Iraq
Amazing, isn't it?
In the USA the Bush team have reduced the entire Iraq question to "those 16 words" and effectively silenced their critics.
In the UK the Iraq controversy has been slimmed down to only 2 words: the term "sexed up", thus also silencing all critical discussion.
I am sickened by the utter hypocrisy and immorality of it all.
If the politicians think they are invisible behind this gauze of double-talk, think again.
The public is silent, they dont react. The press seems braindead.
Do not make the assumption though that it does not matter to us all.
I believe it is the sheer scale of it that stupifies, the huge weight of double standards that immobilises the people.
There will be a backlash though.
People dont stay gobsmacked and paralysed with shock and disbelief forever.
At some point, we all vote.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Iraq
Amazing, isn't it?
In the USA the Bush team have reduced the entire Iraq question to "those 16 words" and effectively silenced their critics.
In the UK the Iraq controversy has been slimmed down to only 2 words: the term "sexed up", thus also silencing all critical discussion.
I am sickened by the utter hypocrisy and immorality of it all.
If the politicians think they are invisible behind this gauze of double-talk, think again.
The public is silent, they dont react. The press seems braindead.
Do not make the assumption though that it does not matter to us all.
I believe it is the sheer scale of it that stupifies, the huge weight of double standards that immobilises the people.
There will be a backlash though.
People dont stay gobsmacked and paralysed with shock and disbelief forever.
At some point, we all vote.
Amazing, isn't it?
In the USA the Bush team have reduced the entire Iraq question to "those 16 words" and effectively silenced their critics.
In the UK the Iraq controversy has been slimmed down to only 2 words: the term "sexed up", thus also silencing all critical discussion.
I am sickened by the utter hypocrisy and immorality of it all.
If the politicians think they are invisible behind this gauze of double-talk, think again.
The public is silent, they dont react. The press seems braindead.
Do not make the assumption though that it does not matter to us all.
I believe it is the sheer scale of it that stupifies, the huge weight of double standards that immobilises the people.
There will be a backlash though.
People dont stay gobsmacked and paralysed with shock and disbelief forever.
At some point, we all vote.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals
Urges America to remain a "welcoming country"
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 11:52 AM EDT (1552 GMT)
President Bush speaks to reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House Wednesday.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" -- not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."
"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.
Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Urges America to remain a "welcoming country"
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 11:52 AM EDT (1552 GMT)
President Bush speaks to reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House Wednesday.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" -- not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."
"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.
Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.
The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
In The Waiting Room: An Open Letter To The RIAA
This piece is from In The Waiting Room, a collection of
essays and personal reflections.
Note: I would normally never place a letter of this sort in my permanent collection of writing, but it dovetails so perfectly into my previous writing about copyrights as to demand inclusion. The background which prompted this letter was a communication I received in April or May, 2002, from my cable Internet provider informing me that they had accepted hearsay claiming I was stealing the intellectual property of RIAA members. The letter seemed to be sheer lawyerspeak, the equivalent of shooting randomly across the enemy lines hoping to keep the timid from raising their heads. No proof was even offered that any law had been transgressed, other than my IP address had connected to a music sharing service.
Dear Recording Industry Association of America:
I buy commercial music, making me one of the nameless and faceless legions which patronize your members. My cable Internet company just informed me that you think I am a thief of your members’ (intellectual) property. The sum and total of the proof is apparently that I connected to an online music sharing service.
The letter has a surreal quality. My cable company, in their terms of service, says they will not assign me a permanent IP address, but now they’re saying my IP address is permanent enough to trace Internet activity back to me. The letter references a lot of different laws, but offers no proof that I violated any of them. It’s almost like randomly raking the enemy lines with a machine gun, just to make sure the easily intimidated keep their heads down. The cable company is in an unenvious and almost impossible situation. Legally, the waters are murky as to whether the service provider is legally responsible for what their users do, so much so that they indemnified themselves with a special clause saying they will not continue service to their customers who violate copyrights on intellectual property. Economically, while the cable company blustered they would cut off my Internet access without warning, broadband Internet is struggling to find customers, and they are hardly in a position to use their paying customers as the cannon fodder for another industry’s crusade. Largely, what the issue boils down to is whether it will cost the cable company more to wrangle with the RIAA in court or to terminate their customers based on hearsay. Since they’re struggling for survival, the cable company is most likely going to go out of business before it can devote any resources to enforcing others’ property rights. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with @Home, the service whose IP address was referenced in the letter.
I am deeply grieved to be called a thief of your members’ property, because I have gone to great lengths, as far as I believe anyone could go, to be honest about paying for the music I listen to. Long before Internet music sharing ever surfaced as an issue of concern, I have always felt that consumers had a moral obligation to buy commercial music instead of stealing it. Rebecca St. James, much like myself, used her God-given talents to bring herself and her family up out of a difficult economic situation. Now that I have a white-collar job, am I supposed to go up to St. James and tell her that I don’t feel like she deserves to have nice clothes, a vehicle to drive, insurance, or any financial security, because I can steal the fruit of her talents? I’ve always felt that to not buy music is to take food out of people’s mouths, from the artists all the way to the clerks at local music stores. These people all deserve a chance to make a living. The price of a CD, which entitles the buyer to a lifetime of music enjoyment at a fixed cost, is not that high when all of the jobs its purchase provides are taken into consideration. If I don’t like the current system, I have the option not to buy music; yet if I listen to music, I have a moral obligation not to steal it. In my lifetime, I have tried, as much as humanly possible, to be as completely legal as I could in my music purchases.
I am the kind of music consumer that the RIAA members have wet dreams about, the scrupulously honest music buyer who goes to pathological lengths to legally purchase the music he listens to. You have made a mistake in judging me on one piece of circumstantial evidence, and in so doing you have alienated one of your members’ best customers. My innate moral imperative has been all for naught, I suppose. I have bought a lot of music from your members, and now feel as if I have financed stabbing myself in the back.
I have bought CDs of every significant album from my youth that I once had on LP or CD. At times, I have had to go to superhuman length to find them: importing from overseas, backordering some albums for six months or more, paying used CD dealers a premium for out-of-print CDs, etc. I have bought entire CDs for one or two songs. I have bought out-of-print CD singles off of eBay for the price of a retail CD (or more) to legally have copies of non-album songs. What more can I do to not be a thief?
When the reports of Napster first came out, I completely ignored it, because all the news stories portrayed it as people swapping the latest music releases. I had no interest in that. As a technology professional, though, I eventually used the service to learn more about how file sharing worked. What I found there shocked me: Napster was a treasure trove of all the music I could not buy at any price from your members. Including much rare music I had on cassettes and LPs, some of which was never released in any commercial form, and some of which has never been released on CD: live cuts, forgotten b-sides, demos and outtakes, and so forth. I would have bought all this had it been available for sale and never downloaded anything. I have been a frequenter of music sharing services to share songs that could not be bought on CD. People like me would buy almost anything a favorite artist puts out, and have long ago bought everything your members’ have released for our favorite artists.
Maybe I brazenly stole a few songs, but I think that your members have benefited tremendously by having a thief like me as a paying customer of CDs. When I was young, in college and younger, I could not afford CDs (or a CD player). I bought used cassettes and LPs. Once I got old enough to have income, I replaced these fragile and obsolete media with CDs. Many times, I would download a song which I dimly remembered, and after hearing a low-quality MP3, I would want to go get the CD of the album. I bought many albums this way I might never have remembered, because I was able to recall and sample some of the old music from when I grew up.
I hardly think this is stealing, any more than listening to a CD in a store or hearing a song on the radio is stealing. Where do you draw the line of stealing? Is listening to the radio stealing music? What about recording songs from the radio? (I have a bin of cassettes I made in the 1980s from radio.) If sampling a song online and buying the CD is stealing music, why isn’t listening to a demo CD in a store also stealing? Is merely connecting to an online music service considered stealing, no matter what is downloaded? (How do you know the IP address was not spoofed by someone wanting to cover his tracks? What is legal proof that connects a person to an IP address, anyway?) Is hearsay enough proof of stealing, or do I have to be caught in the act? What if I record songs on the impermanent media of LP and cassette on my computer and burn a CD? (I bought those fair and square. Am I a thief to archive them on permanent media?) For that matter, I do not have proof that I legally own the CDs I began buying in the early 90s, since I did not save the store receipts. Am I going to have to bring my CD collection into court and prove, one by one, that I own the music I listen to? Where does this paranoia end?
From my perspective as a consumer, I find this talk of “stealing” to be a disingenuous smokescreen, mostly because I have a long list of music I wanted to buy but can’t because it is not for sale in any form, at any price. Why don’t the RIAA members sell me what I want before they go after me as a thief? The answer is simple: there is a stratum of music that is not commercially viable. The music I’ve been “stealing” online is forgotten b-sides, demos, and live cuts which would not sell enough copies to be worth releasing to the mass market. What difference does it make if I trade these sorts of songs with someone else? By the very fact that your members will not sell this music, it means there’s no money to be made. Why, then, are you going to such great lengths to brand consumers as thieves, when the very ones who download the noncommercial fringe music are the fans who have all your members’ products in the first place? I am not saying, and have never believed, it is right to steal music that I can buy in a store – and I have never done so. But if your members won’t sell the music, who cares if I “steal” it? To me, the Internet seems like the ideal solution: companies can put obscure music online for sale for almost no overhead that would never be commercially released. As long as it doesn’t come with so many restrictions and gotchas that it’s impossible to use – I want an online service that I can buy songs, make a CD, and treat it just like a CD I bought in the store. Why not give me an option to buy the music I’m “stealing” first, and see what happens? As I was assembling my CD collection, I was constantly amazed by the arbitrariness of CD availability: Why did I find two different CDs of the Manzanera & MacKay album, but have never seen Wetton Manzanera on CD? Why did a local store have half the out-of-print 1980s Hawkwind CDs I wanted, as cutouts, while I have not been able, at any price, to find the other half? The consumer should not feel like he is beating his head against a wall while trying to assemble a legal CD collection, especially when downloading the “illegal” music is so painless.
