints of this but no admission.
Certainly I do not know for sure but what about that China scandal a few years ago where Google claimed espionage. For all we know this might have been the NSA using China as a dupe since its so easy to spoof a IP address.
The current low/zero level of credibility in the Bush-Obama administrations and the NSA lead to any sort of wild scenario one can imagine. Here we have a case where the lack of transparency in the current administration and its agencies only create more doubt and mistrust.
Gen. Alexander said ISP's “and other firms”. This meas that the NSA letters of national security did not cover their asses! A lot potential political shrapnel to think about there.
“,adopt bill language on countermeasures that’s “as ill-defined as possible” —“ This is just icing on the cake. Its been normal procedure for any special-interest-group to write the law/bill/act in some way that only benefits the industry/agency that desired/campaign-donated/supported/asked (for) it.
Of course its obvious that any elected official that supported this, way over the top request, is too far down the rabbit hole to be considered a real defender of the Constitution. That person(s) has most likely given up the safety an security of freedom and liberty for shadows and ghosts.
Agreement that its a sad sign that there have been not hearings on the actions of the current administration and the NSA. Prosecutions should be in order. At the very least pensions should be forfeited for not defending the Constitution. (their job)
Since its not the first time some real punitive actions might be warranted. So far the only thing scheduled is the NSA “briefing”. (hahaha) What value does testimony from some agency with no trust level to speak of matter?
The analogies to early Germany pre war history are very concerning. Compelling historical precedence is telling a repent saga of past blunders and mistakes.
When party A mostly equals B and both start to seem incapable of defending the Constitution then party C (or D etc) start to look viable.
Just reading on the supposed House Intelligence Committee Hearing coming up does not sound to Constitutionally healthy when reading the media advisory. Of course if it was written by Fox news...
Jay an FM Hilton has some interesting points and historical correlations to make. You both recognized the economic historical comparison as both the current US and Germany were in economic tough times. Germany was in a lot worse shape but US economic future does not look good either. (now if we had invested all that wasted NSA money in a Space Program or something more tangible...)
And finally; Mr. Hilton. (best Mr. Johnson from the Matrix voice)
In this day and age what we have to compare with the Gestapo and SS is the criminalization of lifestyles. We have the DEA and ATF and other weirdly named agencies. Lately the NSA makes the FBI look like heroes.
Want/need to purchase your prescriptions from another country because your could not afford the 5x price your local pharmacy charged? Jail and broken down doors with guns pointed at your wife and kids (and its likely they will be thrown out into the street when you loose your job)
Want to grow medicinal spices in your back yard? Jail and broken down doors with guns pointed at your wife and kids (and its likely they will be thrown out into the street when you loose your job)
Wanna watch dirty porn that some group finds unpleasant? Jail and broken down doors with guns pointed at your wife and kids (and its likely they will be thrown out into the street when you loose your job) Also there will be porn trolls to sue and ridicule you and your family to a likely early death.
Wanna download movies, research and TV shows? Jail and broken down doors. Or at least threats for 10 years in jail leading to suicide because of the legal pressure. And more copyright trolls to force you into submission and financial ruin.
Think the US does not persecute religions/race? Try asking a Arab/Indian decent looking person how difficult it is to get by a TSA inspection.
And. Those were just the jail term motivations on lifestyles. We have taxes and other fines for the rest?
Wanna dance in a bar in the state of Washington? That bar will be taxed a few extra thousand dollars and fined for actually letting people dance in its establishment.
Wanna unlock your iphone? (oops, this one should have been under the jail term list above.)
(on and on)
Wanna deny all this? Try. The US already jails around 5% of its population for lifestyle crimes. This is about 300-700% more than other countries. In more explicit terms the Drug (and other lifestyle) war(s) have economically crippled the US already.
NSA; PRISM, MAINWAY, MARINA and NUCLEON. Verizon phone number appropriated, added to the data base and analyzed. (and the infrastructure it took to do that) Likely a few dozen other additional programs. There was probably a name and huge budget to woo the large tech firms also.
Estimate; It probably cost half to one and a half a trillion US dollars to build up and out a true Orwellian public/press/politicians/everyone-else observation system. No way to grasp the economic loss that, at least, half a trillion dollars. None.
