Obama's VP Candidate Is Pro-RIAA, Anti-Privacy

OK, good - we have a common language, at least in part.

1. Now that we do: when in fact producer "associations" sit down with labor "associations" to hammer out agreements on behalf of association members - with the state itself as a direct corporatist entity, or, at times, solely between producers and labor, with the state acting as more of a third-party broker; is this also corporatism?

2. If so, it cannot be argued that "corporatism" necessarily equates to fascism - though fascism relied on corporatist social structure - in essence, pods of corporatist entities with a fairly unitary structure and a kind of political/cultural homogeneity (not just producers' associations, workers' associations, but agrarian, cultural, religious associations), all in order to "zip up" hegemonic control over large swathes of people to fulfill its aims. Correct?

If so, I return to my original point. By equating corporatism with fascism, you took an illogical leap, since it is also quite possible for power to flow the "other" way in corporatist systems - if fascism is "top down," using corporatism as a means to ensure state hegemony is realized to the lowest level, it is also possible, under corporatism, for power to "flow up," for mobilized interests to articulate and realize their goals, on the national political agenda. And moving from this leap to the notion of state-capital collusion or conspiracy as also equaling corporatism was similarly flawed, as I have tried to show.

At the heart of it: corporatism is a type of social structure, distinguished from pluralism. Corporatism may be used by fascist states to their ends, but fascism and corporatism are not the same thing. And therefore corporatism is not necessarily equivalent to state-capital collusion. Hence,

is simply wrong.

From another approach, to take your own dictionary examples,

Cannot be the same thing, when "political representation" of your corporatist definition stands in opposition to "suppressing opposition and criticism" of your fascist definition.

 

You are not worthy of my time. You are free to continue believing whatever you like. In spite of you and your obnoxious behavior, I still like Amsterdam and all the people I met there.

Have a nice day.

 

I think you have not read the "bold" parts I made. I have made them bold again.
The only limit at "corporatism" is that it is within their jurisdiction. But because the media (TV networks) are actual legal methods, it means it falls into their jurisdiction to control people using the media. Think about that.

As you can see, it is very clear that there is not much of a difference, other than that there is not one leader in the corporate system. But hey, who is George Bush anyway? He does not exist in your corporatism?

 

Again you have not even written one argument, I think you wasted the topic for everyone. Not even one fact.

 

Profit, you PM'ed me, inviting me to discuss another thread topic, and I declined, though I wished you well in creating whatever thread you would wish.

The above is a principal reason why. Your statements from the beginning, to the effect "Americans are morons," and your methods: "I think you have not read the bold parts I made. I have made them bold again" betrays an arrogance I'm just not interested in dealing with - particularly when the arrogance rests on a foundation of gross errors and illogic.

My last post tried to very carefully show why your equating corporatism with fascism, and corporatism with state-capital collusion or conspiracy, is a logical flaw. Prior to that, I have posted numerous examples - based in history - to also concretely show why I have taken issue with your logic on this issue.

I'm leaving the topic now. Hope some found something useful in the thread.

 

This is a thing we can argue about. That is a very difficult subject, infact I would believe it would depend on a case by case definition. If the government is nearly a 3rd party broker, it would mean they would only mediate between the parties. But you can argue, how do they mediate, do they use for example a rule that says "no company in the country can ever pay below this wage". In that case, the government has a strong mediation position as they decide a sort of bottomline.

It can also be done in a more obvious way, if a company and a harbor decide they must do business together, because the company wants to heavily import goods in the harbor, the government could mediate by adapting certain importation costs, or by talking about infrastructure or other parts of agreements. What is the most important right now is the way for example oil groups, insurance companies and weapons manufacturers have got so much in fluence ( or it is the other way around) into modern day international politics.

Yes, it is when monopolies or kartels arise on the market, that the government can take control over the entities.

Examples can be seen when you take a look at the large arms contractors or the larger oil companies. Examples can also be seen in broadcasting groups like the VIACOM group and the Fox things. It is however the most obvious in the monetary system, where it is very clear that a private group of people provides directly to the government, and in the opposite direction.

Yes, because the state has agreements on a certain level with corporations and industries. They have got agreements with companies to provide services to eachother and to the public, while in a free market this would be impossible. In a monopoly position it would actually mean owning the public market.

 

7 of the hijackers still alive:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Osama most likely dead due to kidney failure:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/02/01/gen.bergen.cnna/index.html

It is not based on belief, but on facts. It's kind of old news actually.

 

blah blah blah

 

Biden and McCain have the same stance on Iraq, Russia and most foreign policy.

 

Yes. To live the American dream you must first be asleep.

 

I have been unable to keep up on threads as of late, but I have to chime in and say this is one of the most vile and unwarranted posts I have read as of late.

 

You're venturing off of the topic's main point!

This is a discussion about Obama's VP Candidate NOT DREAMS, not economies, not Americans are stupid, nothing of that sort. If you want to bash Americans go join an extremist group they'll help you preach that.

Ok so here's what I read so far:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html??=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

From what I can tell he is anti-piracy and pro-corporation. Well, the spying on P2P networks is a waste of tax dollars, also if companies get their products stolen its their fault for not making it rightly priced. I mean come on! $300 for a program is something not a lot of us are going to be willing to pay.

I don't like his stance in the internet thing, however who am I to say without knowing if this is even true or not. I'll do some research before coming to a conclusion on not voting for either of the majorities. I'd rather vote for the Foo Fighter's guy.

 

Yes it is kind of strange that DP seems to leave it there.

