Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.
This idiocy has been proposed enough times someone has already done the calculations:
If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
support for campaign finance transparency
Which can otherwise be described as ban on anonymous speech — at least, political speech.
opposition to concentrating media into a few corporations
We don't have a media monopoly, that's all that matters. Most likely, his being a Socialist, the solution will involve creating an official governmental media corporation (such as by vastly expanding NPR/PBS). USSR had such a monopoly on media, and now Russia has too. It is not pretty — and much worse, than what we have today.
support for universal health care
Well, GP said "soviet experiment" and you asked for examples — here is another one.
support for LGBT equality
They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.
opposition to the bank bail-outs when they were fast-tracked through in 2008
Yeah, right. Would he properly privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mark? Without dealing with that giant elephant in the room, all "banking reforms" are meaningless.
None of that seems all that crazy or dangerous to me
Then you have no idea, what "soviet experiment" is. Likely, Mr. Sanders does not know it either. Both of you should be kept away from governing a country.
If a person makes a house and sells it, then it is no longer theirs to sell
Sure, but what if he rents it out? A song is rarely sold — what you buy is a right to play it with certain limitations. Since you are compelled by neither the law nor even physical necessity to enter into the transaction in the first place, I fail to see, what right you have to even complain of any and all strings attached. If you don't, how the "infamous" Metallica sells their music, take your money to YouTube. Problem solved.
Code licensing should also not be perpetual
There you go. Glad we cleared that out. Neither of us is an artist, but at least one is a programmer — kind of brings the topic closer to home. So, in your opinion, software-licensing — include what's licensed under GPL — should not be perpetual. I think, we are done here.
I'm not advocating for the elimination of copyright - just shortening it to a reasonable period.
All of the arguments you've put forth so far in support of shortening the copyright, would apply equally to eliminating it altogether. Therefor either the arguments are BS, or you ought to embrace the greater cause and stop being shy about it.
It's sort of an odd arrangement that we provide them a government mandated monopoly over their songs essentially forever.
Why? What's "odd" about it? If you build — or purchase — a house, you and your ancestors can live in it forever. Why must a song be ever confiscated from its owner?
How about a program you write — and release under, say, GPL? Should that licensing be perpetual, or do you consider that to be "abusive" as well — and would like all software to automatically become public domain after a (short) while?
Due to abusive legislation, that has been stolen from us
So, we can use the term "stolen", when referring to intangible things, after all? Good to know...
Most artists make music because they like it. YouTube is full of artists sharing their works for free.
You are right! Under the current system an artist is free to release their works "into the wild" whenever they please. They have a choice between trying to profit and trying to gain renown. You want to take that away (steal) from them, mandating some arbitrary (and short) time limit. I fail to see, how this can possibly be considered "fair".
They wouldn't suffer with shorter copyright
But others would suffer from the confiscation you are proposing. So, if you dislike them so much — just pretend they don't exist and enjoy the works of those you like.
You say it is perfectly obvious I picked the name of the app because of it's similarities to Google. Can you prove this or is this simply your conjecture?
Yes, it is my conjecture, that the stated fact is perfectly obvious.
No, I am not going to "prove" it — if such was a requirement for trademark cases, no plaintiff would've ever won anything. But you seem to be confusing "facts" with "proven facts" — though the distinction exists in courts of law, in the court of public opinion (which is where you are right now, by your own choice) it is far less pronounced.
Now, would you state publicly and sincerely, that I am wrong, and that your choice of name Neu oogle for a web-search application had nothing whatsoever to do with G oogle? And still respect yourself in the morning?
Google need to prove I was trying to pass it off, not simply believe I was.
Actually, no. As far as I understand, Google does not need to prove, what was going on in your head at all. They just need to demonstrate, that a reasonable person may be genuinely confused into thinking, your app really had something to do with or was endorsed by Google. And that such a confusion is easily possible is really quite obvious.
If they need a warrant (from the FISA court) to access the data (just like previously)
Well, if you put the "just like previously" part into your own post, then we aren't disagreeing, that this is not much of an improvement — and that was my premise.