CD sales are down, and music sharing is a scapegoat, but I do not agree that CD sales have decreased because of music sharing. I think you’re seeing normal CD sales now, and a demographic event has happened in the 1990s that artificially raised them. People like me, who grew up with cassettes and LPs, were highly motivated to replace these fragile and easily damaged media with CDs at the same time your members released most groups’ back catalogues on CD, which created a bubble. In the 1980s, I didn’t have much money and bought a lot of used music; but even so, I also replaced many cassettes I’d bought new with CDs, essentially buying the same album twice. I’m part of the last generation who needed to do this, since those who came after me bought CDs in the first place. There may be some back-catalogue demand for groups like Yes, Genesis, The Police, and others I grew up with, but I do not think they will ever be as relevant to today’s young people as they were to those who heard them in adolescence: they don’t have the memories associated with them. Back catalogue sales will slow to a trickle.
Also, realize that for someone who grew up in the 1980s, or before, so much of the new music now is not very good. It all sounds like stale, programmed electronic noise. There are no new CDs I want to buy; I have been buying very old music from before 1987. This has to impact CD sales. I walked down the music aisle of a department store to see what was popular these days, since I had no idea, and it’s a different world. Where are the songwriters like Sting, Steve Winwood, Genesis, and all the others I remember from growing up? Where are the musicians? All music now seems to be computer generated. There are no musicians like Rick Wakeman, Phil Collins, Andy Summers, and their like anymore, just perfectly sterile digital backing tracks. Even the real instruments are so heavily processed and edited that there’s no live feel of a real player behind them. No wonder CD sales are lower, since popular music has reached bottomed out to a mass-produced sound which is not worth listening to. I’m surprised sales are as high as they are.
You win.
I am not going to fight this battle, because it’s not worth it. The only way to prove that I have not stolen your members’ property is not to possess any more proprietary music. No more CDs. No visiting your members’ new download services. No illicit downloads. Nothing. I’ll look for freely available music which is not proprietary. If enough people respond as I do, you will have accomplished your mission of protecting your members’ intellectual property, at the expense of making proprietary music irrelevant.
New CDs are being released with copy protection built into them so that they can’t be read by computer CD-ROM drives. I feel this is a short-sighted mistake, because it does not allow backup copies to be made. I have a great many out-of-print CDs, and know that the ability to make backup copies of CDs is essential. I will never buy a CD which I can’t make a backup copy of.
The bottom line is intellectual property is the property of its copyright owner, and they have the legal right to do whatever they want. At the same time, for them to make any money off of their property, someone has to buy it, and the way things are going with CDs, software, e-books, and their like, the restrictions are becoming so burdensome on the buyer that people like me are just going to opt out of the system and quit buying licenses of any sort to intellectual property. I’ve already stopped buying proprietary software licenses almost entirely. The RIAA has made me so mad I will likely stop buying CDs. While the laws protect the property of copyright holders, they are becoming so burdensome that the only safe way to be legally in the clear is to use only software and creative works protected by the GNU Public License, the Design Science License, and their like. Consumers are, essentially, going to find complying with all the legal restrictions so burdensome and expensive that the only safe thing to do is abstain from purchasing any proprietary, copyrighted products at all. The licenses that ensure freedom will become the consumer’s assurance of being free of any legal wrongdoing. Honest people will have to opt out of the system in order to keep their consciences clear.
Scott McMahan
editor of the Cyber Reviews
PS: Before receiving the letter informing me I was a thief, I had downloaded two tracks from the Tears For Fears album Raoul And The Kings Of Spain (the title track and “Sketches of Pain”) from an OpenNap network, to sample the album and see if it was any good. (Prior to this, I had bought both of the Tears For Fears albums I had listened to in the 1980s, Songs from the Big Chair and Sowing The Seeds of Love, but had never heard any music from the post-Curt Smith era. By never hearing the music, I had never been of an inclination to buy the CDs.) I had not purchased this compact disc before receiving the letter, quite frankly because I could not find it for sale in a music store. I finally did find it at a Fye (nee Camelot) at the local mall, a store I do not frequently visit, and below is a photo of the compact disc, its cellophane wrapper, and the store receipt which proves I have legally bought a copy of this album. (The discrepancy between the price on the wrapper and the receipt reflects a sale the store ran that day. It’s interesting that this album cost about as much as it would have at a deep discounter like Circuit City, since the main reason I avoided Camelot was their $4-$5 “mall surtax” on CDs. Apparently, their prices are coming down so they are competitive again: the old Camelot had prices higher than a small, local, independent CD store.)
This piece is from In The Waiting Room, a collection of
essays and personal reflections.
Note: I would normally never place a letter of this sort in my permanent collection of writing, but it dovetails so perfectly into my previous writing about copyrights as to demand inclusion. The background which prompted this letter was a communication I received in April or May, 2002, from my cable Internet provider informing me that they had accepted hearsay claiming I was stealing the intellectual property of RIAA members. The letter seemed to be sheer lawyerspeak, the equivalent of shooting randomly across the enemy lines hoping to keep the timid from raising their heads. No proof was even offered that any law had been transgressed, other than my IP address had connected to a music sharing service.
Dear Recording Industry Association of America:
I buy commercial music, making me one of the nameless and faceless legions which patronize your members. My cable Internet company just informed me that you think I am a thief of your members’ (intellectual) property. The sum and total of the proof is apparently that I connected to an online music sharing service.
The letter has a surreal quality. My cable company, in their terms of service, says they will not assign me a permanent IP address, but now they’re saying my IP address is permanent enough to trace Internet activity back to me. The letter references a lot of different laws, but offers no proof that I violated any of them. It’s almost like randomly raking the enemy lines with a machine gun, just to make sure the easily intimidated keep their heads down. The cable company is in an unenvious and almost impossible situation. Legally, the waters are murky as to whether the service provider is legally responsible for what their users do, so much so that they indemnified themselves with a special clause saying they will not continue service to their customers who violate copyrights on intellectual property. Economically, while the cable company blustered they would cut off my Internet access without warning, broadband Internet is struggling to find customers, and they are hardly in a position to use their paying customers as the cannon fodder for another industry’s crusade. Largely, what the issue boils down to is whether it will cost the cable company more to wrangle with the RIAA in court or to terminate their customers based on hearsay. Since they’re struggling for survival, the cable company is most likely going to go out of business before it can devote any resources to enforcing others’ property rights. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with @Home, the service whose IP address was referenced in the letter.
I am deeply grieved to be called a thief of your members’ property, because I have gone to great lengths, as far as I believe anyone could go, to be honest about paying for the music I listen to. Long before Internet music sharing ever surfaced as an issue of concern, I have always felt that consumers had a moral obligation to buy commercial music instead of stealing it. Rebecca St. James, much like myself, used her God-given talents to bring herself and her family up out of a difficult economic situation. Now that I have a white-collar job, am I supposed to go up to St. James and tell her that I don’t feel like she deserves to have nice clothes, a vehicle to drive, insurance, or any financial security, because I can steal the fruit of her talents? I’ve always felt that to not buy music is to take food out of people’s mouths, from the artists all the way to the clerks at local music stores. These people all deserve a chance to make a living. The price of a CD, which entitles the buyer to a lifetime of music enjoyment at a fixed cost, is not that high when all of the jobs its purchase provides are taken into consideration. If I don’t like the current system, I have the option not to buy music; yet if I listen to music, I have a moral obligation not to steal it. In my lifetime, I have tried, as much as humanly possible, to be as completely legal as I could in my music purchases.
I am the kind of music consumer that the RIAA members have wet dreams about, the scrupulously honest music buyer who goes to pathological lengths to legally purchase the music he listens to. You have made a mistake in judging me on one piece of circumstantial evidence, and in so doing you have alienated one of your members’ best customers. My innate moral imperative has been all for naught, I suppose. I have bought a lot of music from your members, and now feel as if I have financed stabbing myself in the back.
I have bought CDs of every significant album from my youth that I once had on LP or CD. At times, I have had to go to superhuman length to find them: importing from overseas, backordering some albums for six months or more, paying used CD dealers a premium for out-of-print CDs, etc. I have bought entire CDs for one or two songs. I have bought out-of-print CD singles off of eBay for the price of a retail CD (or more) to legally have copies of non-album songs. What more can I do to not be a thief?
When the reports of Napster first came out, I completely ignored it, because all the news stories portrayed it as people swapping the latest music releases. I had no interest in that. As a technology professional, though, I eventually used the service to learn more about how file sharing worked. What I found there shocked me: Napster was a treasure trove of all the music I could not buy at any price from your members. Including much rare music I had on cassettes and LPs, some of which was never released in any commercial form, and some of which has never been released on CD: live cuts, forgotten b-sides, demos and outtakes, and so forth. I would have bought all this had it been available for sale and never downloaded anything. I have been a frequenter of music sharing services to share songs that could not be bought on CD. People like me would buy almost anything a favorite artist puts out, and have long ago bought everything your members’ have released for our favorite artists.
Maybe I brazenly stole a few songs, but I think that your members have benefited tremendously by having a thief like me as a paying customer of CDs. When I was young, in college and younger, I could not afford CDs (or a CD player). I bought used cassettes and LPs. Once I got old enough to have income, I replaced these fragile and obsolete media with CDs. Many times, I would download a song which I dimly remembered, and after hearing a low-quality MP3, I would want to go get the CD of the album. I bought many albums this way I might never have remembered, because I was able to recall and sample some of the old music from when I grew up.
I hardly think this is stealing, any more than listening to a CD in a store or hearing a song on the radio is stealing. Where do you draw the line of stealing? Is listening to the radio stealing music? What about recording songs from the radio? (I have a bin of cassettes I made in the 1980s from radio.) If sampling a song online and buying the CD is stealing music, why isn’t listening to a demo CD in a store also stealing? Is merely connecting to an online music service considered stealing, no matter what is downloaded? (How do you know the IP address was not spoofed by someone wanting to cover his tracks? What is legal proof that connects a person to an IP address, anyway?) Is hearsay enough proof of stealing, or do I have to be caught in the act? What if I record songs on the impermanent media of LP and cassette on my computer and burn a CD? (I bought those fair and square. Am I a thief to archive them on permanent media?) For that matter, I do not have proof that I legally own the CDs I began buying in the early 90s, since I did not save the store receipts. Am I going to have to bring my CD collection into court and prove, one by one, that I own the music I listen to? Where does this paranoia end?
