The death of MegaUpload and extraterritorial application of law

Hey, you know what really bothers me? When one country figures that laws passed by their legislature apply to the entire fucking world.

You know who the leading proponent of that idea is? The United States. That’s right, a nation that refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because it might place their citizens, soldiers and scumbag politicians in legal jeopardy has no issue whatsoever with applying its laws on foreign soil.

It started with the War on Drugs, which dovetailed nicely into the War on Terror, and now American  copyright law is being applied extraterritorally.

For the record, I don’t take issue with the concept of copyright law. I just happen to think that it has historically been unevenly applied, and not infrequently at the expense of the people that actually create shit and in favor of the cocksucker corporations that have a long and storied tradition of robbing creative people fucking blind.

If it were up to me, the creator of something would hold the copyright of their work in perpetuity and the distributor of it – which would be the aforementioned cocksucker corporations – would do so under a license. I think that’s going to happen eventually, but the cocksucker corporations are going to have to bankrupted first.

Unlike in most industries, where something is created by an employee of a corporation, the creative arts are created by people who work under an advance system. The corporation might front you the money to create your work, but an advance is just that, an advance. The corporation deducts that advance money from their net profit before you see a fucking nickle. If your work never turns a profit for the corporation, you’ll wind up owing them money.

Oh, and you get no say in what the corporation’s expenses are. Let’s say that you make the most beautifully record about  coprophilia ever committed to wax and Universal Music decides to take it to market. You get no say in whether or not Universal buys all of the ad time in the world promoting it on the Disney Channel. You’re still paying for it out of your advance, even though you’re pretty sure that kids who like cartons aren’t likely to CDs about people that are turned on by shit.

Better still, when your shit-glory record fails miserably and you find yourself hopelessly mired in debt to Universal Music, Universal Music still owns your work forever. Not only are you professionally and financially fucked because of Universal’s disastrous marketing decisions, you lose the right to own your own, well, shit.

More importantly, illegal downloading – while not exactly helping the entertainment conglomerates – isn’t what’s killing them. Corporate stupidity and a lack of competition is. If you think that investment banking is operating on a suicidal business model, you don’t know the first fucking thing about the entertainment industry.

Look at how many record companies and movie studios there were thirty years ago, compared to how many there are now. Now think of how many truly memorable records and movies there are compared to thirty years ago. You can draw a pretty even line in the decline of both, can’t you?

Does anyone really think that people are going to pay as much for the fifteenth carbon copy of Britney Spears (or the ninth reboot of the Spiderman movies) as they going to for the tenth? Even when each gets progressively more nightmarishly bad than the last?

I would humbly suggest to you that they won’t. If they can’t download it for free for the fucking pop culture irony of saying that they’ve seen it, they’ll just ignore it. It turns out that the mergers and acquisitions culture is working out just as well for the entertainment industry as it did for banking. A lack of competition creates a corporate atmosphere that no sane person wants anything to do with. Sure, you’ll make a fuck-ton of upfront money, but you’ll wind up running into the arms of big government the second the market wises up to your horseshit. And the market has decidedly wised up to their horseshit.

If the goddamned government managed to stop piracy tomorrow – which it won’t – those cuntish mega moguls would still be broke in five years. Those dopey cunts really do believe that if they eliminate the possibility of your taking their garbage for free, that you’re actually stupid enough to pay for it, while blissfully ignoring the fact that their product is fucking garbage

That’s not even what I want to argue. What I want to point out is “who in the fuck is the United States to shut down a Hong Kong-based company and arrest folks in New Zealand based on the whimsy of shitheel motherfuckers like Chris Dodd, formerly the United States Senator from CountyWide and currently the president of the MPAA?” And make no mistake, this is all about the infinitely power-drunk and suicidally moronic desires of Washington’s lobbyist assholes.

Let’s now consider that you’re a judge in someplace like Spain or Italy, and you have credible evidence that the United States government carried out the kidnapping of someone legally on your soil, and taken the victim to some shithole like Syria, Lybia or Egypt, where they were tortured without due process of law. That violates literally dozens of laws or international conventions, most of which the United States was party to. How well do you think that Washington is going to respond to your “tough on crime” posture?

People who have never set foot in America, and are merely accused of committing crimes against suicidal industries can lose the liberty and have their property seized with impunity. But American policymakers, who have arguably committed crimes against humanity can traverse the globe with impunity, irrespective of what the law anywhere says.

At some point, the extraterritorial application of domestic laws in going to work both ways. And Americans aren’t going to like the way that looks.


Obama’s buy America plan not Harper’s fault

It is part of the job of the opposition parties in Parliament to criticize the government. To do so effectively they need credibility and you don’t help your credibility when you blame the government for something that is clearly not its fault. A good example of this has come up recently with the Obama administration’s plan to introduce a “buy American” provision with its “jobs” plan. The Liberals and NDP seem to be blaming the Conservatives for this protectionist move.