That agreement now established, let's move on to what's wrong with the existing Act — and what's likely to remain wrong even after the proposed amendments are passed...
And the problem with FISA-court is that — unlike all other courts — it does not hear both sides . They may deny the rubber-stamp allegations, but they have only rejected 11 surveillance requests out of 33900 submitted since the court's inception to 2013...
how is it not abiding by the fourth amendment?
I said nothing about the Forth Amendment, actually. Whether it even applies to one's communications is no immediately obvious. No, my claim is not whether Patriot Act violates the Constitution, but whether or not the upcoming changes to it constitute a discernible improvement.
Would you prefer that law enforcement/spy agencies had to be fully tied and unable to conduct investigations?
I would prefer, that the government had no way to force private companies to preemptively record data about me just in case it may be needed by some future investigation.
Without being so forced, some companies may still prefer to do it seeking your business and others may choose not to seeking that of libertines. The existing regulatory mandate — cooperate with the FBI or else — troubles me greatly, and should trouble everyone...
they want to listen to music. hardly a grave moral transgression
I said nothing about listening. I wrote only about playing.
is it written somewhere in the bible or the quran that making money off of recorded music is some sort of basic human right? no
If the 10 Commandments were the sort of "living and breathing document", that certain people claim the US Constitution to be, the "Thou shalt not play records without recorder's permissions" would've been in it by now.
you make money form live performance, patronage, ads, ancillary revenue, etc.
Why must an artist's (or, indeed, anyone's!) money-making be restricted to the sources you find agreeable? And what of others of your kind, who'll claim, for example:
We are paying people for their utilizing their skills in the way we like. If Elon Musk can profit from designing a wonder battery in different ways, why can't a singer squeeze everything from a successful song?
If the artist didn't exist, you would've had no song and nothing to complain about. If does exist, but you don't like him or his desire to be paid — well, just ignore him, as if he didn't exist. Problem solved.
the words you say are in defense of a temporary power arrangement, physical media
Which words of mine do you consider relating to any particular "physical media"? I certainly meant no such relationship — the only presumption in my post was that a verbatim recording of musical performance is possible. Whether the recording is on a tape, CD, a flash-drive or whatever is of no consequence.
So, are all you skeptics paid shills, or just really passionate about your cause?
I, for one, am rather passionate about some odd numbers not being primes.
That there is an infinite amount of them strengthens my position, but having only a few exceptions is enough to invalidate the theory I cited as an example.
"The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act.
Well, according to New York Times:
Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves [emphasis mine -mi], and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.
I'm not sure, we gained all that much here...
If you neither sung it yourself, nor obtained the singer's permission, you have no right to play it. Seems like a perfectly self-evident rule to me.
This a plain BS, so what, by acquiring a trademark on "google", now google has trademark on all words terminating in oogle?
Maybe, not on all.
But it is perfectly obvious, that Andy picked the name for his app to associate with Google — seeking a free ride on their coat-tails. And further more, it is a legitimate concern, that some user may be sufficiently confused to sincerely believe, Andy's app is, in fact, coming from Google — some sort of "New Google"...
Some psychologists say this shows the field has a replicability problem.
I'd say, credibility is the problem plaguing the field.
The experimenters really wanted each experiment to predict their theory... The less precise a science, the worse a problem this is.
In Mathematics, where absolute proofs are possible, and proponents of this or that public policy fiddle not, things are fine. But if a psychologist or, dare I say it, a climate scientist thought, that all odd numbers are prime, for example, they would've staged an experiment: "3, 5, 7" and declared the theory confirmed... Yes, the subsequent "9" is problematic, but "11" and "13" are further confirmations and how much research do you need anyway, skeptic, before you start doing something?
The gigafactory is the recipient of the largest incentive package ever given by Nevada at $1.3 billion, which followed a hotly contested tax incentive bidding war between various states to land the Tesla battery plant. For the investment to pay off, Tesla needs to convince hundreds of thousands of consumers per year to buy its cars and battery products, with the gigafactory serving as a cornerstone to the company's sales strategy.
I see, that Slashdot is eager to help in advertising with free (it is, is not it?) promotion.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