For that, at least, half a trillion dollars what do we have for it? No Moon Landing and all its attendant technology. No US Interstate Highway System to take us on vacation and haul in our goods in bulk from China/Singapore/Japan/etc. No Railroad system to interconnect the continent.
What we gained for that investment is a hugely devalued dollar in response to a mostly imaginary war... on what? What we gained for this was not a strengthened America but a devalued constitution for what is mostly an imaginary threat.
In the end is that imaginary threat the very politicians who were conned into this expensive boondoggle brought to life by the dreams of bureaucracy and the industrial military complex? (Eisenhower)
Keep in mind that these are prideful politicians who will NEVER admit a vampire-istic mistake/deed until the metaphorical wooden stake has been hammered through their wicked bureaucratic hearts. Maybe not even then as the cry “did it for the public good” can fool the perpetrators the most.
Lets look at the credibility of the NSA and the current administration. The current administration has (by quantitative easing) printed money through the FED to the extent we have inflation and effectively zero interest rates. Where did all that cash go? In a real investment that would benefit the public?
No. Its was wasted on some weird NSA secrete black box project. Its just an opinion but it sounds more like gullibility than dishonesty. For the amounts involved and the negative benefits to American culture it dose sound disingenuous to still claim its good in any way.
The NSA has been spending this huge cash wad since the early Bush Jr. years in some wild panic. Panic does seem to explain most of the behavior of the various US government agencies. Wild and out of control Zar's/commissioners/chiefs/heads-of-staff/etc and their underlings and staff follow suit. Chicken Little would have much company.
The NSA has provided NO public accounting/accountability for their actions to the extent they deny even having to provide it ever. This is so apparent that they have likely lied to Congress and the US people many times. It seems they still do not want to exist as a publicly known agency?
The indiscriminate nature of the implementation of these programs almost certainly violate Due Process Rights and other Constitutional Rights. Since the Constitution was what they swore to protect this does not lead to credibility either.
So... the NSA said they ONLY “checked” 300 phone numbers last year? Is this a credible statement considering the zero credibility of the NSA and the past two administrations? Leave this answer as an exercise to the reader...
Does anything the current administration and the NSA have to say have ANY base in credibility? The low number of congressional members willing to currently attend the briefings given by the NSA might be smart? Its likely to be 1% reality, 29% lies and 70% misdirection. Any normal person would know less after the briefing than before.
The 300 number sounds like some crazy minimization the MPAA would use to fool the Blind into some ill advised treaty. Or. Like some RIAA minimal estimate on how much they damage/steal from Public Domain or American Culture.
Its likely laws with criminal prison terms will be needed to curb spying on the public at large. MAKE it illegal for the government or corporation to spy/monitor on the listening/viewing/reading/etc habits of the public. MAKE it illegal to gather data and or create a database about citizens and especially reporters and activists.
AC mentioned that if only 300 phone numbers were checked then why have the huge infrastructure investment and indiscriminateness implementation? Agree; It does not make sense that way.
Another AC mentioned the “indiscriminateness” of the current administrations actions. It was good for a paragraph.
Thanks TechDirt for doing the research necessary to bring such back-room legal debauchery to light. The revelation on how the Deaf have been cheated out of a legitimate treaty in their behalf is a tragedy/victim of current copyright law/might. Shame. Shame. Shame! (pirate; Arrr...)
This treaty could have been so much more. How can there exist ANY reason to exclude the Deaf from this treaty? What does more “mature” issues mean? How is that a reason to deny learning materials to the Deaf?
The treaty for the Blind (and Deaf) is most likely a victim of the MPAA's (and other copyright organization culprits) relentless attack on Fair Use Rights.
In reality, what is going on? The MPAA is likely a malicious-special-interest-organization. What is their master plan? What is the natural goal of any monopoly? (...) Profit through power. Expansion through force and leverage. Protect assets with lies and deceit. (anything missing?)
The treaty for the Blind (and formerly Deaf) is almost certainly a victim of the MPAA's insistent overriding goal of the destruction of real life Fair Use Rights. This is so much true that even educational Fair Use Rights are being challenged at every opportunity.
A tragedy along the way of the MPAAs goal (of eternal copymight?) are the reputations of all the politicians they have duped/fooled/tricked over the years. The MPAA is an association with a longer time-line than the term-limits of various politicians.
Comments were extremely inspiring. thanks (uncompromisable in positive way.)
