For that matter, given that the courts have already taken us to this level of ridiculousness: what are the implications of the 13th Amendment? Corporations are people that have owners.

There are a lot of solo-gigs in the tech industry. I own my own LLC. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am the single owning member of a person. I also happen to work from home. Why can't I claim my LLC as a dependent? Seriously... if corporations are people, then I should be able to. I guarantee you that if I tried, a world of trouble would come crashing down on me. This suggests to me that there are different rule books.

I'm not sure you can "set-aside" the global carnival of carnage that has become America's biggest business. The Army has found video games to be an effective recruiting tool. The Army uses video games to train soldiers to put aside their humanity and make the decision to kill actual, living people in a split second. Have you ever met anyone who has driven a tank, or a similar large piece of high-tech lethal machinery in a modern war? It is somewhat telling -- everyone I know who has served in one of these wars, who was in such a position, had this to say: "It was like playing a video game." The experience is complete with music, glitzy graphics, even sound effects. It is possible that we, as a culture, have simply learned to sublimate the desire for instant small-scale violent responses, to a desire for organized large-scale symphonies of death. I'm not sure that this is progress.

...and by "X" I meant "3." I was pretty sure there would be 3, but I wanted to enumerate them first, before editing that sentence. (Which I promptly neglected to do.)

I would characterize this debate as having X camps:

1) The "it's my right to chuck anything I want into the garbage, and government can't tell me not to" camp.
2) The "government has no right to define a manufacturer's responsibilities, nor to compel them to meet them" camp.
3) The "whatever the product is, it's gonna be here 10,000 more years (approximately) than it will be used for, and this is frakkin' insane, unsustainable, and very likely the thing that is going to overwhelm and destroy us much sooner than we choose to think" camp.

I'm all for telling government to sod off, but seriously folks, we're already drowning in trash, and the rate at which we are committing suicide is increasing. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of those issues that government exists to address? I mean we, as social animals, do create societies -- rather than living as a bunch of feral lone islands -- for a reason.

Is it the manufacturer bearing the cost? Or is it the consumer? The way I see it, the manufacturer is now being compelled to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of the product. As it stands, the manufacturer is only responsible for it until it is chucked (warranty), or, in some cases, only until the point where the consumer buys it. The consumer bears the cost... like any & every other financial burden that the manufacturer incurs in the course of making the product. The consumer also bears the responsibility of returning the ready-to-chuck product to a recycling center. If he chooses to throw it in the trash, then he's being a pretty bad neighbor, because the responsible manufacturer has provided for the end-of-life for this product. Nowhere do I see how RFID tags get planted on every product. That would entail, at the very least, legislation that makes the manufacturer responsible even if the consumer chooses not to take advantage of the end-of-life product recycling.

It is extremely rare -- the exception, not the rule -- for a writer, musical artist, or any actual creative talent to make money in the distribution of their work. By the time it gets to distribution, they no longer own the work. (Note: this is where one of the fundamental flaws in the current model exists.)

Where do they make money? Typically, public appearances and public performances. Remember, artists aren't like suits. They are compelled by the need to create, and the need for recognition. They will often work multiple second jobs just to sustain their ability to create (and to pay back their debt to some RIAA mafia company for the privilege of signing over their work for distribution).

That is not to say that money is not being made off of distribution (pardon the double-negative). Someone most definitely is making money off of the distribution. Those "someones" are represented by the RIAA, and they disingenuously invoke the name of "the artist" in their campaigns. Making money off of distributing a work, without properly compensating the artist, is what piracy actually is. One can begin to guess why the RIAA mafia is working so hard to create a new definition of piracy.

So why would artists put up with this? Simple. Exposure. Signing over their work, and oftentimes placing themselves into great debt to an RIAA mafia company just to get distributed, used to be the only way of getting their names out there.

Now, there's a way of doing it that reaches a bigger audience, and doesn't require the artist to go into debt. It doesn't make any money for the mafia, though. But if you look at the numbers of what's actually happening, it sure does seem to be working for the artist.

Don't mistake "artist" for "distribution company." The RIAA mafia works very hard to confuse the two. They are distinct, and separate.

Mass, global distribution that doesn't place the artist in debt -- this is not only a good thing in theory. It has empirically been shown to correlate with greater ticket (and even album) sales.

The RIAA mafia, incidentally, isn't claiming that their profits are going down. They are claiming that there is a decrease in the rate of increase. Think about what that really means, for a second. This is pure, irrational greed -- based on the insane notion that the rate of growth should always increase. They don't just want growth... they aren't content to continue to grow bigger and bigger. They cry foul, sue people en masse, and try to have the laws re-written... because the *rate* of positive growth is diminishing. They are angry because they aren't getting richer faster.

RIAA != artist.

Your argument sounds vaguely reminiscent of the "we shouldn't even try to oppose anything he wants, because we might fail, and THEN what?!?!" argument that the Democrats used for 8 years to support, enable, and empower every single one of George W. Bush's policies. OK, so if we shouldn't use the legal system to oppose the RIAA, how should we do it? What method of opposing this insanity is so guaranteed in its success that we *shouldn't* be afraid of losing in the attempt? I say, make the attempt. Otherwise, you see... the RIAA has won, and the story is already over. I find that most objectionable. It's one thing to try, and fail... it's another thing to enable the people working against you, just so that you can wind up on the "winning" side.

As a web developer, I'd like to suggest that there is a flip side to this. Not a week goes by where someone doesn't come to me with an "idea." It will be a vague, general idea, and often fairly obvious... something along the lines of, "Hey, why don't we make a FaceBook-killer?" Or, "Hey, why don't we make a site where local pizza shops can accept on-line orders?" By "we," they mean, "You do all of the work. I'll contribute that initial idea, and collect 50% of the money, and act like you're my employee." Hence, I have become practiced at telling people that I don't work on speculation. Perhaps Google's route is better -- I could just direct people to my "idea submission" page, which would spell out my terms.

That's an interesting philosophy. Let's assume we continue going in this corporate-focused method of government. By that logic, then, it would make sense for the vast majority of Americans to simply expatriate from America, to a nation that will offer a better deal. There are some places in the world that will still tax you to the hilt, the way we are taxed to the hilt in America (with a whole plethora of taxes, at all levels of commerce and government)... the difference is, you'll get something in return. Why should we be shamed into being patriotic, while everyone thinks it's just savvy for corporations to screw America for the sake of the bottom line?

The interesting thing is, under the Bush administration, you can no longer escape your tax burden by expatriating -- at least, not for a long time. I wonder why they would make such a restrictive, oppressive law governing individuals... essentially, we are "owned" by the government, even if we leave forever... but when it comes to corporations, they'll use the carrot instead?

Muslims are more likely to kill? Are you suggesting it is somehow genetic, i.e. Muslims are the Klingons of planet earth? Islam is hardly the only religion that advocates the destruction of non-believers. Just look at the atrocities, genocides, and immoralities advocated by the god of those "other" monotheistic religions. You say Muslims are more likely to kill. I am curious. In this cultural war between the "Cafeteria Christianity" that dominates America vs. the "Militant Islam" that dominates the mid-east, which side would you estimate has more blood on its hands? Which side most callously, and with the most frequency, shrugs off the mass slaughter of civilians who got caught in the crossfire of WMDs? I would say the difference would be several orders of magnitude. When I wake up in the morning, I'm not afraid of Muslims. I'm afraid of my government making some self-righteous judgments and starting a nuclear war, to prove our moral superiority. I'm afraid of getting beaten by a cop for breathing wrong. But I'm not afraid of Muslims ganging up on me.