From my perspective as a consumer, I find this talk of “stealing” to be a disingenuous smokescreen, mostly because I have a long list of music I wanted to buy but can’t because it is not for sale in any form, at any price. Why don’t the RIAA members sell me what I want before they go after me as a thief? The answer is simple: there is a stratum of music that is not commercially viable. The music I’ve been “stealing” online is forgotten b-sides, demos, and live cuts which would not sell enough copies to be worth releasing to the mass market. What difference does it make if I trade these sorts of songs with someone else? By the very fact that your members will not sell this music, it means there’s no money to be made. Why, then, are you going to such great lengths to brand consumers as thieves, when the very ones who download the noncommercial fringe music are the fans who have all your members’ products in the first place? I am not saying, and have never believed, it is right to steal music that I can buy in a store – and I have never done so. But if your members won’t sell the music, who cares if I “steal” it? To me, the Internet seems like the ideal solution: companies can put obscure music online for sale for almost no overhead that would never be commercially released. As long as it doesn’t come with so many restrictions and gotchas that it’s impossible to use – I want an online service that I can buy songs, make a CD, and treat it just like a CD I bought in the store. Why not give me an option to buy the music I’m “stealing” first, and see what happens? As I was assembling my CD collection, I was constantly amazed by the arbitrariness of CD availability: Why did I find two different CDs of the Manzanera & MacKay album, but have never seen Wetton Manzanera on CD? Why did a local store have half the out-of-print 1980s Hawkwind CDs I wanted, as cutouts, while I have not been able, at any price, to find the other half? The consumer should not feel like he is beating his head against a wall while trying to assemble a legal CD collection, especially when downloading the “illegal” music is so painless.
CD sales are down, and music sharing is a scapegoat, but I do not agree that CD sales have decreased because of music sharing. I think you’re seeing normal CD sales now, and a demographic event has happened in the 1990s that artificially raised them. People like me, who grew up with cassettes and LPs, were highly motivated to replace these fragile and easily damaged media with CDs at the same time your members released most groups’ back catalogues on CD, which created a bubble. In the 1980s, I didn’t have much money and bought a lot of used music; but even so, I also replaced many cassettes I’d bought new with CDs, essentially buying the same album twice. I’m part of the last generation who needed to do this, since those who came after me bought CDs in the first place. There may be some back-catalogue demand for groups like Yes, Genesis, The Police, and others I grew up with, but I do not think they will ever be as relevant to today’s young people as they were to those who heard them in adolescence: they don’t have the memories associated with them. Back catalogue sales will slow to a trickle.
Also, realize that for someone who grew up in the 1980s, or before, so much of the new music now is not very good. It all sounds like stale, programmed electronic noise. There are no new CDs I want to buy; I have been buying very old music from before 1987. This has to impact CD sales. I walked down the music aisle of a department store to see what was popular these days, since I had no idea, and it’s a different world. Where are the songwriters like Sting, Steve Winwood, Genesis, and all the others I remember from growing up? Where are the musicians? All music now seems to be computer generated. There are no musicians like Rick Wakeman, Phil Collins, Andy Summers, and their like anymore, just perfectly sterile digital backing tracks. Even the real instruments are so heavily processed and edited that there’s no live feel of a real player behind them. No wonder CD sales are lower, since popular music has reached bottomed out to a mass-produced sound which is not worth listening to. I’m surprised sales are as high as they are.
You win.
I am not going to fight this battle, because it’s not worth it. The only way to prove that I have not stolen your members’ property is not to possess any more proprietary music. No more CDs. No visiting your members’ new download services. No illicit downloads. Nothing. I’ll look for freely available music which is not proprietary. If enough people respond as I do, you will have accomplished your mission of protecting your members’ intellectual property, at the expense of making proprietary music irrelevant.
New CDs are being released with copy protection built into them so that they can’t be read by computer CD-ROM drives. I feel this is a short-sighted mistake, because it does not allow backup copies to be made. I have a great many out-of-print CDs, and know that the ability to make backup copies of CDs is essential. I will never buy a CD which I can’t make a backup copy of.
The bottom line is intellectual property is the property of its copyright owner, and they have the legal right to do whatever they want. At the same time, for them to make any money off of their property, someone has to buy it, and the way things are going with CDs, software, e-books, and their like, the restrictions are becoming so burdensome on the buyer that people like me are just going to opt out of the system and quit buying licenses of any sort to intellectual property. I’ve already stopped buying proprietary software licenses almost entirely. The RIAA has made me so mad I will likely stop buying CDs. While the laws protect the property of copyright holders, they are becoming so burdensome that the only safe way to be legally in the clear is to use only software and creative works protected by the GNU Public License, the Design Science License, and their like. Consumers are, essentially, going to find complying with all the legal restrictions so burdensome and expensive that the only safe thing to do is abstain from purchasing any proprietary, copyrighted products at all. The licenses that ensure freedom will become the consumer’s assurance of being free of any legal wrongdoing. Honest people will have to opt out of the system in order to keep their consciences clear.
Scott McMahan
editor of the Cyber Reviews
PS: Before receiving the letter informing me I was a thief, I had downloaded two tracks from the Tears For Fears album Raoul And The Kings Of Spain (the title track and “Sketches of Pain”) from an OpenNap network, to sample the album and see if it was any good. (Prior to this, I had bought both of the Tears For Fears albums I had listened to in the 1980s, Songs from the Big Chair and Sowing The Seeds of Love, but had never heard any music from the post-Curt Smith era. By never hearing the music, I had never been of an inclination to buy the CDs.) I had not purchased this compact disc before receiving the letter, quite frankly because I could not find it for sale in a music store. I finally did find it at a Fye (nee Camelot) at the local mall, a store I do not frequently visit, and below is a photo of the compact disc, its cellophane wrapper, and the store receipt which proves I have legally bought a copy of this album. (The discrepancy between the price on the wrapper and the receipt reflects a sale the store ran that day. It’s interesting that this album cost about as much as it would have at a deep discounter like Circuit City, since the main reason I avoided Camelot was their $4-$5 “mall surtax” on CDs. Apparently, their prices are coming down so they are competitive again: the old Camelot had prices higher than a small, local, independent CD store.)
Monday, July 28, 2003
Iraq
Talk about teaching the Arab world the unique US perspective on press freedom!
Interesting, that it was hardly reported in the western press too!
Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera says one of its cameramen arrested by US troops in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as he filmed an attack on American soldiers has been released.
"Our colleague Nawfal al-Shahwani was released overnight but they (the US soldiers) confiscated the tape he'd made," said Yasser Abu Halala, the Qatar-based channel's correspondent in Baghdad.
Al-Jazeera reported Sunday that Shahwani and his driver had been arrested by US forces, adding that Shahwani had gone on hunger strike to protest against his detention and had to be taken to hospital for treatment.
On Saturday, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz accused Arab news networks of inciting violence against US troops in Iraq and "slanting news incredibly," pointing the finger at Al-Jazeera in particular.
"We're talking to the owners of these stations and asking for some balance," Wolfowitz said, also referring to Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiya.
Talk about teaching the Arab world the unique US perspective on press freedom!
Interesting, that it was hardly reported in the western press too!
Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera says one of its cameramen arrested by US troops in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as he filmed an attack on American soldiers has been released.
"Our colleague Nawfal al-Shahwani was released overnight but they (the US soldiers) confiscated the tape he'd made," said Yasser Abu Halala, the Qatar-based channel's correspondent in Baghdad.
Al-Jazeera reported Sunday that Shahwani and his driver had been arrested by US forces, adding that Shahwani had gone on hunger strike to protest against his detention and had to be taken to hospital for treatment.
On Saturday, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz accused Arab news networks of inciting violence against US troops in Iraq and "slanting news incredibly," pointing the finger at Al-Jazeera in particular.
"We're talking to the owners of these stations and asking for some balance," Wolfowitz said, also referring to Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiya.
Iraq
Talk about teaching the Arab world the unique US perspective on press freedom!
Interesting, that it was hardly reported in the western press too!
Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera says one of its cameramen arrested by US troops in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as he filmed an attack on American soldiers has been released.
"Our colleague Nawfal al-Shahwani was released overnight but they (the US soldiers) confiscated the tape he'd made," said Yasser Abu Halala, the Qatar-based channel's correspondent in Baghdad.
Al-Jazeera reported Sunday that Shahwani and his driver had been arrested by US forces, adding that Shahwani had gone on hunger strike to protest against his detention and had to be taken to hospital for treatment.
On Saturday, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz accused Arab news networks of inciting violence against US troops in Iraq and "slanting news incredibly," pointing the finger at Al-Jazeera in particular.
"We're talking to the owners of these stations and asking for some balance," Wolfowitz said, also referring to Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiya.
Talk about teaching the Arab world the unique US perspective on press freedom!
Interesting, that it was hardly reported in the western press too!
Arab satellite news network Al-Jazeera says one of its cameramen arrested by US troops in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as he filmed an attack on American soldiers has been released.
"Our colleague Nawfal al-Shahwani was released overnight but they (the US soldiers) confiscated the tape he'd made," said Yasser Abu Halala, the Qatar-based channel's correspondent in Baghdad.
Al-Jazeera reported Sunday that Shahwani and his driver had been arrested by US forces, adding that Shahwani had gone on hunger strike to protest against his detention and had to be taken to hospital for treatment.
On Saturday, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz accused Arab news networks of inciting violence against US troops in Iraq and "slanting news incredibly," pointing the finger at Al-Jazeera in particular.
"We're talking to the owners of these stations and asking for some balance," Wolfowitz said, also referring to Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiya.
Iraq
Though I applaud the effort made in trying to capture Saddam Hussein, I really object to the methods used. Agressive raids, shooting at cars and homes in residential neighborhoods, killing at least 5 (according to Robert Fisk the death toll lies at 11) and wounding at least 8 is not the way to do this! This task force should be reigned in, their hysterical behaviour is bordering on criminal.
I hope the US military calls for a full investigation into this killing: US troops fired at the unarmed inhabitants of two civilian cars. The one car contained a woman, two children and a disabled man. According to eye-witnesses, all were killed. The inhabitants of another car, which burst into flames were cremated on the spot.
I also want Saddam captured and brought to justice but the cure is worse than the disease. These are people being killed here, not statistics! Even one more life lost for this dictator is one too many. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable and inexcusable and must be stopped at once.
Though I applaud the effort made in trying to capture Saddam Hussein, I really object to the methods used. Agressive raids, shooting at cars and homes in residential neighborhoods, killing at least 5 (according to Robert Fisk the death toll lies at 11) and wounding at least 8 is not the way to do this! This task force should be reigned in, their hysterical behaviour is bordering on criminal.
I hope the US military calls for a full investigation into this killing: US troops fired at the unarmed inhabitants of two civilian cars. The one car contained a woman, two children and a disabled man. According to eye-witnesses, all were killed. The inhabitants of another car, which burst into flames were cremated on the spot.
