I find the response from the administration very encouraging. The only thing that I wish for is a full veto and not some executive note just claiming disapproval while the bill get signed as was done with the NDAA.
My true true wish is that neither of the bills make it out of their respective congressional houses.
Both of the bills are absolutely disgusting examples of how corporations have taken OUR government away to defend their profits.
As I recall only 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted NAY to this bill. The blame of NDAA2012 rests on EVERY politician who aren't those 13 people. Don't blame JUST Obama.
The administration also claimed disapproval of DEA raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, as well as any measures preventing LGBT couples from marrying. I'm in your boat here.... disapproval does not mean it won't change its mind in 5 minutes.
To be fair, promising to decriminalize marijuana and the White House actually withdrawing support for a bill under consideration are two very different levels of reality.
Suing the "pirate" does nothing - copyright law makes no sense to begin with.
It's supposed to protect the creator so they get fairly paid for their work while they are alive. But thanks to Disney, the law now lasts long after the creator is dead and decomposed and instead of going into the public domain where everyone can enjoy it, it's kept locked away under this draconian law.
And yet, he as of this moment (His comment is 8 hours and 29 minutes old) has 0 buries. I dugg his comment, which happens almost never. Just because I don't like Niven doesn't mean I bury him without looking.
Just like everyone else I meet here, if he says something I agree with, I can give him my digg.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire concept? The human mind has developed increasingly sophisticated means of copying and transmitting pertinent information since we first developed symbolic understanding. Information storage and transmission is constantly evolving thanks to our own abilities, yet strangely our best attempts to fully secure and restrict information use remains useless, propped up only by laws and the idea of a right to perpetually control and profit.
If the concept of copyright cannot compete against the new and changing abilities of information to move freely then maybe it is time to come up with something new. Maybe the nature of information technology demands you can't assume to have all the same rights anymore? Why should anyone presume to have the right to limit the use of something just because they originally created it? I'd prefer to see full freedom of access and use since no idea or information can be limited once it has been brought into the world and set free and realistically that is what technology is giving us. You could and should register your original works and derivatives with a central office so that a trail of who to credit with what can be maintained, but for purposes of control it seems unrealistic.
I can't stamp out a factory exact hard copy of a movie or an album. Nor can I have a movie theater or live music or play performance experience at home. Same goes for a jpeg or png of a fine work of art. It isn't the same as having the autographed original on your wall.
These products can still exist even if the informational content was freely available to all, though their abundance may be diminished somewhat. But life is change. Will the producers suffer losses? Yup, but then they could stop fighting technology and just do what everything does and adapt to the new conditions. What about the artists being compensated? That is why they should do productions in physical media to sell. Those who are most interested in your works will still want to own the physical, legitimate, and probably signed and numbered copy. This physical item has far more value by scarcity/popularity than bits in a computer.
Why don't the big labels just buy out Geeks or pay other companies and enforce censorship / IP blocking themselves? Ohh! I know. Geeks are not for sale... politicians are. PS. Please don't digg me down. I don't download, hate censorship and am as clueless about how the internet works as average politicans.
"If he is, as you say, a constitutional lawyer, then he knows that a signing statement is a refusal to enforce the law as written."
Well, wait. That's not exactly what is happening here.
First of all, the law does not require him to use this provision. It just gives him the power.
Second, his signing statement is not a refusal of the law. It is more in the way of a comment that states that he is concerned about it, and that he will apply and interpret it so as to not go against the constitution:
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."
Third, the supreme court has not clearly ruled on the signing statements. They have been around for centuries, and are primarily used to interpret the law and explicitly state the interpretation.
david_nivenJan 15, 2012Buried
I find the response from the administration very encouraging. The only thing that I wish for is a full veto and not some executive note just claiming disapproval while the bill get signed as was done with the NDAA.
My true true wish is that neither of the bills make it out of their respective congressional houses.