The claim is that if the Conservative government had a stronger and better relationship with the US government then Canada would automatically be exempted.

The problem is that no matter how friendly Mr. Harper is to Mr. Obama, domestic politics will trump foreign relations every single time. This is an almost universal truth. It is most certainly true in Canada. Domestic politics kept Canada out of the joining the US in a joint anti-ballistic defense system even though it made sense from a foreign affairs perspective.

If the domestic mood in America is in support of a policy, there isn’t much that Canada can do to prevent it.

Basically the “buy America” provisions don’t mean that Stephen Harper sucks at managing Canada’s relationship with the United States. It means that the United States has a protectionist President that is damaging to Canadian trade.

The Liberals and NDP should reserve all their ire on this issue for Barrack Obama.


Poll: Who won the CNN/Tea Party Republican presidential debate?

They only permit four options. If you think a different candidate won the debate, go ahead and add their name in the comments.


Adwatch: Ron Paul’s “Revolution SuperPAC” television commercial

Here’s the advertisement the Revolution SuperPAC wants to run if they get enough by way of contributions:

I kind of like it, although I’m not sure about the effectiveness of including a line like, “not a shill for the bankers.” What do you think? Is it effective?


Obama’s job plan won’t work

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute has written a nice summary of the bad ideas that can be found in Obama’s new spending plan.

  • A temporary payroll tax cut. This is not a tax cut at all because the president would “pay for it” with tax hikes later on. And if it’s temporary, it won’t encourage businesses to hire additional workers anyway.
  • More federal infrastructure. When the federal government spends on infrastructure, it often misallocates the funds. The list of federal infrastructure boondoggles and cost overruns is endless — in public housing, dam-building, Corps of Engineers projects, bridges to nowhere, high-speed rail, etc. Instead, what we need is higher-quality infrastructure spending financed and built by the private sector. We need private airports, private air-traffic control, and private toll highways.
  • A federal infrastructure bank. Such a financial scheme would reduce transparency in federal spending, which would go directly against a key Obama promise of increased budget transparency.
  • Federal jobs training programs. Since the 1960s, federal jobs-training programs simply haven’t worked.
  • New business tax credits. New tax credits for hiring will distort business decisionmaking and, by making the tax code more complicated, such credits would encourage more tax cheating. They would be the exact sort of tax loophole that Obama claims to hate.
  • Crony capitalism. When Obama talks about “government and business working side-by-side,” it sounds to me like an invitation to corruption.
  • Extending unemployment insurance. Such subsidies would help keep the unemployment rate high.

Will tonight’s Republican presidential debate be a fight between Ron Paul and Rick Perry?

It started with a television advertisement.

Ron Paul’s campaign team released an ad that linked former Texas governor Rick Perry with former presidential candidate Al Gore. Perry supported Gore. At the same time, the ad linked Ron Paul to former president Ronald Reagan. Paul supported Reagan’s presidential run, and Reagan endorsed Paul for Congress. They seemed to be friendly.

Rick Perry’s campaign team then issued a rebuttal by providing the media Ron Paul’s 1987 resignation letter.

In that letter, Ron Paul wanted to “disassociate” himself with the Republican Party, and with Ronald Reagan. He had just brought more debt and bigger government, wrote Paul, in spite of his campaign rhetoric, and his wonderful quotes.

Perry’s campaign team suggested that Ron Paul doesn’t have a leg to stand on if he wants to criticize Perry for not standing with Reagan. Paul may have stood with Reagan initially, but he distanced himself from Reagan and his record in 1987.

Today, Paul’s campaign chairman Jesse Benton has weighed in with the following open letter:

Read more…


Adwatch: Ron Paul & Reagan vs. Rick Perry & Al Gore

The gloves are off, I guess.

In this latest fancy ad from the Ron Paul campaign, Ron Paul is associated with Ronald Reagan (they were on good terms, with Reagan endorsing Paul’s run for Congress).

Meanwhile, former Texas governor Rick Perry is associated with Al Gore, who wanted to “undo” the gains the U.S. got under Reagan (what were those gains again? More spending?…) Anyhow, Perry campaigned for Al Gore, and then later decided that he wasn’t a liberal anymore and became a super-charged conservative. Something along those lines.

Here’s the ad, enjoy:

Read more…


Will Gary Johnson dump GOP to run as Libertarian Party presidential candidate?

Before Ron Paul contested the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and now in 2012, he was the Libertarian Party’s standard bearer in 1988. He remains a life member of the Libertarian Party, and continues to have a good relationship with the LP.

Things might become a little difficult if former New Mexico governor and current long-shot candidate for the GOP presidential candidacy decides to seek the leadership of the Libertarian Party.