I also want Saddam captured and brought to justice but the cure is worse than the disease. These are people being killed here, not statistics! Even one more life lost for this dictator is one too many. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable and inexcusable and must be stopped at once.
Iraq
Though I applaud the effort made in trying to capture Saddam Hussein, I really object to the methods used. Agressive raids, shooting at cars and homes in residential neighborhoods, killing at least 5 (according to Robert Fisk the death toll lies at 11) and wounding at least 8 is not the way to do this! This task force should be reigned in, their hysterical behaviour is bordering on criminal.
I hope the US military calls for a full investigation into this killing: US troops fired at the unarmed inhabitants of two civilian cars. The one car contained a woman, two children and a disabled man. According to eye-witnesses, all were killed. The inhabitants of another car, which burst into flames were cremated on the spot.
I also want Saddam captured and brought to justice but the cure is worse than the disease. These are people being killed here, not statistics! Even one more life lost for this dictator is one too many. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable and inexcusable and must be stopped at once.
Though I applaud the effort made in trying to capture Saddam Hussein, I really object to the methods used. Agressive raids, shooting at cars and homes in residential neighborhoods, killing at least 5 (according to Robert Fisk the death toll lies at 11) and wounding at least 8 is not the way to do this! This task force should be reigned in, their hysterical behaviour is bordering on criminal.
I hope the US military calls for a full investigation into this killing: US troops fired at the unarmed inhabitants of two civilian cars. The one car contained a woman, two children and a disabled man. According to eye-witnesses, all were killed. The inhabitants of another car, which burst into flames were cremated on the spot.
I also want Saddam captured and brought to justice but the cure is worse than the disease. These are people being killed here, not statistics! Even one more life lost for this dictator is one too many. This kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable and inexcusable and must be stopped at once.
Saturday, July 26, 2003
Liberia
I thought as much.
There is no oil there.
Nothing to strip-mine.
No strategic interests.
Nothing.
So, park a few ships offshore and wait it out.
When everyone is dead, come ashore and assess the situation.
Say: "well, there is no threat to the remaining population any more" and leave.
USA, you were begged, begged to come in and help.
You could have helped, you could have made a huge difference.
Instead, you showed your true colours.
Still wondering why you are hated so much outside of your borders?
It really is a no-brainer!
I thought as much.
There is no oil there.
Nothing to strip-mine.
No strategic interests.
Nothing.
So, park a few ships offshore and wait it out.
When everyone is dead, come ashore and assess the situation.
Say: "well, there is no threat to the remaining population any more" and leave.
USA, you were begged, begged to come in and help.
You could have helped, you could have made a huge difference.
Instead, you showed your true colours.
Still wondering why you are hated so much outside of your borders?
It really is a no-brainer!
Liberia
I thought as much.
There is no oil there.
Nothing to strip-mine.
No strategic interests.
Nothing.
So, park a few ships offshore and wait it out.
When everyone is dead, come ashore and assess the situation.
Say: "well, there is no threat to the remaining population any more" and leave.
USA, you were begged, begged to come in and help.
You could have helped, you could have made a huge difference.
Instead, you showed your true colours.
Still wondering why you are hated so much outside of your borders?
It really is a no-brainer!
I thought as much.
There is no oil there.
Nothing to strip-mine.
No strategic interests.
Nothing.
So, park a few ships offshore and wait it out.
When everyone is dead, come ashore and assess the situation.
Say: "well, there is no threat to the remaining population any more" and leave.
USA, you were begged, begged to come in and help.
You could have helped, you could have made a huge difference.
Instead, you showed your true colours.
Still wondering why you are hated so much outside of your borders?
It really is a no-brainer!
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Lomborg - scientific dishonesty
"The Skeptical Environmentalist" Author Found Guilty of Scientific Dishonesty
Decision Regarding Complaints Against Bjørn Lomborg
Udvalgene Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
7jan03
Bjørn Lomborg, author of the controversial anti-green critique 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', has been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by a well-respected committee in his home country Denmark.
Lomborg came to prominence in August 2001 when the publication of his book caused great controversy within the scientific and environmental communities in both Europe and the United States. It was favourably reviewed in much of the non-specialist media, especially the Economist, the New York Times, and the Sunday Times. The Guardian ran extended extracts in its G2 supplement, and at the recent Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Lomborg was given a slot on BBC2 on which to expound his theories.
Today's judgement in effect upholds what Lomborg's critics have always claimed -
that his work is scientifically fraudulent and seriously misleading. Danish scientists expect the ruling to threaten his position as Director of Denmark's Institute for Enviromental Valuation, to which he was appointed by the country's new right-wing government in March 2002.
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, which brings together some of the most senior members of Denmark's scientific establishment, spent much of 2002 considering the evidence before concluding today that Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice".
The Committee's ruling continued: "There has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty... have been met." Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on.
Jeff Harvey, a former editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature and currently a Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, was one of the original complainants who took the case to the Danish committee. He said: "It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence."
He continued: "Lomborg has failed time and again to rectify the egregious distortions he makes, he has based his conclusions on cherry-picking the studies he likes, and he has seriously undermined the public's understanding of important contemporary scientific issues. Scientists must be held accountable for serious transgressions that are committed without responsibility, and this judgement goes at least some way to underlining Lomborg's dishonesty."
For the full report of the Commission, see the link above.
Decision Regarding Complaints Against Bjørn Lomborg
Udvalgene Vedrørende Videnskabelig Uredelighed
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
7jan03
Bjørn Lomborg, author of the controversial anti-green critique 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', has been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by a well-respected committee in his home country Denmark.
Lomborg came to prominence in August 2001 when the publication of his book caused great controversy within the scientific and environmental communities in both Europe and the United States. It was favourably reviewed in much of the non-specialist media, especially the Economist, the New York Times, and the Sunday Times. The Guardian ran extended extracts in its G2 supplement, and at the recent Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Lomborg was given a slot on BBC2 on which to expound his theories.
Today's judgement in effect upholds what Lomborg's critics have always claimed -
that his work is scientifically fraudulent and seriously misleading. Danish scientists expect the ruling to threaten his position as Director of Denmark's Institute for Enviromental Valuation, to which he was appointed by the country's new right-wing government in March 2002.
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, which brings together some of the most senior members of Denmark's scientific establishment, spent much of 2002 considering the evidence before concluding today that Lomborg had "clearly acted at variance with good scientific practice".
The Committee's ruling continued: "There has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty... have been met." Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on.
Jeff Harvey, a former editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature and currently a Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, was one of the original complainants who took the case to the Danish committee. He said: "It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence."
He continued: "Lomborg has failed time and again to rectify the egregious distortions he makes, he has based his conclusions on cherry-picking the studies he likes, and he has seriously undermined the public's understanding of important contemporary scientific issues. Scientists must be held accountable for serious transgressions that are committed without responsibility, and this judgement goes at least some way to underlining Lomborg's dishonesty."
For the full report of the Commission, see the link above.
Fighting Monsanto - the Percy Schmeiser issue
Complicated does not even begin to describe it.
It rattles mightily against my sense of fair play.
A fanciful tale... On the Appeal of the Percy Schmeiser Decision
E. Ann Clark,
Plant Agriculture,
University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON
eaclark@uoguelph.ca
©2002 E. Ann Clark
The Appeals Court judges hearing the case of Percy Schmeiser should be a philosopher, a botanist, and a keen-eyed warrior. The philosopher would bring logic and the ability to reason impartially. The botanist would understand the sex drive of plants, and could provide expert commentary on pollen movement and seed dormancy. The keen-eyed warrior would bring the personal integrity to do the right thing - and the vision to see the downstream implications of seemingly expedient decisions.
Let’s imagine the courtroom, as they sit to hear the appeal. These three learned judges would hear from Schmeiser’s young Saskatchewan lawyer and from Monsanto’s impressive legal team. Monsanto would have spared no expense in this pivotal test case, bringing in a squadron of quick-witted senior lawyers to ensure a favorable outcome. With over 2000 similar lawsuits already reportedly hanging on this decision, one of the key segments of their employer’s overall global strategy would be at stake.
The judges would hear that a federal (lower court) judge ruled as of a year ago that thenceforth, a farmer is to be considered guilty of patent infringement, and liable for exorbitant damages, if two things happen:
< the farmer knows or ‘should have known’ that a patented gene arrived anywhere on his (or her) farm, regardless of how it got there, and
< the farmer doesn’t tell Monsanto to come and fetch it.
That is all it takes. Indeed, Monsanto has actually filed a counter-appeal to the judge’s decision, to remove the "knows or should have known" requirement. If successful, then growers would be liable for patent infringement even if they don’t know the genes are on their land. Ignorance will be no excuse.
In this imaginary courtroom, the Appeals Court judges would further learn that it doesn’t matter if the farmer benefits in any way from the patented gene which has arrived unannounced on his property. The federal court judge ruled that it is patent infringement whether he benefited or not. And that is the entire case. At this point, Monsanto’s lawyers would sit down, triumphantly.
Now, it would be the turn of the judges to make their own enquiries. Imagine what they might say.
The soft-spoken philosopher could perhaps be intrigued about the ‘regardless of how it got there’ argument. She might query the lawyers to be sure she understood the point, and they would assure her that according to the federal judge, a farmer is just as guilty of patent infringement:
< if the patented seed is blown in from the roadside where it had dropped off of a truck on its way to the crusher, or
< if it was cached there by an industrious field mouse, or
< if a dust devil lifted up his neighbor’s windrowed canola and deposited over his quarter section, or
< if it arrived in pollen from fields up to 8 km away, or
< even if he’d carried it innocently onto the farm in sacks of supposedly non-GM seed that were already contaminated,
as if he’d actually stolen the seed. It would be a revelation to her to learn that Schmeiser had not been found guilty of theft at all, and even more surprising, that all such charges had been dropped before the trial, due to lack of evidence. But it didn’t matter, insisted the federal judge. He was guilty anyway because it was there, regardless of how it got there.
Trying to follow the logic of this argument, the philosopher might suddenly think of her own little garden. The philosopher takes quiet pleasure in growing her own sweet corn, and has long enjoyed a friendly, annual competition with her next-door-but-one neighbor George to see whose sweet corn was the sweetest. Well, George had been bragging all season about the fancy price he’d paid for his new GM sweet corn seed this year, while the philosopher had stuck with her traditional favorite. If George’s corn cross-pollinated with mine, she might muse aloud, would I be guilty of patent infringement?