“Pirate” is a “how you look at it” kind of thing. Just another easy/lackadaisical/trecherous viewpoint. In the way a District-Attorney/prosecutor cannot say the word “pirate” in concern/relation with ANY actual/real case thus use of the word pirate must (should) be rhetorical/general.
Every time the word pirate is used in relation to copyright it is likely a shameful event. Considering how steak-holders (what an easy word to divide up the involved parties into “us and them”) have extended copyright terms in perpetuity and withheld/stolen/pirated(!?) American culture... its a crying shame.
The word “pirates” is used in a strikingly similar way to how the word “hippie” was used in the 70s. Look what Nixon did with that illusion? In what way do we need another useless expensive drug war? (Arrr...)
Translations of books is a very controversial thing. The translations of the official, approved by copyright, may be bland and even “politically correct” but that same translation might be only an opinion (of the translator.) The skill level of the translator is also a factor.
?Does a Blind person want to listen to a government/copyright-holder certified translator or maybe some group/association that will try to translate exactly/literally the content? (this is a great/awesome topic as the ”official” translation of content often omits cuss words and controversial opinions/topics related to differences in culture.)
Would anyone want to listen to an official communist China translation of the Tienanmen Square incident? This is NOT just a copyright issue. Its an aspect of culture.
There is no other way to obtain such contrast in opinion other than bit-torrent/download/web-search from “unauthorized” sources. None. Translation groups are popular and prolific currently but what about the future? What happens when Fair Use Rights are eliminated?
Downloaders are not pirates. They just want to learn. Learn to survive. Learn just to learn. There is so much more going on in respect to civilization and American Culture that in no way can this/it be expressed.
“All your base are belong to us” A famous great mistranslation quote from the game Zero Wing badly translated from Japanese. It exemplifies how many translations are just wrong or worse, just made up.
The way the MPAA treats/deals with the Blind and Deaf is just a symptom of a larger problem. Monopolies are frequently broken up. Its an American fact. Go for it.
Is it any surprise that even educational Fair Use Rights are being attacked along side the gutting of the Deaf and Blind treaties?
Dr Oz is credited with several medical firsts. Probably the most civilly valuable is the medical collaboration examination open to the public. (MCEOP) This is the collection of many specialist doctors that examine and diagnose the fears/symptoms of everyday/distressed/homeless people.
Such an incredibly difficult and far reaching effort is hard to criticize.
Also considering how expensive and special such a gathering of medical specialists is there is so much to be appreciative of. Such an effort paid for by an individual would cost many thousands of dollars. (Many! As in +6000)
This is the same basic concept that is used when a patient is brought unconscious to the hospital. (and has insurance)
He did/arranged this for free. This type of effort needs to be duplicated in every town and metropolis!
Keeping in ming that this does not apply to other disciplines... -claps and cheers- (wildly)
Message to any who play violent/destructive games. Build and not destroy. Create and not dismantle. Prolong life and not kill.
Do you think thats hard? (good/great.) Great! Welcome to life. Its so very (verrrrry) much harder to create/build things than to destroy them.
Dr. Oz promotes natural and organic alternatives to big pharma. Wow that has to be professionally difficult considering the pharma based lunch time sales incentive that big pharma can afford.
Do not expect Dr. Oz to be correct in every instance. Such is common knowledge progress. As a society we grow in spite of the snake oil claims of big pharma.
Is there controversy about some diet/exercise program? So what! Old hat. Eat what your intelligence says is good, Exercise more than you think is necessary (everyday). [kick]
Personal motive; live longer than the rest of the idiots. Please.
-More claps and cheers.-
Did Dr Oz make a mistake when talking about violent based role playing games? Maybe.
In such an analysis we are entering the realm of psychology. An area that even psychologists do not know. Except when talking about power and pride psychology will always be a mystery.
Humanity (in general) is undecipherable. Especially when talking about “tendencies”.
Its bad when we enjoy killing. Yes. Even in a game. EA, Doom and others have a lot to learn. (and so do we)
What we really need is a game where we create/discover/spawn individual greatness. (incredible metaphorical explosion)
Go for it! In the name of greatness. Please develop a game that explores the greatness of civilization and does not DRM it to death. (Foot in EA/other ass.) (pay me)
Is Dr, Oz wrong about video game violence? Maybe. Is he right? Maybe. Its a gray area. A good controversy.
