Grubb for Congress. By Weblog. 300
An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.
Re:GeekPac (Score:4, Interesting)
But I looked, and I couldn't find any contact info. Not so much as an email address. I guess we're stuck donating to the EFF [eff.org] instead.
Re:Libertarian (Score:1, Interesting)
A Vote For Grubb Is A Vofe For The First Amendment (Score:2, Interesting)
Vote for her because her ideas rock.
But also vote for her because she is running against Howard Coble [house.gov], who is in the back pocket [search.com] of the RIAA [riaa.org].
If you love the First Amendment and hate the DMCA [anti-dmca.org], send Grubb to Congress!
I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds... (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, I really think corporations should offer maternity leave, enough so that I think the government should intercede to provide tax incentives.
Hence, I am running for congress as a Libertarian, because only the Libertarians truly understand the way to deal with corporate power is to repeal every regulatory counterbalance imaginable [lp.org].
In the end, The Market will cure all our ills.
Re:Libertarian... (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me ask your opinion on another scenario. Suppose you put a CD out and your local library buys a copy and puts it on the shelf so anyone (with a valid library card) can take it home and listen to it.
Suppose you don't like library patrons listening to your music for free. Should you be allowed to release your CD stating that this CD cannot be put in a library to be loaned? What about a book or a movie?
So, this is not music piracy and does not violate any of your 4 canons. Now, with P2P sharing of your work, no-one is gaining any money and thus would not put under music piracy but maybe 'unauthorized copying'. So, in a way, this does not violate your 4 canons as well.
My point is that maybe P2P sharing of copyrighted work is not so bad at all. Libraries do it. The idea that anyone can just download your song and appreciate it without charge is similar to anyone can go and borrow a book and read it. Maybe the music industry has reached a point where it is going in the way of the book publishing industry. Let go of the massive promotions and just cut the cost to recording and reproduction, and live with P2P. That, I think, would be culturally optimal.
Get an Interview, Slashdot ! (Score:4, Interesting)
The library analogy is flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
Well to me personally the difference is that the library has temporarily transferred the rights of listening to the music to the borrower. It can be clearly defined that when one person or entity has paid for the use of the music, and only one person or entity is using that music at any given time.
Software companies, even Microsoft, used to state in their standard EULA's that you were allowed to make several copies of their software as long as it was only being used in one location at any time. These allowances (which imho should be declared as implicit anyway) have now dissapeared from the EULA's -- possibly because the companies believe it's too hard or inefficient for them to enforce. Instead "independent" organisations like the BSA [bsa.org], the MPAA [mpaa.org] and the RIAA [riaa.org] have been formed by the corporate cartels to crack down on and frighten by legal threats anyone doing what the company decides it doesn't like, under the guise of IP law and in a way that they hope will never be decided on at a court that actually matters.
A peer-to-peer information sharing network doesn't naturally have this transferral of rights, because the information isn't moved. It's copied. Letting someone else use it doesn't prevent you from using it at the same time. If you look at a typical peer-to-peer music sharing network, this is exactly what happens. A few people buy something, and their versions of it are duplicated and shared many times between many thousands of people, all of whom are using it simultaneously and independently when often very few people have actually paid for it. Irrespective of how right or wrong anyone might believe it to be, this is nothing like how a library works.
Re:Libertarian? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.
more like scary.... (Score:3, Interesting)
"...with great ideas and views"
Aren't you a wee bit nervous of a politician who makes statements like "The history of the Middle East is the history of oil".?
I am really worried about a politican who thinks history = 90 years. This feels so close to the views of the European 19th Century powers that believed that African history started when they colonised the continent. Don't forget the earliest cities in the world (Ur, Akkad..) are in Iraq, the birthplace of our civilisation; there is 5000 years of history there. The foundation of the USA started there...
Hmm, just because somebody can use a weblog doesn't mean they are all right.