Well no, or at least not yet, they would assure her, because you couldn’t have known it had cross pollinated. Until we win our case to remove the ‘know or should have known’ judgement, they would explain patiently, you couldn’t be guilty of patent infringement because you wouldn’t have known that you were in possession of our patented genes. Oh, she would say, visibly relieved.
But then, with a flash of guilty insight, she might realize that George’s corn is yellow, and hers is white. And she may recall that just last night, she’d served white corn-on-the-cob - with an incriminating smattering of yellow kernels - to her family! If his pollen crossed with her corn, she may ask timidly, would some of my kernels be yellow?
The botanist would intervene authoritatively, assuring her that this would indeed be so.
Oh dear, she may say, shamefacedly. Then that means his patented genes would have arrived as pollen in my backyard, without my knowledge or intent, and I would know they arrived because of the yellow kernels. That would make me as guilty as Percy. Now what am I to do, she may appeal to the lawyers? Must I quickly call up Monsanto and tell them of my discovery, to avoid being sued myself? She might imagine with chagrin what the newspaper headlines would look like.
Well, yes, the lawyers could admit. It would be a rather good idea, because after all, now you know you have in your possession something you didn’t buy - Monsanto’s patented genes.
Umm, she might stall, trying to reason through the breathtaking ramifications of this argument. She may get bogged down, trying to fathom how the evidence could have been so twisted as to convict a farmer whose land had been violated, instead of the company which had released the proprietary gene knowing it would contaminate both his crop and land. Her gentle voice might trail off into silence.
At once, the keen-eyed warrior would shoot out a leading question. But wait a minute, guys, what is the point of calling up Monsanto?
Why, to give Monsanto the ability to reclaim their patented genes, of course, they would say matter-of-factly.
So, just how is it that they are going to do that, he would demand? Are they going to rip open every cob to check for yellow kernels, and then pluck them out one-by-one? Well, no, they might bluster, realizing how silly that would look. They’d pull up the whole plant. What? he would thunder. Pull up every contaminated corn plant in the philosopher’s garden? If they nodded, perhaps slightly nonplussed by the direction this was going, he would continue incredulously. Do you mean to tell me, he would say, that once Monsanto’s pollen has contaminated her corn plants - with even 1 or 2 kernels in an ear being yellow - then the whole plant becomes Monsanto’s property? How do you figure that, he would explode, when it is her garden, on her private property, and her own corn that she planted herself??
Saved by the bell, the Monsanto lawyers, resplendent in their smartly tailored suits, would beat a hasty retreat for lunch. Perhaps they would resume after lunch with a quick clarification. Of course, they could state with conviction, the philosopher is a home gardener, not a farmer. The federal judge’s decision applies only to farmers, they may say reassuringly.
Well, that is a relief, she might think, but what about her son, she would ask. He had invested in a small market garden nearby. He is growing 5 acres of vegetables, including an acre of non-GM sweet corn. Was his 5 acres enough to be included under the judge’s decision, she might enquire? The Monsanto lawyers would perhaps call a quick recess to phone back to St. Louis for clarification. After all, the issue was the presence of patented genes in the hands of someone who didn’t buy them, right? Did size of the operation matter?
With some embarrassment, they might have to retract their earlier statement and admit that size may well be irrelevant. You see, they could explain, Monsanto is relatively new to the business of suing farmers for patent infringement, and hasn’t yet started on home gardeners or fresh market gardeners. With just a touch of annoyance, they may say that the other life science companies have managed to safeguard their patented genes without suing farmers, so Monsanto is having to plow new ground on their own. Accordingly, they may choose to reserve judgement on the size issue. But in principle, they may nonetheless assert, both she and her son would be liable, because after all, rules are rules. It wouldn’t do to have patented genes falling into the wrong hands.
At this point, the botanist may take up a different line of questioning. OK, he could say crisply, I understand that Schmeiser is a lifelong seedsaver, is that right? Rejuvenated by their power lunch, the Monsanto lawyers would nod briskly. I understand that he had bred up his own variety of canola, with such good disease and pest resistance that he was able to plant his canola ‘back-to-back’, is that right? After a quick conference with their well paid consultant to clarify the meaning of the term, they would nod again.
So, the botanist might continue, he had planted canola after canola when Monsanto alleged patent infringement? This time, they would know the answer and nod brightly. Well then, the botanist could query, if he was planting canola after canola, instead of say, wheat after canola, how was it that Monsanto was going to come out and remove ‘their’ plants?
He would have lost them entirely with that question, so he’d have to back up a little. As a former professor, the botanist would say calmly, OK, how would a farmer ‘know’ that he had GM canola on his property? The only kinds of GM canola that are in the marketplace today are engineered for herbicide tolerance. That means, you can spray them with a specific herbicide, and they won’t die, but everything else will. So, let’s say a farmer has planted a non-GM canola, which unbeknownst to him, received some cross-pollination with GM pollen from a neighbor.
Now, canola is a barely civilized crop which still retains many of the properties of a wild species - including seed shattering (where some of the seed falls to the ground at harvest) and seed dormancy (the seed is alive but won’t necessarily germinate for some time). So, when he harvested his crop, seed - some of it dormant and some of it herbicide tolerant (HT) - would fall to the ground and enter the soil seed bank.
So, the next year, the farmer goes out to his former canola field and sprays it with a pre-plant herbicide in preparation for his next crop Everything dies - except the volunteer (HT) canola from the soil seed bank! He knows it must have been herbicide tolerant in order to "be" there after he’d sprayed the herbicide. And since he didn’t plant it, then it must have come from somewhere else. Depending on his intestinal fortitude, he would either stick tight and hope that none of the neighbors have seen it and turned him in to Monsanto’s anonymous hotline, or he would call up Monsanto himself and ask them to come out and remove the errant plants. And depending on the day, the botanist would continue, they could either arrive with a threatening letter alleging patent infringement, or they could bring a crew and pull out the canola, right? Rather than pursue this uncomfortable line of questioning, the Monsanto lawyers may nod uncertainly.
But what if he is growing canola after canola, the botanist would doggedly ask Monsanto’s lawyers, who would be straining to catch every nuance. How would he know he’s got contamination? They still don’t follow, so he would elaborate. Well, a farmer such as Schmeiser is not going to spray an herbicide directly onto his own canola, because as he well knows, it would kill his crop. It is his own variety of canola, which he’d bred for years, and was not bred to be HT. So, he could have any number of volunteer HT plants growing up within his newly sown canola, and he’d never know it because they would both be canola, and they would look the same - right? OK, this the lawyers could follow.
The botanist may continue, but in Schmeiser’s case, he traditionally sprayed the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto’s trade name Roundup) around the telephone poles in his field along the roadway, to make it neat and tidy. But that year, the sprayed canola didn’t die. So, both he and an anonymous neighbor knew his seed had been contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene (making it tolerant to the herbicide Roundup). A bother and a nuisance to him, because he had no use for the trait, but it was there nonetheless, just like George’s yellow kernels in the philosopher’s garden. But what was he to do about it? Unlike volunteer canola in a wheat crop, you cannot pick out volunteer canola in a canola crop. They are identical.
So, the unflappable botanist would conclude, the second provision of the federal judge’s decision was that Schmeiser was guilty because he didn’t call Monsanto to come and pull out the plants. So I repeat, how is it that Monsanto was going to distinguish - and remove - their GM contaminated canola, within a non-GM canola field - if he had in fact called them? No answer would come from the pale-faced Monsanto lawyer team. Perhaps they hadn’t thought of that one. We’ll have to confer with our consultants and get back to you, they may say tersely.
At this break in the discussion, the keen-eyed warrior would launch into the implications of seed dormancy. His sister and her family had bought a farm in Saskatchewan two years ago. Perhaps he would remember that they’d commented just last Sunday that they were having trouble controlling HT canola in their grain fields. Seems the canola was tolerant to two or possibly three of the major herbicide families, and threatened to become a serious weed. As young farmers, they were struggling to pay the higher costs of weed control, having to apply several different sprays to find one that worked. They’d never grown canola at all, he may assert, although the former owner had grown it.
So, the keen-eyed warrior would challenge the lawyers, was his sister’s family liable for the GM canola growing in their fields?
Umm, the Monsanto team would confer together. Well, yes, they may eventually conclude. The patented genes are there, and your sister’s family didn’t buy them, so they are liable for patent infringement if they don’t so notify us. Now, where did you say she farmed? the ever vigilant Monsanto lawyers could enquire.
Instantly alert to the implications, the keen-eyed warbier would retort, none of your business! He would be inwardly glad that his sister had taken her husband’s name upon marriage, little realizing how diligent were the investigative teams of Monsanto.
The keen-eyed warrior may continue, Monsanto only engineers one of these herbicide tolerant genes, right? Correct, they would said. But he had no doubt that she’d said her husband was having trouble with two or more different ones.
Then he may turn to the botanist and ask, does that mean that genes patented by more than one company are now present in the seeds dormant in their soil from the previous owner? Without hesitation, the botanist would affirm that, yes, that is what it means. Turning back to the Monsanto legal team, the keen-eyed warrior would boldly ask if his sister should call every company that might have patented genes present in the soil seed bank of her farm? No need, they would respond cheerfully. Monsanto is the only company that sues for patent infringement. The others use other strategies, for example, embedding their patented traits in hybrid canola, which the farmer cannot save as seed anyway, to safeguard their patented genes.
Still unsatisfied, the keen-eyed warrior would press the issue of liability. For how many years will my sister’s family be liable for dormant seed contaminated with Monsanto’s patented gene, he may ask, appealing to the botanist for help. Well, the botanist would say authoritatively, the volunteers from a given crop of canola can remain dormant in the soil for 5 to 8 years, depending on the type of canola. Hold on now, the keen-eyed warrior would exclaim, 5 to 8 years liability for a crop she didn’t even grow? But, the botanist would continue quietly, the liability will actually be permanent. What?! the keen-eyed warrior would shout. The botanist would explain that 5-8 years pertained to a single contamination event. All evidence suggests that new contamination would be coming onto her farm every time they grew canola, whether in contaminated seed purchased for sowing, or in the form of GM pollen from neighboring farms, or for that matter, as seed whenever the wind blew in Saskatchewan.