Morality? What a concept. How do we grow up without enslaving the rest who do not? Compassion and love? Embrace me.
What are game slayings? In reality we need to 'slay' our thoughts. Thoughts are desires. A desire is a want for (example food like Wendy's) a material thing. We typically WANT desires in the animal way that we are humans.
CFAA. What a political fart/joke that act/bill/law seems to be. Any time the CFAA is implemented its always bad news.
Related but not; Better news is that congress is trying to reign in, somewhat, the ridiculous minimum sentencing guidelines (of a lot of weird special-interest-group sponsored laws) by allowing judges to ignore them when they feel they are not appropriate.
The penalties set forth in the CFAA are way, WAY out of proportion to the crimes they describe/create in the legislation they enacted. (Create?)
Its most likely that this act was written by malicious-special-interest-groups with no other intent but to further their own interests.
CFAA is spoiled meat. Rotten even in its inception.
Jail and major fines are life threatening in that they destroy lives and force a self re-boot/reorganization of the accused's life. If the accused was guilty of a violent/physical/brutal crim then thats good.
However. If the accused is only guilty of some imaginary victim-less crime... why does this tragedy even happen? What class warfare is involved to bring this to horrible reality?
The total economic expense of such a political end is enormous. Its a minimum of three times the amount of the accused's earnings.
There are other mitigating circumstances in this case. Its certainly White Hat hacking. (however easy it was) The skilled use and implementation of ones abilities were for the benefit of a person/society. There were no moral breaches in any way.
The CFAA is its own problem. Its another bad law that properly chosen/elected sheriffs/agencies would not enforce. (you voted for your local sheriff... what does he/she enforce???)
Due process is essential. Period... (x-three)
Mobs are a problem that we as a society must avoid. Contrast; Mass protest must be preserved. (providing that ambulances and other vital civic functions are not jeopardized.) Any Peaceful protest is a wonderful event.
Note; For every peaceful protest there are likely violent groups that want to destroy the peacefulness. Idiots! If police were actually doing their job they would be able to discriminate between them.
Peaceful protest is a vital function of any democratic society. It disrupts commerce but not society.
It is likely that the only viable participants in the fight for YOUR democracy are “Anonymous” and the “New World “ protesters. (excepting some now famous individuals) Praise them for fighting for YOUR freedoms.
Prosecutors seeking the maximum sentence for minor hacking charges is normal. A good example of this is the Arron Swartz's case where the prosecution had no sense at all. An example on steroids! What reality does the DoJ relate to?
flouting the law? In what way is current law relevant to American Society? American Constitution law was supposed to protect the individual.
Not being charged with anything has noting to do with the investigation procedures. Innocent until proven guilty is a fact of any democratic society.
10 years maxim8m is irrelevant to t he minimum statuary sentence guidelines;. Community service is not an option when CFAA sentencing guidelines are used.
Lets use (a simplified version of) set and group theory to help categorize and localize our fears/problems/concerns. Hopefully without incurring the deep emotions each parties stances often invoke. (this is more than tongue in cheek so bear with me) A "Just the facts, ma'am" (Dragnet) type of analysis.
If you vote, voted or will vote for party A or B... yes a paper shredder might be a good description of how that vote was wasted.
Parties B and A (interchangeable and almost indistinguishable) both pound their chest prominently when boasting on how they love the US Constitution but most of their actions seem to say they hate it and it gets in the way of party domination.
We have so many, many examples of how parties A and B have screwed up in so many, many ways its a true wonder of modern sales and marketing technique that they still hold on to political power. Destroying the world with actual and economic war has not been enough and now the US Constitution seems ready to fall.
Parties A and B really have much in common. One most striking is that Both B and A parties HATE party C and D. (more interchangeable variables) So much so that the combined attacks on C and D are total and ruthless almost always successfully portraying them as kooks and weirdos.
The only thing that B and A hate more than C and D is marital infidelity. Yes a religious viewpoint is more important than graft, corruption, war, drone strikes, banks crashing/bail-outing, home loan scandals, economy crashing... (etc) Such misplaced priorities seem to place parties A and B out of reality.
The truth, in the matter, is that party A and B candidates are equally weird and kooky. A ≈ B. They are only better able to hide such nuttiness behind party lines and outright party union-like defense tactics.
Parties B and A have kept power by the age old game of fear. With all skill of a dozen Stephen Kings on steroids the parties A and B use existing government departments to tap into the deep depths of the American public psych to locate each social groups fears...
