DMCA
More Daddy Warbucks Economics, the valorization2 of the media monopolies serves the best interests of wire-tapping. While I am not too upset about trolling for traitors (Islam by the sword, citizens under false pretenses) the further enrichment of the recording and motion picture tycoons at the expense of the artist and the culture seems obscene.
“For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law, seen by CNET News.com, would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers. The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith, a Texas Republican, is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual property law.”
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
“What’s good for my most generous lobbyist must surely be good for the nation” is the watch word of politicians. We talk one line and subsidize another. If Neo-conservatism (Neocons) don’t take us down, the blind support for the old inefficient but campaign contributing Industrial Age industries will. Take natural gas for example. Do you wonder why methane, a waste by product of drilling, is so scarce, expensive and generally ignored. An easy source of hydrogen, a cheap (or should be) fuel for heat and power and the obvious next step beyond fuel oil[1] and gasoline. The oil companies make sure the pipes do not go where the gas is, engineered scarcity, a violation of anti trust laws!
A president who says he wants to do what no other president, Democrat or Republican, would do (if he hasn’t already) should have the guts to face down the multinational oil cartels and limit us to American energy. Will it be corn, methane gas, hydrogen or pellet reactors: it needs to be now --- the same with information denied by the silly DMCA and senators from Utah who are clueless.
The arguable thesis is of course: These are our biggest tax payers. If there needs are met they will show more profit and pay more tax. This theory of hope and desperation ignores the inefficiency of the old world outmoded monolith run by bean counters from the dark ages, and supposes that the multitude of small competitive entrepreneurial enterprises with new technology will not match the tax base of the displaced monopoly. The duality of this argument has plagued American politics since Adams. The answer of frightened old men is that it can’t. The probable outcome would suggest that the productivity of the new technology and efficiencies driven by competitive small business would put more human resource to the task, leverage the multiplying effect and velocity of the economy to undreamed of growth. We fail to see that the engineered scarcity and the inappropriate profit, supported by lobby and legislation, represents a hidden tax burden on those least able to afford it, a tax of the most regressive sort, it is a tax on education, heat, health care, drugs, communication, and information. These are just the elements of a society that might more reasonably be shared from community resources.
This is not strictly speaking a political conflict between two well defined parties, both take untold bribes in the form of contributions and pretend that their constituents are making their voices heard and that the lobbyists serve a real service as they write the proposed valorizing[2] legislation. A persuasive argument for privatization suggests that the government cannot provide the infrastructure as efficiently as private industry and this is probably true, but doing so with a sanctioned monopoly defeats the purpose and creates a bigger monster in the doing. Adam Smith argued for free competition and he was right. Privatization will only work with free competition and free collaboration which in itself argues for free information, demanding less patent protection and shorter copyright protection, not more.
[1] Methane, CH4, offers four hydrogen atoms per carbon. The hydrogen carries far greater energy per weight than the carbon and does not generate green house gas. The more carbon the less efficient the energy source. There are other considerations but concentrated hydrogen is the natural progression towards higher efficiency fuel sources. Pellet reactors may be next then helium fusion even more efficient solar; many references: Sci Amer, MIT Tech Rep, Nature etc.
[2]Valorize: to set and maintain the price of a commodity at an artificially high level through government action
“For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Now Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law, seen by CNET News.com, would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers. The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith, a Texas Republican, is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual property law.”
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
“What’s good for my most generous lobbyist must surely be good for the nation” is the watch word of politicians. We talk one line and subsidize another. If Neo-conservatism (Neocons) don’t take us down, the blind support for the old inefficient but campaign contributing Industrial Age industries will. Take natural gas for example. Do you wonder why methane, a waste by product of drilling, is so scarce, expensive and generally ignored. An easy source of hydrogen, a cheap (or should be) fuel for heat and power and the obvious next step beyond fuel oil[1] and gasoline. The oil companies make sure the pipes do not go where the gas is, engineered scarcity, a violation of anti trust laws!
A president who says he wants to do what no other president, Democrat or Republican, would do (if he hasn’t already) should have the guts to face down the multinational oil cartels and limit us to American energy. Will it be corn, methane gas, hydrogen or pellet reactors: it needs to be now --- the same with information denied by the silly DMCA and senators from Utah who are clueless.
The arguable thesis is of course: These are our biggest tax payers. If there needs are met they will show more profit and pay more tax. This theory of hope and desperation ignores the inefficiency of the old world outmoded monolith run by bean counters from the dark ages, and supposes that the multitude of small competitive entrepreneurial enterprises with new technology will not match the tax base of the displaced monopoly. The duality of this argument has plagued American politics since Adams. The answer of frightened old men is that it can’t. The probable outcome would suggest that the productivity of the new technology and efficiencies driven by competitive small business would put more human resource to the task, leverage the multiplying effect and velocity of the economy to undreamed of growth. We fail to see that the engineered scarcity and the inappropriate profit, supported by lobby and legislation, represents a hidden tax burden on those least able to afford it, a tax of the most regressive sort, it is a tax on education, heat, health care, drugs, communication, and information. These are just the elements of a society that might more reasonably be shared from community resources.
This is not strictly speaking a political conflict between two well defined parties, both take untold bribes in the form of contributions and pretend that their constituents are making their voices heard and that the lobbyists serve a real service as they write the proposed valorizing[2] legislation. A persuasive argument for privatization suggests that the government cannot provide the infrastructure as efficiently as private industry and this is probably true, but doing so with a sanctioned monopoly defeats the purpose and creates a bigger monster in the doing. Adam Smith argued for free competition and he was right. Privatization will only work with free competition and free collaboration which in itself argues for free information, demanding less patent protection and shorter copyright protection, not more.
[1] Methane, CH4, offers four hydrogen atoms per carbon. The hydrogen carries far greater energy per weight than the carbon and does not generate green house gas. The more carbon the less efficient the energy source. There are other considerations but concentrated hydrogen is the natural progression towards higher efficiency fuel sources. Pellet reactors may be next then helium fusion even more efficient solar; many references: Sci Amer, MIT Tech Rep, Nature etc.
[2]Valorize: to set and maintain the price of a commodity at an artificially high level through government action
posted by Clancy Hughes | 4/24/2006 05:11:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home