Both of the bills are absolutely disgusting examples of how corporations have taken OUR government away to defend their profits.
anomaly100Jan 14, 2012Buried
Toss this law in the paper shredder!
mlw4428Jan 15, 2012Buried
As I recall only 6 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted NAY to this bill. The blame of NDAA2012 rests on EVERY politician who aren't those 13 people. Don't blame JUST Obama.
exspasticcomicsJan 15, 2012Buried
The entertainment industry IS the problem. I don't think the entertainment industry & congress should be allowed to 'work' together anymore. LOL.
bluenose2Jan 14, 2012Buried
We shall see.
rockergirlieJan 15, 2012Buried
The administration also claimed disapproval of DEA raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, as well as any measures preventing LGBT couples from marrying. I'm in your boat here.... disapproval does not mean it won't change its mind in 5 minutes.
laurahoustonJan 15, 2012Buried
Table the whole fricking scam bills for 20 years,tell the pirated'personhoods' to get a lawyer and sue the f**king pirates themself
not even a tiny cut-up piece of these scam bills- should be passed.
wkrausmannJan 15, 2012Buried
This is good news, but it still doesn't excuse them for passing the NDAA.
salbatrossJan 15, 2012Buried
To be fair, promising to decriminalize marijuana and the White House actually withdrawing support for a bill under consideration are two very different levels of reality.
theswashbucklerJan 15, 2012Buried
auto-buried for conservative spam
StrongTacoJan 15, 2012Buried
Suing the "pirate" does nothing - copyright law makes no sense to begin with.
It's supposed to protect the creator so they get fairly paid for their work while they are alive. But thanks to Disney, the law now lasts long after the creator is dead and decomposed and instead of going into the public domain where everyone can enjoy it, it's kept locked away under this draconian law.
izultJan 15, 2012Buried
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you” - Nietzsche ..
The days I blindly believe anything a politician says are long gone.
particleman420Jan 15, 2012Buried
how is he supposed to do that? the president isnt an emperor and cant just decree things into being.
wuggasladyJan 15, 2012Buried
Veto, toss, repeat!
dauntless1Jan 15, 2012Buried
And yet, he as of this moment (His comment is 8 hours and 29 minutes old) has 0 buries. I dugg his comment, which happens almost never. Just because I don't like Niven doesn't mean I bury him without looking.
Just like everyone else I meet here, if he says something I agree with, I can give him my digg.
downshiftdxJan 15, 2012Buried
Perhaps it is time to rethink the entire concept? The human mind has developed increasingly sophisticated means of copying and transmitting pertinent information since we first developed symbolic understanding. Information storage and transmission is constantly evolving thanks to our own abilities, yet strangely our best attempts to fully secure and restrict information use remains useless, propped up only by laws and the idea of a right to perpetually control and profit.
If the concept of copyright cannot compete against the new and changing abilities of information to move freely then maybe it is time to come up with something new. Maybe the nature of information technology demands you can't assume to have all the same rights anymore? Why should anyone presume to have the right to limit the use of something just because they originally created it? I'd prefer to see full freedom of access and use since no idea or information can be limited once it has been brought into the world and set free and realistically that is what technology is giving us. You could and should register your original works and derivatives with a central office so that a trail of who to credit with what can be maintained, but for purposes of control it seems unrealistic.
I can't stamp out a factory exact hard copy of a movie or an album. Nor can I have a movie theater or live music or play performance experience at home. Same goes for a jpeg or png of a fine work of art. It isn't the same as having the autographed original on your wall.
These products can still exist even if the informational content was freely available to all, though their abundance may be diminished somewhat. But life is change. Will the producers suffer losses? Yup, but then they could stop fighting technology and just do what everything does and adapt to the new conditions. What about the artists being compensated? That is why they should do productions in physical media to sell. Those who are most interested in your works will still want to own the physical, legitimate, and probably signed and numbered copy. This physical item has far more value by scarcity/popularity than bits in a computer.
chopperguyJan 15, 2012Buried
Why don't the big labels just buy out Geeks or pay other companies and enforce censorship / IP blocking themselves? Ohh! I know. Geeks are not for sale... politicians are. PS. Please don't digg me down. I don't download, hate censorship and am as clueless about how the internet works as average politicans.
jkaticJan 15, 2012Buried
-he promised to decriminalize medical marijuana too
He never promised this, you are delusional.
nerysJan 15, 2012Buried
all I care about now is will we spot the reach around where they screw us by slipping it into another "can't not pass" bill like the NDAA
elimgarakJan 15, 2012Buried
"If he is, as you say, a constitutional lawyer, then he knows that a signing statement is a refusal to enforce the law as written."
Well, wait. That's not exactly what is happening here.
First of all, the law does not require him to use this provision. It just gives him the power.
Second, his signing statement is not a refusal of the law. It is more in the way of a comment that states that he is concerned about it, and that he will apply and interpret it so as to not go against the constitution:
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."
Third, the supreme court has not clearly ruled on the signing statements. They have been around for centuries, and are primarily used to interpret the law and explicitly state the interpretation.