 

An extremist group? If you take a good look at the world, you will find out that there is no country on earth that thinks the US are a country of fun and joy.
No one likes the US because of their international policy. And also, in my country we are having heavy debates upon the American justice system.

Infact, the prisoner exchange program will be fully removed soon because alot of lawyers have complained that the juridical system in the United States is not even close to having the constitutional rights of even most Third world countries.

This has got VERY much to do with what this topic is about. The privacy is being restricted, of everyone. They now, with the different Patriot Acts, have the right to search your home, your computer, to tap your phones and your internet. And no American is saying anything about it, only a few, wich are called extremists by the propaganda machine of Viacom and other media groups.

You are NOT an extremist if you believe in free rights, and that a country is not at the same level as yours, if it does not believe in the same rights.
If you get arrested in then US, you either make an agreement, or you go to court (where sentences are alot higher). The agreement is based on a point system. You will get more points if you rat other people out, most prisoners (95% of the people in jail) have never had any form of trial. They made an agreement with the law. That agreement is even redeemable by the state, if you went to jail, and you made this agreement with them, and in lets say 30 years they say, well these agreements are not really a good system, then they can put everyone in jail again! Legally.

The US system also does not have any Habeas Corpus. If a group of inhabitants accepts and even protects this, we can only say they are in a very deep sleep.

 

almost as strange as having a political and religion forum on a webmaster community to begin with.

 

You do not have a clue about the American legal system. With each new post you discredit yourself.

America is far from perfect but the lies and bullshit you are claiming just proves your lack of knowledge.

 

Truth is "Intellectual Property" is the basis of any capitalistic country. The RIAA/MPAA are monopolistic organizations.

Are you aware that 90% of all music played in America is controlled by the RIAA? Hence, if a musician is not "represented" by the RIAA, their music is not played on radio stations, and in most cases not sold in stores.

15 years ago (pre-Napster), all proceeding regarding intellectual property rights were conducted in civil courts. Today, the proceeding have gone criminal.

Truth is we we're all taught from birth to infringe on copyrights. For example, you ever did a book report? Well, in most cases you republished another authors text by quoting him. If you ever participate in a class play? Well, in that case you publicly performed another artists writings.

Every time you connect to the internet and connect to websites (yahoo.com, Msn.com, etc), your computer is automatically downloading all of the website text, pictures, etc., into your "Temporary Internet Files" directory.

In short, by copying the websites content into your temporary internet files, your "stealing". All websites have the (c), (r), or (Tm) on them. So any copying of their content is illegal. There are NO laws in the United States or elsewhere that say differently.

The RIAA has claimed billions in losses due to P2P. I personally don't believe they suffered "losses", rather I think they simply failed to show gain. There is a big difference. You can't blame society for not making money.

Fact is, most of the kids trading online don't even have a credit card. Most artists make the majority of their income off of concerts (as opposed to making the money off of the CD's).

Example: Madonna may sell 10 million albums and make $1 on each album, but she makes 100 million on each concert tour.

Btw - Statistics show that people buy more albums. In the mid 80's, most of the world was forced to throw out their old albums and replace them with CD's. That is why people like Michael Jackson sold so many albums. Alot of the owners of the albums either bought record, tape, or CD. Today, you only have CD. And today, people buy just as much CD's as they purchased both records/tape combined. So I really dont know what the RIAA is bitching about.

Finally - Obama is an idiot. He's picking sides with the RIAA which is associated with suing mass amounts of college students and underage kids for mass amounts of money (in their efforts to "educate" the new generation) - and more recently filing criminal charges against kids.

Law makers need to focus on making laws that make sense. Once clear laws are made regarding copyrights, and what is "legal" and/or "illegal", then the lobbyist and interest groups can claim their bitch. But the governments have failed to protect the people. The RIAA lobbys the government by big political contributions to ensure that the laws are in favor of the RIAA.

Fact is, the RIAA monopoly is the reason that most young artists never get their music published and/or aired on radio waves. If you dont sign with the RIAA, you seriously don't get heard. The RIAA is not the US GOV, and so their actions are a monopoly.

I agree in copyrights, but I dont agree with taking sides in what should be a civil issue. First, the laws need to be straight because as Ive demonstrated above, we all engage in some type of infringement just by our normal usage of the internet.

As far as copyright is concerned, we are all breaking the law. There is no other way to look at it, and there are no amendments in place to protect the users. The laws are very one sided - making it very easy for big monopoly organizations (using law enforcement) to run after simple minded people.

Fact is, the US Government really needs to look after the people and their interest. The RIAA and MPAA are clear examples of how a lobbyist group influences the government to pass laws that dont even make sense.

 

There is something called "fair use" which allows the quotes and passages which are used in book reports and for other educational purposes. Many of the plays performed are in the public domain and if not, many schools pay for the rights to perform them.

You are making many assumptions which simply are not correct. There is much more wrong with your post, but I don't have the time or desire to correct it all.

The one area I do agree with you is that much of the copied/stolen/pirated material would never have been bought in the first place and thus, from that perspective, the companies suffered no loss. But the people who copied them were unjustly enriched. Whether we want to criminalize that behavior is another question.

Just this week someone was arrested and charged with crimes for posting unreleased Guns and Roses songs online.:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0827082gnr1.html

 

The RIAA and MPAA need to be shut down and shut down hard. They're only "losing money" because they have corporate pigs wrapped around their fingers saying "Time for me to raise my salary". I bet if you get rid of the RIAA and MPAA, companies would make a heck of a lot more. MPAA and RIAA cost money to run, why not put that money to a better use.

 

The Grateful Dead let their fans freely record live concerts. Oh yeah, and they were one of the highest grossing bands each year.