It's ironic that a President who was/is a trained constitutional lawyer is the power behind violation of constitutional principles. The reasons for his violation are the actual problems. When he became President of the U.S., two realities converged. The U.S. had been recently extending its' empire more forcefully in Africa, the Caucasus region, the Middle East and Inner Asia. Empire building creates violent enemies. Backlash and fear of backlash from these enemies push the Empire leaders to take away rights of their people. These rights were won in the after the American Revolution when the new government was not at all envisioning becoming an empire. In fact, the inclination was to avoid involvement in Europe and everywhere else. The only sure way to win back the rights of the people is to end empire building and acquiring more enemies -- people who are nationalistic about their own nations and cultures.
Many of those involved in this discussion don't seem to recognize the value of creativity. Nor do they realize that creative people also deserve to make a decent living. When you buy something in a store -- food, clothes, hardware of any kind including electronic hardware, do you think you should be paying an amount that only covers the cost of making whatever it is? That doesn't lead to an income for anyone involved. Many of you have lived in homes payed for by parents who made a living that made it possible to raise you and send you to school. None of that would have been possible without people having payed them for the fruits of their labor. Oddly enough, values have been placed on much that we use for which there once wasn't enough for everyone. Now we live in a post-industrial society where humans can produce enough of almost everything for everyone, despite our 7 billion population -- that goes for food, computers, cars, whatever. There's only one thing that humans have that isn't unlimited -- creativity. Creativity should be valued more than that other stuff. Yet so many want those who create to give their stuff for nothing or very little while it's acceptable for others to charge a great deal for stuff we have plenty of.
Possession of child pornography is an offense because it provides a customer base for those who produce and distribute it. Eliminating child pornography is as worthwhile a goal as getting rid of child prostitution. Children shouldn't be coerced into activities that can harm them.
The problem with your comment is that you say "them". Who is them? The problem with the legislation is that it tries to include non-sex offenders into it by labeling anyone a sex offender. Clear and accurate English would be helpful in criticizing the legislation; not some reference to "them".
Wanting David Gregory removed in some way (nobody says killed or fired anymore. The preference has become vagueness.) or Piers Morgan deported is really a way of saying you can't tolerate that basic requirement of democracy -- disagreement, dispute or even a human reaction of anger at the fact that so many people, including small children, have been killed so that an industry could increase sales of weapons. By the way, I've been thinking of starting a new hobby like collecting mortars or tanks.
There's a lot to what you say when you show suspicion toward the Republicans when they say they represent "The Public". They've shown and proven repeatedly that their "public" is made up of large corporations and banks. The problems to do with copyrights can't be answered by ideologically oriented people who think only in terms of one group as "the free market". In this Republican paper, that seems to be their professed interest. Yet we know that they even lie about that. When elected representatives choose to protect one segment of the public - corporations, to the detriment of other segments, that's not concern for a "free market".
To say that music has survived since the Ice Age is meaningless. More accurately, what was meant was that humans have been making music since that time -- the Ice Age. What hasn't survived since then is the specific music that was produced. Some of the artifacts of music might have survived, like the bone flute mentioned. An instrument is not music. We do have ancient stories, some of which may have been attempts to remember historical events as ancient people interpreted those happenings. We call those stories myths, many of which seem to have kernels of truth (actuality) in them. Yet we have no music. Does anyone out there know the tunes of King David's psalms? Were there rhythms played along with the psalms? All we have are the lyrics. Thank heavens we have those wonderful lyrics. While music continued to develop along with technology, the musicians, song writers and composers barely prospered for much of that development until the invention of the printing press. While publishing gave them a boost, they received a still greater nudge with copyright laws. The taking over of the benefits of copyright laws by business people -- the publishers and record companies -- greatly limited those benefits. The creators and performers of music still had to live gypsy-like lives, travelling for much of their time, to make a good living. At the same time, business people taking control of music caused music itself to deteriorate for some simple reasons. Getting really talented musicians limit the pool of who business people can get music from. Going that route also increases the costs of talent. It's easier and cheaper to get untalented people to produce music. Lower cost of talent translates into greater profits. New technology even helps the business person. If someone sounds lousy, use reverberation to improve the sound. If he/she still sounds bad, have his/her sound somewhat drowned out by other sound in the recording. If the music creator doesn't have much creativity, let him just think of four bars, then loop them repeatedly in the recording. If the artist is tone deaf, let him just spout any words to anything banging out a rhythmic pattern that itself is uncreative because it's a looped pattern repeated over and over. If his words aren't very creative or interesting, make sure he's almost unintelligible. Mainly, keep costs down. In the end, of course, what we have is crap sold as music. What's great is that humans can be conditioned over time to actually accept anything as music. Sooo, certainly we need changes in who gets the benefits of copyrights. Nevertheless, creative people need copyrights.