Then play them out on the news until we scream for mercy and cry to our congressional representatives to vote for whatever act/bill/law appeases such fear. With each law passed there is a small but distinct portion of Liberty lost.
What is your fear. Terrorists? Porn? Porn trolls? A different religious group? Kids playing cops and robbers holding toy guns? Whatever it takes. Its hard to understand and recognize irrational fear. When you find it it helps to identify who tried to use it upon you.
“,the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself--,” (Said, Franklin D. Roosevelt th 32nd president (of), party A or B?)
If you meant that their might be voting fraud this might also be valid. It is a fact that the great majority of voting judges are of parties A and B. Party C and D might suffer.
At least Voter fraud might be rooted out with a more publicly funded party C and D (or E and F.)
These are legitimate concerns and not fears. Lets deal with them by insisting on a paper ballot and party C and D judges being present.
There is the great myth that all we need is party A and B. Such a view, however unreasonable, is greatly encouraged by party B and A if only to stamp out competition from C and D. Somehow the public is psyched that they can play party B against party A for whatever they want/need.
Under either party's reign has copyright ever been retracted? Has a whistle blower ever not been persecuted or at least fired? Except during the short times when the public has forced monopolies to break up have they ever not helped/enabled them to grow and become lethal in size? (yes; big enough that life, liberty and heath are wasted)
Currently its vogue/popular voter policy to 'just vote 'um out' of office. However if one just Replaces one B candidate with another B candidate (regardless of what 'reform' platform they spout) then what is really changed?
Its normal that party A and Party B candidates always vote in congress +90% along party lines. So an individual candidate from A is mostly homogeneous in respect to congressional voting habits. Stated simply; There is no difference between one candidate from party A than another.
Even more accurately; A1= A2 ≈ B1=B2.
So its a futile halfhearted gesture to try and punish party A candidate A1 by just switching to A2. The same goes for party B. If on really wanted to punish parties B and A then they must find a viable candidate from C or D (etc).
Only when party C begins to gain market/voter share will A and B begin to change...
-best Dragnet voice-
Of course the actual identities of A, B, C, D, etc are withheld to, hopefully fully, incriminate the guilty parties involved.
-best Steve McGarrett voice- (Hawaii Five-O's)
“Book 'um, Danno!”
Note; This is a very simplified version of set and group theory mostly verbally implemented. This is a great analysis and worthy of fully being explored in full set notation but how many of you remember that from high school?
The US Constitution clearly states several freedoms that are core American cultural values. They are undeniably written in several paragraphs including the introduction right on down to the Bill of Rights and several other amendments.
The clearly envisioned document has been eroded over time. Sure. The US Constitution speaks of many great cultural ideals such as Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Petition and Assembly. So what? Big deal!
There are a lot of details in the US Constitution. Not the least of them are Liberty and Due Process.
What is not written in the US Constitution is how we interpret and implement it. As the White House, NSA and various parroting agencies clearly point out. Its all how you look at it.
Womens Suffrage, Civil Rights, Slavery and more. (don't forget the several monopolies that were broken up along the way) So much death, pain and cultural destruction.
Do you feel at liberty to do what you want (of course excepting physically hurting or stealing from anyone)? If you were accused of anything do you feel that Due Process will be followed?
Have the people you voted for did/do the things you believed they should do in performance of their elected duties? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe even they worked against the democratic grater whole for some special interest written law?
Have any of us made contributions to political parties who did not actually carry out that official unofficial contract to fulfill our dreams of a republic democracy? Did they do what you expected? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe even they were working in their own best interests?
Who's fault is it? They were our lawmakers, we put them there.
Ours! We did it. We... Went to sleep on watch duty. (a serious crime in times of war)
We Fucked Up.
Wanna make up for it? Vote. And. Make campaign contributions.
Put your vote where it counts. Don't vote for some lame arsed candidate just because party A or B always seem to be at the top of the ballot and loudly squawking in the news. Parties 1 and 2 are currently in control and will always find a way to quash competitors. Its normal party business to corral the masses by dominating all the news time slots and swipe top billing at the ballot box..
Make financial contributions to the elected members of government you think are doing a good job. Even, and especially, if its a Senator or House member from another state. (or even country, keeping in mind the, EU) Include a note saying how you think he/she is 10 time the person their own state candidates/politicians are.