The keen-eyed warrior would fling himself back into his chair, clearly disgruntled, and the questioning could be resumed by the philosopher. Now weak at the knees, she may ask, if another neighbor across the road were to grow a GM squash and it were to cross-pollinate with her treasured heirloom variety, would she lose that crop too? Why of course, they would respond. She may begin to wonder if she could ever again grow sweet corn or heirloom varieties of any open-pollinated crop in her own backyard without risking a charge of patent infringement. Unless, of course, it may dawn on her, she chose to buy Monsanto GM crops herself and forego the varieties she had grown to love over the years. Ah ha, she may think to herself - that is the whole point, isn’t it?
One last question from the botanist could conclude the day’s proceedings. Standing to address the Monsanto team, his tweed coat hanging loosely around his spare frame, the botanist may forthrightly ask, is it true that the life science companies are already field testing pharmaceuticals, vaccines, industrial enzymes, and other traits engineered into open-pollinated crops, such as corn? They may nod weakly, eyes averted, knowing where he was going with this line of questioning. And do you agree, he would declare, that pollen from these crops can move great distances - like, a kilometer or more? Their well paid consultant would struggle to his feet to trot out some well-worn contrary evidence, which the botanist, who was thoroughly familiar with the latest scientific literature on pollen movement, would convincingly challenge.
Then how, the keen-eyed warrior may interrupt, will you avoid the inadvertent contamination of food and feed crops with the drugs, vaccines, and enzymes produced by these GM crops, given that you cannot prevent contamination of canola with herbicide tolerance genes in Percy Schmeiser’s canola field? Thundering silence would ensure from the Monsanto legal team. Shaking his head in disbelief, the botanist would resume his seat.
At this point, the three Appeals Court judges would adjourn to review their new understanding of the far-reaching implications of the federal judge’s earlier decision, concluding that:
< Although the current suit pertains to a single farmer, in principle any grower, of any size, whether or not they ever purchased GM seed or benefited in any way from the traits conveyed by the seed, could be found guilty of patent infringement
< The only requirements for culpability are a) the presence of patented genes on one’s land, regardless of how they got there, and b) a grower who knows or "should have known’ that the genes were there, but failed to contact Monsanto.
< If Monsanto succeeds in throwing out the ‘knows or should have known’ clause, then it will be impossible to avoid prosecution for inadvertent pollen or seed contamination, leaving all growers literally defenceless against charges of patent infringement
< What is meant by ‘should have known’ is subject to interpretation, and doubtless, further litigation. But in principle, because everyone ‘knows’ that pollen moves, everyone should assume that their garden or cropland is being contaminated by pollen from neighboring land sown to the same open-pollinated crop. This would include corn, canola, and squash, to date, but before long, any of the many promiscuous horticultural species that are currently being genetically engineered, like the cucurbits or brassicas, will be suspect.
< Once an individual plant, or even a single kernel on an individual plant, has been pollinated by pollen carrying Monsanto’s patented genes, the whole plant becomes the property of Monsanto
< Once plants in a field are found to carry Monsanto’s patented genes, the proceeds of the whole field become the property of Monsanto. How many plants in a field need to be contaminated in order to cause the entire crop to become Monsanto’s property was not stated in the judge’s decision, but in principle, could one be enough?
< This entire situation resulted directly from the decision to allow individual genes to be patented. It could never have happened with conventionally bred varieties, because it is the variety and not an individual transgene that is ‘owned’. A seed company’s ‘owned’ variety might cross-pollinate with a neighboring field, but the resulting seed would be a cross - not the owned variety, so the company would no longer own it
< Of all the life science companies, only Monsanto has chosen well publicized litigation as its method of preference for enforcing patent rights. There are other, equally effective alternatives, as has been amply shown by the other companies that are just as protective of their investment in patented genes. Thus, protection of intellectual property is clearly not the only, or perhaps even the main reason for Monsanto’s strategy in threatening to bring thousands of farmers into court. The purpose is to generate fear, and hence, compliance, in order to force the purchase of more GM seed.
< The consequences of being ‘caught’ with Monsanto’s genetics on their land or personal garden will be too great for many growers to accept, particularly after watching the reputation and livelihood of Percy and Louise Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, the Rodney Nelson family of North Dakota, the Troy Roush family of Indiana, and other large and successful farmers being systematically destroyed by well publicized allegations of patent infringement.
In a nutshell, the three learned Appeals Court judges may finally realize, if the federal court judge’s decision is allowed to stand, the only way for a farmer, market grower, or backyard gardener to avoid prosecution would be to buy Monsanto’s GM varieties themselves. Permanently.
©2002 E. Ann Clark. This text is the property of the author, E. Ann Clark. It may be downloaded or reproduced in whole or in part by any member of the academic community for the purposes of discussion, debate and quotation and may be placed on web sites or on chat lines so long as this copyright notice is included. It may be reproduced on the Internet so long as no charges are levied for its use. It may not be reproduced for sale in any form anywhere without the express written permission of the owner.
It rattles mightily against my sense of fair play.
A fanciful tale... On the Appeal of the Percy Schmeiser Decision
E. Ann Clark,
Plant Agriculture,
University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON
eaclark@uoguelph.ca
©2002 E. Ann Clark
The Appeals Court judges hearing the case of Percy Schmeiser should be a philosopher, a botanist, and a keen-eyed warrior. The philosopher would bring logic and the ability to reason impartially. The botanist would understand the sex drive of plants, and could provide expert commentary on pollen movement and seed dormancy. The keen-eyed warrior would bring the personal integrity to do the right thing - and the vision to see the downstream implications of seemingly expedient decisions.
Let’s imagine the courtroom, as they sit to hear the appeal. These three learned judges would hear from Schmeiser’s young Saskatchewan lawyer and from Monsanto’s impressive legal team. Monsanto would have spared no expense in this pivotal test case, bringing in a squadron of quick-witted senior lawyers to ensure a favorable outcome. With over 2000 similar lawsuits already reportedly hanging on this decision, one of the key segments of their employer’s overall global strategy would be at stake.
The judges would hear that a federal (lower court) judge ruled as of a year ago that thenceforth, a farmer is to be considered guilty of patent infringement, and liable for exorbitant damages, if two things happen:
< the farmer knows or ‘should have known’ that a patented gene arrived anywhere on his (or her) farm, regardless of how it got there, and
< the farmer doesn’t tell Monsanto to come and fetch it.
That is all it takes. Indeed, Monsanto has actually filed a counter-appeal to the judge’s decision, to remove the "knows or should have known" requirement. If successful, then growers would be liable for patent infringement even if they don’t know the genes are on their land. Ignorance will be no excuse.
In this imaginary courtroom, the Appeals Court judges would further learn that it doesn’t matter if the farmer benefits in any way from the patented gene which has arrived unannounced on his property. The federal court judge ruled that it is patent infringement whether he benefited or not. And that is the entire case. At this point, Monsanto’s lawyers would sit down, triumphantly.
Now, it would be the turn of the judges to make their own enquiries. Imagine what they might say.
The soft-spoken philosopher could perhaps be intrigued about the ‘regardless of how it got there’ argument. She might query the lawyers to be sure she understood the point, and they would assure her that according to the federal judge, a farmer is just as guilty of patent infringement:
< if the patented seed is blown in from the roadside where it had dropped off of a truck on its way to the crusher, or
< if it was cached there by an industrious field mouse, or
< if a dust devil lifted up his neighbor’s windrowed canola and deposited over his quarter section, or
< if it arrived in pollen from fields up to 8 km away, or
< even if he’d carried it innocently onto the farm in sacks of supposedly non-GM seed that were already contaminated,
as if he’d actually stolen the seed. It would be a revelation to her to learn that Schmeiser had not been found guilty of theft at all, and even more surprising, that all such charges had been dropped before the trial, due to lack of evidence. But it didn’t matter, insisted the federal judge. He was guilty anyway because it was there, regardless of how it got there.
Trying to follow the logic of this argument, the philosopher might suddenly think of her own little garden. The philosopher takes quiet pleasure in growing her own sweet corn, and has long enjoyed a friendly, annual competition with her next-door-but-one neighbor George to see whose sweet corn was the sweetest. Well, George had been bragging all season about the fancy price he’d paid for his new GM sweet corn seed this year, while the philosopher had stuck with her traditional favorite. If George’s corn cross-pollinated with mine, she might muse aloud, would I be guilty of patent infringement?
Well no, or at least not yet, they would assure her, because you couldn’t have known it had cross pollinated. Until we win our case to remove the ‘know or should have known’ judgement, they would explain patiently, you couldn’t be guilty of patent infringement because you wouldn’t have known that you were in possession of our patented genes. Oh, she would say, visibly relieved.
But then, with a flash of guilty insight, she might realize that George’s corn is yellow, and hers is white. And she may recall that just last night, she’d served white corn-on-the-cob - with an incriminating smattering of yellow kernels - to her family! If his pollen crossed with her corn, she may ask timidly, would some of my kernels be yellow?
The botanist would intervene authoritatively, assuring her that this would indeed be so.
Oh dear, she may say, shamefacedly. Then that means his patented genes would have arrived as pollen in my backyard, without my knowledge or intent, and I would know they arrived because of the yellow kernels. That would make me as guilty as Percy. Now what am I to do, she may appeal to the lawyers? Must I quickly call up Monsanto and tell them of my discovery, to avoid being sued myself? She might imagine with chagrin what the newspaper headlines would look like.
Well, yes, the lawyers could admit. It would be a rather good idea, because after all, now you know you have in your possession something you didn’t buy - Monsanto’s patented genes.
Umm, she might stall, trying to reason through the breathtaking ramifications of this argument. She may get bogged down, trying to fathom how the evidence could have been so twisted as to convict a farmer whose land had been violated, instead of the company which had released the proprietary gene knowing it would contaminate both his crop and land. Her gentle voice might trail off into silence.
At once, the keen-eyed warrior would shoot out a leading question. But wait a minute, guys, what is the point of calling up Monsanto?
Why, to give Monsanto the ability to reclaim their patented genes, of course, they would say matter-of-factly.
So, just how is it that they are going to do that, he would demand? Are they going to rip open every cob to check for yellow kernels, and then pluck them out one-by-one? Well, no, they might bluster, realizing how silly that would look. They’d pull up the whole plant. What? he would thunder. Pull up every contaminated corn plant in the philosopher’s garden? If they nodded, perhaps slightly nonplussed by the direction this was going, he would continue incredulously. Do you mean to tell me, he would say, that once Monsanto’s pollen has contaminated her corn plants - with even 1 or 2 kernels in an ear being yellow - then the whole plant becomes Monsanto’s property? How do you figure that, he would explode, when it is her garden, on her private property, and her own corn that she planted herself??
