Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by choxorn, Jan 16, 2012.
Another (temporary) win .
These might be losses in the long run, if they are just waiting for the public's attention to be diverted before pushing it through.
Yes, it is. But the failing of the government is precisely that corporations have too much say in it, too much power over it. In other words : it's too weak compared to corporations.
And even in this subservient state, it's still the ONLY thing keeping the abuse from corporations in check - and clearly it's not enough.
Making it even weaker and corporation even stronger means that the problem becomes worse, by definition.
Distinguishing government from the one who rules it is totally irrelevant, since the ones who control government are the government. Remember that the biggest servants of status quo are the voters, because they continually elect people who like to keep it this way.
The MPAA is just way to blatant. They make caricatures look tame.
'Donations'?? So they're basically telling the party machine that either they make them earn a lot of money from work they didn't do themselves or else they lose the money needed to run a campaign?
Speaks badly both of the RIAA/MPAA/CoC group and of the politicians who can' seem to get voted without millions and millions of funding.
Seriously, can't they be trialed for corruption attempt ?
I mean, it's not even veiled at this point, so unless bribery is officially considered legal, I don't see how they can get away with it...
It has been creeping up, that kind of bribery, hasn't it? Becoming more and more shamelessly open as time goes by?
Thanks for the link, interesting video, using an interesting technique.
Lobbying groups don't give money to politicians who don't support their pet projects. This is how things work for every lobbying group, the MPAA and RIAA are not extra nefarious for this.
Isn't it time you start to rework a system that allows bribery as an official and legal way to influence lawmaking ?
this is why i suggest handing over the gov't to those lobby groups. they have control anyways.... at least we know who directly we vote for.
Well, then, Just do it© (I'm tempting fate by unlawfully using copyrighted material !).
Why would politicians willingly vote to end a system that gets them lots of money and political office?
Because it's the right thing to do?
Yeah, it's gonna be here for a while.
So if I write a book and sell it, how do I ensure no one is copying it and selling it without paying me for it, without some sort of legal framework in place to guard against this behavior?
The fact that nobody is going to buy pirated media that they can easily get for free would be a pretty good start.
Really? I have patents in my name. I have original research for which someone else owns the patent. The patents I have were obtained as defensively. IOW, they were stupid but the object was a threat - if you sue us then we can sue you back. The patents against my own developments scared my company. They could have destroyed my company.
Every company I have ever worked for has viewed patents as defence - as a way to protect yourself from trolls who will sue you for taking your product to market.
BTW, there IS a large financial incentive for innovation. Look at Apple. They have made their billions by repeatedly being innovative, bringing new products to the market. From the Apple II to Macintosh to the iPod to iPhone to iPad. They also failed. Anyone remember the Newton or (what was the name of that TV set-top thingey)? Being first to market is an incredible advantage and Apple knew this despite the fact that they have been trollish.
Same thing with the inventions that got patented out from under me. We knew that the really important thing was to get to the market first. So we kinda overlooked the ways that the statists laws could take us out even though we were the bestest firstest. We learned how to play by the rules. You can't afford not to.
But it's the "statist" state that upholds patents
Separate names with a comma.