I totally sympathize with the idea of not holding service providers responsible for what people place online. Stretching that idea to include every other kind of physical establishment like hardware stores, etc. is foolish. Would I want to hold a hardware store responsible for who it sells a hammer to if that person commits a crime with the hammer? Of course I do. But I do to the extent that the hardware store must provide the police with access to its' receipts for sales. Further responsibility isn't needed for the hardware store. If the police locate the hammer, there are fingerprints and, with modern technology, for all I know, even sweat could help them. How about gun stores? Should they be held responsible, when they're in states that allow everyone and anyone to carry a weapon? And what about those states that do have rules about the sale of weapons? Is a federal law required? As you can see, different circumstances call for different solutions. Let's not go off half-cocked -- I was talking about weapons, right?
I generally agree with the view that all news sources have some value. An important thing not mentioned regarding the reliability of news sources is the age-old notion of motive or, as they say, "Follow the money." Going by that dictum, we can say that, since most news media are corporate owned and their boards of directors are generally interchangeable with the various kinds of corporations, there'll be a bias toward the viewpoints of the various kinds of corporations -- banks, oil and coal companies included. Even the New York Times includes only what it considers "all the news that's fit to print". "Fit" is a big word here. Since Fox News is the most blatant in its lying, that source should be discounted altogether. Since it's owned by the Rupert Murdoch-controlled and tainted News Corporation, we must even be careful about such a source as the Wall Street Journal, also under Rupert's control. In England his company is still under investigation with one of his most senior people convicted of serious crimes -- carrying out unethical and even immoral policies. Al Jazeera is owned by an Arab Emir who, so far, has been as reliable as any corporate news source. National Public Radio has been so fearful of corporate power that it, demonstrably, has been a disappointment. The BBC has probably been the best source since it's, so far, the most independent from corporate control. Perhaps, as good as or better than BBC are the various non-government organizations that represent various causes like a free internet, better protection for people's health, fighting for a safer environment, anti-war groups that include some veteran's organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against War, Iraq Veteran's Against War, etc. These have newsletters that are very worth reading for information. Do they have biases? Of course, but those are in favor of a healthier, safer, freer humanity, rather than the corporate bottom line.
I'm glad to see that optimistic note- that creative people are finding ways to "ply their crafts" in this new economy. I'd feel more optimistic about it if I could see the specifics of how they do it. If they do it in different ways, I'd like to see some examples. That they have to work hard is a given. I know that being creative and producing good stuff, whatever it is, isn't easy. Believe me, I'm not enamored by the old ways of bringing creative results to the general public.
While the biggest complainers are those who have controlled the Media when it comes to information, the Recording Industry in regard to music,the large distribution companies when it has to do with films or videos, I'm concerned with the actual creators - writers, composers, song writers, musicians, singers, etc. These last have been the victims for many years of the publishing industy, recording industry, etc. While we rightly have to guard against these large companies taking away our freedoms by shackling our internet, we must find viable ways that creators can make decent livings. So far, I haven't seen any really good ideas yet.
All humans have biases. We mustn't expect people of what's becoming a whole world-wide human society to abide by them. At the same time, we must also be aware of biases that may be harmful to other individuals or groups. I'm concerned about protecting the right of people to think freely in ways that aren't harmful to individuals. At the same time, we must have an environment where creators of ideas of all kinds, whether scientific, political, economic or artistic can create without having their ability to make a living threatened.