Saved by the bell, the Monsanto lawyers, resplendent in their smartly tailored suits, would beat a hasty retreat for lunch. Perhaps they would resume after lunch with a quick clarification. Of course, they could state with conviction, the philosopher is a home gardener, not a farmer. The federal judge’s decision applies only to farmers, they may say reassuringly.
Well, that is a relief, she might think, but what about her son, she would ask. He had invested in a small market garden nearby. He is growing 5 acres of vegetables, including an acre of non-GM sweet corn. Was his 5 acres enough to be included under the judge’s decision, she might enquire? The Monsanto lawyers would perhaps call a quick recess to phone back to St. Louis for clarification. After all, the issue was the presence of patented genes in the hands of someone who didn’t buy them, right? Did size of the operation matter?
With some embarrassment, they might have to retract their earlier statement and admit that size may well be irrelevant. You see, they could explain, Monsanto is relatively new to the business of suing farmers for patent infringement, and hasn’t yet started on home gardeners or fresh market gardeners. With just a touch of annoyance, they may say that the other life science companies have managed to safeguard their patented genes without suing farmers, so Monsanto is having to plow new ground on their own. Accordingly, they may choose to reserve judgement on the size issue. But in principle, they may nonetheless assert, both she and her son would be liable, because after all, rules are rules. It wouldn’t do to have patented genes falling into the wrong hands.
At this point, the botanist may take up a different line of questioning. OK, he could say crisply, I understand that Schmeiser is a lifelong seedsaver, is that right? Rejuvenated by their power lunch, the Monsanto lawyers would nod briskly. I understand that he had bred up his own variety of canola, with such good disease and pest resistance that he was able to plant his canola ‘back-to-back’, is that right? After a quick conference with their well paid consultant to clarify the meaning of the term, they would nod again.
So, the botanist might continue, he had planted canola after canola when Monsanto alleged patent infringement? This time, they would know the answer and nod brightly. Well then, the botanist could query, if he was planting canola after canola, instead of say, wheat after canola, how was it that Monsanto was going to come out and remove ‘their’ plants?
He would have lost them entirely with that question, so he’d have to back up a little. As a former professor, the botanist would say calmly, OK, how would a farmer ‘know’ that he had GM canola on his property? The only kinds of GM canola that are in the marketplace today are engineered for herbicide tolerance. That means, you can spray them with a specific herbicide, and they won’t die, but everything else will. So, let’s say a farmer has planted a non-GM canola, which unbeknownst to him, received some cross-pollination with GM pollen from a neighbor.
Now, canola is a barely civilized crop which still retains many of the properties of a wild species - including seed shattering (where some of the seed falls to the ground at harvest) and seed dormancy (the seed is alive but won’t necessarily germinate for some time). So, when he harvested his crop, seed - some of it dormant and some of it herbicide tolerant (HT) - would fall to the ground and enter the soil seed bank.
So, the next year, the farmer goes out to his former canola field and sprays it with a pre-plant herbicide in preparation for his next crop Everything dies - except the volunteer (HT) canola from the soil seed bank! He knows it must have been herbicide tolerant in order to "be" there after he’d sprayed the herbicide. And since he didn’t plant it, then it must have come from somewhere else. Depending on his intestinal fortitude, he would either stick tight and hope that none of the neighbors have seen it and turned him in to Monsanto’s anonymous hotline, or he would call up Monsanto himself and ask them to come out and remove the errant plants. And depending on the day, the botanist would continue, they could either arrive with a threatening letter alleging patent infringement, or they could bring a crew and pull out the canola, right? Rather than pursue this uncomfortable line of questioning, the Monsanto lawyers may nod uncertainly.
But what if he is growing canola after canola, the botanist would doggedly ask Monsanto’s lawyers, who would be straining to catch every nuance. How would he know he’s got contamination? They still don’t follow, so he would elaborate. Well, a farmer such as Schmeiser is not going to spray an herbicide directly onto his own canola, because as he well knows, it would kill his crop. It is his own variety of canola, which he’d bred for years, and was not bred to be HT. So, he could have any number of volunteer HT plants growing up within his newly sown canola, and he’d never know it because they would both be canola, and they would look the same - right? OK, this the lawyers could follow.
The botanist may continue, but in Schmeiser’s case, he traditionally sprayed the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto’s trade name Roundup) around the telephone poles in his field along the roadway, to make it neat and tidy. But that year, the sprayed canola didn’t die. So, both he and an anonymous neighbor knew his seed had been contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene (making it tolerant to the herbicide Roundup). A bother and a nuisance to him, because he had no use for the trait, but it was there nonetheless, just like George’s yellow kernels in the philosopher’s garden. But what was he to do about it? Unlike volunteer canola in a wheat crop, you cannot pick out volunteer canola in a canola crop. They are identical.
So, the unflappable botanist would conclude, the second provision of the federal judge’s decision was that Schmeiser was guilty because he didn’t call Monsanto to come and pull out the plants. So I repeat, how is it that Monsanto was going to distinguish - and remove - their GM contaminated canola, within a non-GM canola field - if he had in fact called them? No answer would come from the pale-faced Monsanto lawyer team. Perhaps they hadn’t thought of that one. We’ll have to confer with our consultants and get back to you, they may say tersely.
At this break in the discussion, the keen-eyed warrior would launch into the implications of seed dormancy. His sister and her family had bought a farm in Saskatchewan two years ago. Perhaps he would remember that they’d commented just last Sunday that they were having trouble controlling HT canola in their grain fields. Seems the canola was tolerant to two or possibly three of the major herbicide families, and threatened to become a serious weed. As young farmers, they were struggling to pay the higher costs of weed control, having to apply several different sprays to find one that worked. They’d never grown canola at all, he may assert, although the former owner had grown it.
So, the keen-eyed warrior would challenge the lawyers, was his sister’s family liable for the GM canola growing in their fields?
Umm, the Monsanto team would confer together. Well, yes, they may eventually conclude. The patented genes are there, and your sister’s family didn’t buy them, so they are liable for patent infringement if they don’t so notify us. Now, where did you say she farmed? the ever vigilant Monsanto lawyers could enquire.
Instantly alert to the implications, the keen-eyed warbier would retort, none of your business! He would be inwardly glad that his sister had taken her husband’s name upon marriage, little realizing how diligent were the investigative teams of Monsanto.
The keen-eyed warrior may continue, Monsanto only engineers one of these herbicide tolerant genes, right? Correct, they would said. But he had no doubt that she’d said her husband was having trouble with two or more different ones.
Then he may turn to the botanist and ask, does that mean that genes patented by more than one company are now present in the seeds dormant in their soil from the previous owner? Without hesitation, the botanist would affirm that, yes, that is what it means. Turning back to the Monsanto legal team, the keen-eyed warrior would boldly ask if his sister should call every company that might have patented genes present in the soil seed bank of her farm? No need, they would respond cheerfully. Monsanto is the only company that sues for patent infringement. The others use other strategies, for example, embedding their patented traits in hybrid canola, which the farmer cannot save as seed anyway, to safeguard their patented genes.
Still unsatisfied, the keen-eyed warrior would press the issue of liability. For how many years will my sister’s family be liable for dormant seed contaminated with Monsanto’s patented gene, he may ask, appealing to the botanist for help. Well, the botanist would say authoritatively, the volunteers from a given crop of canola can remain dormant in the soil for 5 to 8 years, depending on the type of canola. Hold on now, the keen-eyed warrior would exclaim, 5 to 8 years liability for a crop she didn’t even grow? But, the botanist would continue quietly, the liability will actually be permanent. What?! the keen-eyed warrior would shout. The botanist would explain that 5-8 years pertained to a single contamination event. All evidence suggests that new contamination would be coming onto her farm every time they grew canola, whether in contaminated seed purchased for sowing, or in the form of GM pollen from neighboring farms, or for that matter, as seed whenever the wind blew in Saskatchewan.
The keen-eyed warrior would fling himself back into his chair, clearly disgruntled, and the questioning could be resumed by the philosopher. Now weak at the knees, she may ask, if another neighbor across the road were to grow a GM squash and it were to cross-pollinate with her treasured heirloom variety, would she lose that crop too? Why of course, they would respond. She may begin to wonder if she could ever again grow sweet corn or heirloom varieties of any open-pollinated crop in her own backyard without risking a charge of patent infringement. Unless, of course, it may dawn on her, she chose to buy Monsanto GM crops herself and forego the varieties she had grown to love over the years. Ah ha, she may think to herself - that is the whole point, isn’t it?
One last question from the botanist could conclude the day’s proceedings. Standing to address the Monsanto team, his tweed coat hanging loosely around his spare frame, the botanist may forthrightly ask, is it true that the life science companies are already field testing pharmaceuticals, vaccines, industrial enzymes, and other traits engineered into open-pollinated crops, such as corn? They may nod weakly, eyes averted, knowing where he was going with this line of questioning. And do you agree, he would declare, that pollen from these crops can move great distances - like, a kilometer or more? Their well paid consultant would struggle to his feet to trot out some well-worn contrary evidence, which the botanist, who was thoroughly familiar with the latest scientific literature on pollen movement, would convincingly challenge.
Then how, the keen-eyed warrior may interrupt, will you avoid the inadvertent contamination of food and feed crops with the drugs, vaccines, and enzymes produced by these GM crops, given that you cannot prevent contamination of canola with herbicide tolerance genes in Percy Schmeiser’s canola field? Thundering silence would ensure from the Monsanto legal team. Shaking his head in disbelief, the botanist would resume his seat.
At this point, the three Appeals Court judges would adjourn to review their new understanding of the far-reaching implications of the federal judge’s earlier decision, concluding that:
< Although the current suit pertains to a single farmer, in principle any grower, of any size, whether or not they ever purchased GM seed or benefited in any way from the traits conveyed by the seed, could be found guilty of patent infringement
< The only requirements for culpability are a) the presence of patented genes on one’s land, regardless of how they got there, and b) a grower who knows or "should have known’ that the genes were there, but failed to contact Monsanto.
< If Monsanto succeeds in throwing out the ‘knows or should have known’ clause, then it will be impossible to avoid prosecution for inadvertent pollen or seed contamination, leaving all growers literally defenceless against charges of patent infringement
< What is meant by ‘should have known’ is subject to interpretation, and doubtless, further litigation. But in principle, because everyone ‘knows’ that pollen moves, everyone should assume that their garden or cropland is being contaminated by pollen from neighboring land sown to the same open-pollinated crop. This would include corn, canola, and squash, to date, but before long, any of the many promiscuous horticultural species that are currently being genetically engineered, like the cucurbits or brassicas, will be suspect.
