Lamar Smith Proposes Expanding Hollywood's Global Police Force(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Lamar Smith Proposes Expanding Hollywood's Global Police Force
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120709/12574819634/lamar-smith-looking-to-sneak-through-sopa-bits-pieces-starting-with-expanding-hollywoods-global-police-force.shtml
9 comments
I just want to clarify my definition of corruption. I believe a politician is corrupt when his or her district looks like the end-game of a round of Go. Or two simultaneous rounds as is the case in district 21.
It's particularly insidious when you see that a large part of tech-friendly Austin is under the district as well. We are but a drop amongst the sea.
Off-topic: I can't help but to note how meta your username is right now.
Off-topic: I can't help but to note how meta your username is right now.
It is utterly mindboggling to me that gerrymandering is legal in the US.
Not only legal, but required. It's another example of how something that was intended to ensure the voice of minorities, has turned into a tool for entrenching the powerful.
Required? This I did not know, I'm about to learn something. Can you go into a little detail?
From the Wikipedia article [1]:
After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts. This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats in government. Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Voting_Rights_A...
After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts. This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats in government. Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Voting_Rights_A...
Well, as the name tells you, it goes way back.
Iowa, I believe, has a fairly rational process for redistricting. Civic virtue? Lower stakes?
Iowa, I believe, has a fairly rational process for redistricting. Civic virtue? Lower stakes?
brilliant observation
The death of the Open Internet by a thousand cuts starts.
Yep, push back once, and they'll try, try again until decisively checked... apparently, 2000 in front of the NY Senators wasn't enough ;)
Anyone who thinks Democrats have a monopoly on MAFIAA-corrupted legislators needs to seriously examine this Republican.
A truly corrupt individual.
A truly corrupt individual.
Historically, contributions by the RIAA have been pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Lobbyists care more about influence than they do about the R or D after the name. Politicians care more about reelection campaign funding then they do about ideology.
Edit - sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cm...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00139519...
You need to look through the last few election cycles for a full picture. The MPAA, it seems, leans towards Democrats, but they do shift contributions according to which party controls each chamber.
Edit - sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cm...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00139519...
You need to look through the last few election cycles for a full picture. The MPAA, it seems, leans towards Democrats, but they do shift contributions according to which party controls each chamber.
When beaten back, even in the miniscule way that they have, they reveal more and more of their priorities by attrition. The elements that were in SOPA/PIPA/etc. that aren't in this, we can figure are the things that they're secure with, or that they don't care about. Regardless, there's plenty of business intelligence in the selection criteria between then and now.
If only some tech billionaire could set up a SuperPAC to defeat this guy in 2012.
Here's his Democratic opponent in 2012 https://candaceduval.nationbuilder.com/contribute
Here's his Democratic opponent in 2012 https://candaceduval.nationbuilder.com/contribute
If Smith were to be defeated the RIAA would just start throwing money at whoever became the chairman of the committee that he's currently in charge of. (The new chairman would likely be another Republican since they currently have a majority in the House.)
Corruption is so deeply entrenched in the system that you won't get rid of it by throwing out one politician, no matter how influential. The best approach might be to publicize as widely as possible how the system works in the hope that there will eventually be widespread support for reforming it (maybe by passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the kind of legalized corruption that we call "campaign finance" in the U.S.). If I were a billionaire, that's what I'd put my money behind.
Corruption is so deeply entrenched in the system that you won't get rid of it by throwing out one politician, no matter how influential. The best approach might be to publicize as widely as possible how the system works in the hope that there will eventually be widespread support for reforming it (maybe by passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the kind of legalized corruption that we call "campaign finance" in the U.S.). If I were a billionaire, that's what I'd put my money behind.
It's a safely Republican district; if Smith was to be defeated, it would have been in the GOP primary. (He cruised to victory over two challengers from more libertarian/tech-friendly backgrounds.)
Maybe now countries around the world will see that strong copyright is an one-way street to channel money for USA.
And then we'll see adoption of more public-oriented copyright regimes.
I'd never heard of Lamar Smith before, but the name conjures up the image of a sheriff in a cheesy western, ready to cut the bad guys down with a six shooter.
The Committee hearing is happening RIGHT NOW.
You can see the topics and watch a LIVE VIDEO here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202012/mark_0710...
Note: As can be seen on the topic list, there are a number of different topics, and the IPAA is not being discussed yet as of writing this comment. (This second, they're talking about Child Prevention Act of 2012, HR 6063.)
You can see the topics and watch a LIVE VIDEO here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202012/mark_0710...
Note: As can be seen on the topic list, there are a number of different topics, and the IPAA is not being discussed yet as of writing this comment. (This second, they're talking about Child Prevention Act of 2012, HR 6063.)
It's possible that some disagreements between Republicans and Democrats will prevent IPAA from coming up in today's markup, reports seemed to indicate as of last night.
Good to know, thanks. Where did you learn about that?
BTW, did the stream suddenly die? Or did they finish or go into recess when I wasn't watching?
BTW, did the stream suddenly die? Or did they finish or go into recess when I wasn't watching?
Seriously, look at this map: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/District/InteractiveMap.htm