Is this likely? Yes, if Lew Rockwell’s inside contacts are to be believed:

An old LP insider tells me that Gary has reached out to the Libertarian Party to see if he would be welcome as a 2012 presidential candidate.

Unlike co-Volunteer Terrence, I happen to like both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, and am excited about both of their candidacies. While I prefer Gary Johnson to Paul, I think both are good for liberty.

I had a chance to meet Ron Paul at the University of Michigan back in 2008, and had a two-hour, almost one-on-one conversation with Gary Johnson at a pub in DC. Both are down-to-earth, easy-going, and obviously passionate about liberty.

So I’m curious about two things. Would it be good for Gary Johnson to switch allegiances and run under the LP banner? And would it be good for the movement in general to have Gary Johnson dump the GOP and be the LP standard-bearer?

Here’s one interesting and intriguing possibility: If Ron Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination, he might throw his weight behind Gary Johnson and the LP. If that were to happen, the LP could be a significant force in many parts of the U.S. I’d guess they might even break double-digits in, for example, New Mexico and maybe a few states where Ron Paul is particularly strong.

One other intriguing and interesting possibility is Ron Paul joining Johnson as his vice-presidential candidate. This, in fact, is the most exciting possibility (apart from Paul winning the GOP nomination).


Ignoring Ron Paul

Ever since Jon Stewart of the Daily Show raised the question, just about everyone has chimed in to give their two cents about why (and whether) Ron Paul is being ignored in the Republican race for the nomination.

Here’s the clip of Jon Stewart taking it to the major media:

Following that, several pundits and commentators have offered their own explanations.

My favourite, by far, is Glenn Greenwald’s:

Read more…


Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Why are they ignoring Ron Paul?

UPDATE: Cafferty File clip about media ignoring Ron Paul below the fold.

You’ll probably see a raft of posts about Ron Paul from me in the next few months.

Why?

I’m starting to get that bug again, that’s why. No, not the gold bug. The Ron Paul bug. Fellow Volunteer Terrence can tell you all about it — in 2008, I was super excited about Ron Paul. Did I think he had a chance to win? No, of course not. Did it matter to me? No, of course not. As a libertarian, I’m not exactly used to seeing my views reflected in the mainstream, and it’s never bothered me. I’d like to see us move in a libertarian direction, that’s for sure. And I think little things, like a little Ron Paul Revolution, help that along.

Over the last week or so I’ve lost the cynicism that I had about Ron Paul going into this race. I’m grumpy about some of his positions, and I’m grumpy about the weird-o conspiratorial nonsense that seems to follow him around (I prefer “hound him,” but whatever).

But when I saw him during the pre-Ames debate, I absolutely roared during the foreign policy bit. Terrence can attest to it, since we were sitting on the couch next to each other. Why the fuck aren’t more Republicans on board with these three simple propositions?: America cannot afford the wars. The wars make America less safe. The security apparatus (you might call it “theatre” — I do) is resulting in less liberty for Americans.

Three simple propositions.

They’re not so “simple,” mind you, since I can respect someone who disagrees with the second of the three. The empirical data is messy and complicated. It’s difficult to figure out precisely why someone would want to do you harm (although it seems to me that someone killing my relatives will motivate me to do far more than some fervent belief in a religion, or a fervent belief that Americans are too free and too rich, still… still… I can see why some people might see things differently).

But when I hear Ron Paul make the non-interventionist case, I get goosebumps. When I hear this old fart talk about how much bullshit the war on drugs is (and it is bullshit, complete and utter. I do not respect anyone who still believes in it — at best, they are just ignorant), I want to adopt him as my grandpa. And when he talks, as he so often does, about the significance and importance of individual liberty, I get a little pumped. Okay, I get really pumped.

And then I compare him to everyone else running for the GOP leadership and I just don’t understand any of you. I really can’t figure it out. Mitt Romney? Are you fucking serious? Perry? That guy’s just a politician! Does he believe anything at all? I doubt it. And Michele Bachmann… Are we even on the same planet?

Gary Johnson is my favourite, mind you. Gary Johnson is the best of the bunch. In fact, Gary Johnson is probably the best in several dozen years. But it’s the combination of Ron Paul being right on 90% of the issues, and that ridiculous grassroots enthusiasm, that has me getting really, really pumped.

And then he got second place at Ames, and I got real pumped, and then no one in the media mentioned him. They all ignored him. And I thought that was garbage. Complete and utter. And then Jon Stewart did this, and everything was good again:

UPDATE: Here’s Jack Cafferty from The Situation Room asking about whether or not Ron Paul is the only grown-up in the GOP race, and about the lack of media coverage in spite of Paul’s remarkable showing at the Ames straw poll:

Read more…