The Basis for an NSA
It's ironic that a President who was/is a trained constitutional lawyer is the power behind violation of constitutional principles. The reasons for his violation are the actual problems. When he became President of the U.S., two realities converged. The U.S. had been recently extending its' empire more forcefully in Africa, the Caucasus region, the Middle East and Inner Asia. Empire building creates violent enemies. Backlash and fear of backlash from these enemies push the Empire leaders to take away rights of their people. These rights were won in the after the American Revolution when the new government was not at all envisioning becoming an empire. In fact, the inclination was to avoid involvement in Europe and everywhere else. The only sure way to win back the rights of the people is to end empire building and acquiring more enemies -- people who are nationalistic about their own nations and cultures.
Copyrights
Many of those involved in this discussion don't seem to recognize the value of creativity. Nor do they realize that creative people also deserve to make a decent living. When you buy something in a store -- food, clothes, hardware of any kind including electronic hardware, do you think you should be paying an amount that only covers the cost of making whatever it is? That doesn't lead to an income for anyone involved. Many of you have lived in homes payed for by parents who made a living that made it possible to raise you and send you to school. None of that would have been possible without people having payed them for the fruits of their labor. Oddly enough, values have been placed on much that we use for which there once wasn't enough for everyone. Now we live in a post-industrial society where humans can produce enough of almost everything for everyone, despite our 7 billion population -- that goes for food, computers, cars, whatever. There's only one thing that humans have that isn't unlimited -- creativity. Creativity should be valued more than that other stuff. Yet so many want those who create to give their stuff for nothing or very little while it's acceptable for others to charge a great deal for stuff we have plenty of.
Re: possession of child pornography
Possession of child pornography is an offense because it provides a customer base for those who produce and distribute it. Eliminating child pornography is as worthwhile a goal as getting rid of child prostitution. Children shouldn't be coerced into activities that can harm them.
Re: Re:
The problem with your comment is that you say "them". Who is them? The problem with the legislation is that it tries to include non-sex offenders into it by labeling anyone a sex offender. Clear and accurate English would be helpful in criticizing the legislation; not some reference to "them".
Wanting David Gregory removed in some way (nobody says killed or fired anymore. The preference has become vagueness.) or Piers Morgan deported is really a way of saying you can't tolerate that basic requirement of democracy -- disagreement, dispute or even a human reaction of anger at the fact that so many people, including small children, have been killed so that an industry could increase sales of weapons. By the way, I've been thinking of starting a new hobby like collecting mortars or tanks.
Re: Dear Shills
There's a lot to what you say when you show suspicion toward the Republicans when they say they represent "The Public". They've shown and proven repeatedly that their "public" is made up of large corporations and banks. The problems to do with copyrights can't be answered by ideologically oriented people who think only in terms of one group as "the free market". In this Republican paper, that seems to be their professed interest. Yet we know that they even lie about that. When elected representatives choose to protect one segment of the public - corporations, to the detriment of other segments, that's not concern for a "free market".
Music
To say that music has survived since the Ice Age is meaningless. More accurately, what was meant was that humans have been making music since that time -- the Ice Age. What hasn't survived since then is the specific music that was produced. Some of the artifacts of music might have survived, like the bone flute mentioned. An instrument is not music. We do have ancient stories, some of which may have been attempts to remember historical events as ancient people interpreted those happenings. We call those stories myths, many of which seem to have kernels of truth (actuality) in them. Yet we have no music. Does anyone out there know the tunes of King David's psalms? Were there rhythms played along with the psalms? All we have are the lyrics. Thank heavens we have those wonderful lyrics. While music continued to develop along with technology, the musicians, song writers and composers barely prospered for much of that development until the invention of the printing press. While publishing gave them a boost, they received a still greater nudge with copyright laws. The taking over of the benefits of copyright laws by business people -- the publishers and record companies -- greatly limited those benefits. The creators and performers of music still had to live gypsy-like lives, travelling for much of their time, to make a good living. At the same time, business people taking control of music caused music itself to deteriorate for some simple reasons. Getting really talented musicians limit the pool of who business people can get music from. Going that route also increases the costs of talent. It's easier and cheaper to get untalented people to produce music. Lower cost of talent translates into greater profits. New technology even helps the business person. If someone sounds lousy, use reverberation to improve the sound. If he/she still sounds bad, have his/her sound somewhat drowned out by other sound in the recording. If the music creator doesn't have much creativity, let him just think of four bars, then loop them repeatedly in the recording. If the artist is tone deaf, let him just spout any words to anything banging out a rhythmic pattern that itself is uncreative because it's a looped pattern repeated over and over. If his words aren't very creative or interesting, make sure he's almost unintelligible. Mainly, keep costs down. In the end, of course, what we have is crap sold as music. What's great is that humans can be conditioned over time to actually accept anything as music. Sooo, certainly we need changes in who gets the benefits of copyrights. Nevertheless, creative people need copyrights.