Paying attention is a guaranteed way to make a difference. Luck has nothing to do with it. Put your money and votes where your mouth is.
If you are lucky your social group is not being persecuted and prosecuted by other larger groups in current power. In the last 40 years a litany of groups have been persecuted starting with the hippies in the 70s and ending with the downloaders in 2010s.
The various insidious laws used ranged from growing plants to appreciating media. (Stated quite well.) All of them are some form of lifestyle violation based on some moral/religious/intolerant viewpoint, of some other social group, that happens to be in power.
What was the current outrage..? the copyright industry beating up on the Blind using their own support groups? What law will be written that overwrites a culture of caring and support for the visually impaired?
What are the real issues you want? Want freedom to grow medicinal spices in your backyard? Want the Internet to be like old broadcast TV where every thing you could download/receive within your local bandwidth/band-volume was free? Want to sing a song called Happy Birthday at your family/public party (of 200) legally? (cover charge ok but charging for profit might not be?)
Let's get going... It looks like a long road and it looks like rain.
Don't believe any of them. Corp parrots nor gov wordsmithing.
All the circus show so far seems like lion taming and dolphin jumping. But the show does not seem to be fixed nor have definite scope. There is more to this story than what is known as shown by the indecisive and nervous shoo shooing of the current political crop. If the PRISM thing is easily admitable then what is behind the curtain #1, #2 and etc?
Obviously the technical details are hidden atm. Keep digging. Its just a guess but if the Private Key's are included in NSL demands then whatever traffic is an open book. Building their own mirror from that flow is less easy but doable.
“Nobody cares you watch lesbian granny porn and pay for the privilege.” Wrong. Almost completely and entirely wrong. You might not and good for you. But lifestyle violations (see above) are the common form of class warfare. Very common.
“Give Full Access to the Public.” That would be problematic. There are levels of “expectation of privacy” and just using the Internet dose seem to qualify. Bank records, IRS returns, etc. Definitely opened up to congressional review. (remember to vote for someone you trust and not someone who just says they are the most skilled)
Another interesting article on the drug industry. A good angle too. Would like to see original references though. The side effects are worth considering also as some are important. Did the independent analysis include the common fact that antibiotics are becoming less useful as bacteria become resistant to them? If not then the study wold have more of an impact but otherwise still worth commenting on.
Its common knowledge, for any who look, that for years drug firms try to re patent drugs or even just combine two drugs together, brand them with a new name, and sell them for 10 or more times the price of each separately. Both practices should be banned.
Its also true that many if not most medical drug discoveries are molecules made by nature. (however currently synthesized) Its been a while since a new pain reliever with less side effects became available and surely big Pharma has tried.
It would not be surprising to hear that the continual new drugs that pharmaceutical companies are stuck with today are not as effective as their effective advertisement campaigns claim they are. It rings true in respect to common high power ruthless marketing techniques; Crush the competitors and dilute the knowledge base of the masses with mush.
Will the fact that some consumers/doctors made less effective and more costly choices make them liable for possible health issues related to an inferior product? Did this study identify them specifically and compare side effects also?
'Independent' medical research has been corrupted by corporations before (remember what the Tobacco industry did to invent the term “cigarette lie/argument”) and although its nice that an Independent Research Institute is currently functional with some critical review process... how long will they last? They will likely need public support to survive.
There have been a lot of new cancer drug/treatments that seem to be promising we still have the extremely draconian chemotherapy in use. Its hard to keep in mind that there is no profit in a total cure. Treatment is profitable and there is a huge, really huge, industry that depends on that alone.
Given that the pharmaceutical industry depends on Hollywood Accounting Principles to survive it a good bet that we have smoke... and a fire probably not far away. It takes time to devise a sales marketing solution to maximize profits. And. Once they make it to the market; What price will be levied?
A very cynical opinion for sure but the only thing that American/world industry can be trusted with is to be ruthless beyond life, health and liberty. (certainly the US Constitution was no big deal to get rid of)
Big pharma is a effective monopoly of a few large companies dominating the market. This monopoly is enforced by the DEA and the FDA with their almost totally imaginary international trade quality fears. What we need instead of some large cold heartless corporation owned drug stores is a good local apothecary.
High prices kill people in the same way as no treatment at all. Witch doctors and blood letting might be better than the current system.