Holding Service Providers Accountable
I totally sympathize with the idea of not holding service providers responsible for what people place online. Stretching that idea to include every other kind of physical establishment like hardware stores, etc. is foolish. Would I want to hold a hardware store responsible for who it sells a hammer to if that person commits a crime with the hammer? Of course I do. But I do to the extent that the hardware store must provide the police with access to its' receipts for sales. Further responsibility isn't needed for the hardware store. If the police locate the hammer, there are fingerprints and, with modern technology, for all I know, even sweat could help them. How about gun stores? Should they be held responsible, when they're in states that allow everyone and anyone to carry a weapon? And what about those states that do have rules about the sale of weapons? Is a federal law required? As you can see, different circumstances call for different solutions. Let's not go off half-cocked -- I was talking about weapons, right?
news reliability
I generally agree with the view that all news sources have some value. An important thing not mentioned regarding the reliability of news sources is the age-old notion of motive or, as they say, "Follow the money." Going by that dictum, we can say that, since most news media are corporate owned and their boards of directors are generally interchangeable with the various kinds of corporations, there'll be a bias toward the viewpoints of the various kinds of corporations -- banks, oil and coal companies included. Even the New York Times includes only what it considers "all the news that's fit to print". "Fit" is a big word here. Since Fox News is the most blatant in its lying, that source should be discounted altogether. Since it's owned by the Rupert Murdoch-controlled and tainted News Corporation, we must even be careful about such a source as the Wall Street Journal, also under Rupert's control. In England his company is still under investigation with one of his most senior people convicted of serious crimes -- carrying out unethical and even immoral policies. Al Jazeera is owned by an Arab Emir who, so far, has been as reliable as any corporate news source. National Public Radio has been so fearful of corporate power that it, demonstrably, has been a disappointment. The BBC has probably been the best source since it's, so far, the most independent from corporate control. Perhaps, as good as or better than BBC are the various non-government organizations that represent various causes like a free internet, better protection for people's health, fighting for a safer environment, anti-war groups that include some veteran's organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against War, Iraq Veteran's Against War, etc. These have newsletters that are very worth reading for information. Do they have biases? Of course, but those are in favor of a healthier, safer, freer humanity, rather than the corporate bottom line.
Re: Re: Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
I'm glad to see that optimistic note- that creative people are finding ways to "ply their crafts" in this new economy. I'd feel more optimistic about it if I could see the specifics of how they do it. If they do it in different ways, I'd like to see some examples. That they have to work hard is a given. I know that being creative and producing good stuff, whatever it is, isn't easy. Believe me, I'm not enamored by the old ways of bringing creative results to the general public.
Finding new ways to compensate the creative among us
While the biggest complainers are those who have controlled the Media when it comes to information, the Recording Industry in regard to music,the large distribution companies when it has to do with films or videos, I'm concerned with the actual creators - writers, composers, song writers, musicians, singers, etc. These last have been the victims for many years of the publishing industy, recording industry, etc. While we rightly have to guard against these large companies taking away our freedoms by shackling our internet, we must find viable ways that creators can make decent livings. So far, I haven't seen any really good ideas yet.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert
I agree that, for T.V., they're a breath of fresh air.
Re: Re:
All humans have biases. We mustn't expect people of what's becoming a whole world-wide human society to abide by them. At the same time, we must also be aware of biases that may be harmful to other individuals or groups. I'm concerned about protecting the right of people to think freely in ways that aren't harmful to individuals. At the same time, we must have an environment where creators of ideas of all kinds, whether scientific, political, economic or artistic can create without having their ability to make a living threatened.
Re: Regulating Musical Tastes
SujaOf has an urge to decide what music should be the underscore. Isn't that censorship?