< Once an individual plant, or even a single kernel on an individual plant, has been pollinated by pollen carrying Monsanto’s patented genes, the whole plant becomes the property of Monsanto
< Once plants in a field are found to carry Monsanto’s patented genes, the proceeds of the whole field become the property of Monsanto. How many plants in a field need to be contaminated in order to cause the entire crop to become Monsanto’s property was not stated in the judge’s decision, but in principle, could one be enough?
< This entire situation resulted directly from the decision to allow individual genes to be patented. It could never have happened with conventionally bred varieties, because it is the variety and not an individual transgene that is ‘owned’. A seed company’s ‘owned’ variety might cross-pollinate with a neighboring field, but the resulting seed would be a cross - not the owned variety, so the company would no longer own it
< Of all the life science companies, only Monsanto has chosen well publicized litigation as its method of preference for enforcing patent rights. There are other, equally effective alternatives, as has been amply shown by the other companies that are just as protective of their investment in patented genes. Thus, protection of intellectual property is clearly not the only, or perhaps even the main reason for Monsanto’s strategy in threatening to bring thousands of farmers into court. The purpose is to generate fear, and hence, compliance, in order to force the purchase of more GM seed.
< The consequences of being ‘caught’ with Monsanto’s genetics on their land or personal garden will be too great for many growers to accept, particularly after watching the reputation and livelihood of Percy and Louise Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, the Rodney Nelson family of North Dakota, the Troy Roush family of Indiana, and other large and successful farmers being systematically destroyed by well publicized allegations of patent infringement.
In a nutshell, the three learned Appeals Court judges may finally realize, if the federal court judge’s decision is allowed to stand, the only way for a farmer, market grower, or backyard gardener to avoid prosecution would be to buy Monsanto’s GM varieties themselves. Permanently.
©2002 E. Ann Clark. This text is the property of the author, E. Ann Clark. It may be downloaded or reproduced in whole or in part by any member of the academic community for the purposes of discussion, debate and quotation and may be placed on web sites or on chat lines so long as this copyright notice is included. It may be reproduced on the Internet so long as no charges are levied for its use. It may not be reproduced for sale in any form anywhere without the express written permission of the owner.
Locking up nuns makes sense to none
By Jim Spencer Denver Post Columnist
Thursday, July 17, 2003 - It's called downward departure. It's a fancy term that means making the punishment fit the crime.
Federal Judge Robert Blackburn needs to do it July 25 when he sentences three nuns convicted of protesting against nuclear weapons.
In April, a jury found Sisters Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert and Jackie Marie Hudson guilty of obstructing national defense and damaging government property for hammering on a missile silo in northern Colorado.
The nuns' prior civil disobedience, combined with their latest convictions, puts them in the category of dangerous felons as far as federal sentencing guidelines are concerned.
The guidelines call for these women, who have devoted their lives to promoting peace and nonviolence, to serve six to eight years in the penitentiary.
If this constitutes homeland security in post-Sept. 11 America, the watchdog needs dentures. When they're not protesting for peace, the nuns teach in poor neighborhoods, helping the least of us. Locking them is like locking up Mother Teresa. It's just wrong.
So it falls to Judge Blackburn to do what's right.
He's got the power to depart from the sentencing guidelines. To do it, a judge must decide that special circumstances exist, said Sam Kamin, an assistant professor of law at the University of Denver.
"The judge basically has to say that this isn't what Congress intended when it approved the guidelines," Kamin explained.
In the nuns' case, that's such a no-brainer that John Suthers, the U.S. attorney for the Colorado region, looks brain dead.
Suthers' office plans to formally respond to the nuns' requests for downward departures today, a spokesman said.
But the government's position all along has been that these peacemakers aren't blessed.
"They have been prosecuted in the past for similar acts and sentenced to short periods of incarceration, which have not served as a deterrent," Suthers said.
Suthers apparently sees symbolic protests as security threats. He thinks taxpayers need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the nuns off the streets.
I propose that the politically posturing prosecutor write the check out of his publicly financed salary. He obviously has too little on his plate and not much more in his head.
The crimes committed here involve three old women cutting through a fence and whacking a few hammer blows on a missile silo of reinforced concrete several feet thick. What happened posed no more threat to national security than refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing "The Star Spangled Banner."
As for costing the government money, I'm betting Suthers put more of a hurt on the federal purse prosecuting the nuns than the nuns put on the missile silo.
Platte, Gilbert and Hudson spent several months in jail awaiting trial. Time served, combined with some community service, makes sense.
The nuns should be required to pay to repair the fence they cut. They might even need to pay for the time soldiers spent responding to their protest.
But six to eight years in prison for Hudson, who is 68, Platte, who is 67, and Gilbert, who is 55, mocks justice.
DU's Kamin said that only extraordinary circumstances justify downward departures from sentencing guidelines.
Devoting your life to peace in a war-torn world qualifies not only as extraordinary, but as exemplary.
No matter, Kamin said, federal judges don't like to depart from the guidelines because the decision to do so is automatically reviewable and reversible.
"Judges," he added, "don't like to be reversed."
They ought to like turning peaceniks into prisoners even less.
Federal judges - in this case Blackburn - have wide discretion to decide what factors demand departure from sentencing guidelines.
The ability to get around the sentencing guidelines exists because the folks who wrote the guidelines knew the guidelines were not one-size-fits-all.
They sure don't fit these convictions.
The nuns have never hurt anyone. They never will. They're sort of like angels. If the whole world adopted their sacrifice and respect for humanity, terrorism and war would cease. So would crime. It would be heaven on earth.
Unless Judge Blackburn departs from the sentencing guidelines, the United States will show its angels hell on earth.
"You could make an argument that lack of discretion (in sentencing) looks ridiculous because you have people here who aren't a threat," Kamin said.
You could also argue that anyone who puts nuns in the pen for six years runs a kangaroo court.
By Jim Spencer Denver Post Columnist
Thursday, July 17, 2003 - It's called downward departure. It's a fancy term that means making the punishment fit the crime.
Federal Judge Robert Blackburn needs to do it July 25 when he sentences three nuns convicted of protesting against nuclear weapons.
In April, a jury found Sisters Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert and Jackie Marie Hudson guilty of obstructing national defense and damaging government property for hammering on a missile silo in northern Colorado.
The nuns' prior civil disobedience, combined with their latest convictions, puts them in the category of dangerous felons as far as federal sentencing guidelines are concerned.
The guidelines call for these women, who have devoted their lives to promoting peace and nonviolence, to serve six to eight years in the penitentiary.
If this constitutes homeland security in post-Sept. 11 America, the watchdog needs dentures. When they're not protesting for peace, the nuns teach in poor neighborhoods, helping the least of us. Locking them is like locking up Mother Teresa. It's just wrong.
So it falls to Judge Blackburn to do what's right.
He's got the power to depart from the sentencing guidelines. To do it, a judge must decide that special circumstances exist, said Sam Kamin, an assistant professor of law at the University of Denver.
"The judge basically has to say that this isn't what Congress intended when it approved the guidelines," Kamin explained.
In the nuns' case, that's such a no-brainer that John Suthers, the U.S. attorney for the Colorado region, looks brain dead.
Suthers' office plans to formally respond to the nuns' requests for downward departures today, a spokesman said.
But the government's position all along has been that these peacemakers aren't blessed.
"They have been prosecuted in the past for similar acts and sentenced to short periods of incarceration, which have not served as a deterrent," Suthers said.
Suthers apparently sees symbolic protests as security threats. He thinks taxpayers need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the nuns off the streets.
I propose that the politically posturing prosecutor write the check out of his publicly financed salary. He obviously has too little on his plate and not much more in his head.
The crimes committed here involve three old women cutting through a fence and whacking a few hammer blows on a missile silo of reinforced concrete several feet thick. What happened posed no more threat to national security than refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or sing "The Star Spangled Banner."
As for costing the government money, I'm betting Suthers put more of a hurt on the federal purse prosecuting the nuns than the nuns put on the missile silo.
Platte, Gilbert and Hudson spent several months in jail awaiting trial. Time served, combined with some community service, makes sense.
The nuns should be required to pay to repair the fence they cut. They might even need to pay for the time soldiers spent responding to their protest.
But six to eight years in prison for Hudson, who is 68, Platte, who is 67, and Gilbert, who is 55, mocks justice.
DU's Kamin said that only extraordinary circumstances justify downward departures from sentencing guidelines.
Devoting your life to peace in a war-torn world qualifies not only as extraordinary, but as exemplary.
No matter, Kamin said, federal judges don't like to depart from the guidelines because the decision to do so is automatically reviewable and reversible.
"Judges," he added, "don't like to be reversed."
They ought to like turning peaceniks into prisoners even less.
Federal judges - in this case Blackburn - have wide discretion to decide what factors demand departure from sentencing guidelines.
The ability to get around the sentencing guidelines exists because the folks who wrote the guidelines knew the guidelines were not one-size-fits-all.
They sure don't fit these convictions.
The nuns have never hurt anyone. They never will. They're sort of like angels. If the whole world adopted their sacrifice and respect for humanity, terrorism and war would cease. So would crime. It would be heaven on earth.
Unless Judge Blackburn departs from the sentencing guidelines, the United States will show its angels hell on earth.
"You could make an argument that lack of discretion (in sentencing) looks ridiculous because you have people here who aren't a threat," Kamin said.
You could also argue that anyone who puts nuns in the pen for six years runs a kangaroo court.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Iraq
So, the sons are dead.
You wont find me crying tears of pity.
I wish they had captured them alive, though.
They could have, had they wanted: they had them cornered.
Patience could have prevailed: had the Americans cut of electricity and water, they would have come out at some point.
Surrender!!
Somehow that would have been more civilised...
Somehow that would have made them pitiful, human...
Somehow that would have removed much of the fear associated with the name Hussein...
A strong public trial would have been healing: expose all their misdeeds to the light of day, in testimony.
Then lock them up for life.
Well, however and whatever, they are gone.
Good!
Now the father.
So, the sons are dead.
You wont find me crying tears of pity.
I wish they had captured them alive, though.
They could have, had they wanted: they had them cornered.
Patience could have prevailed: had the Americans cut of electricity and water, they would have come out at some point.
Surrender!!
Somehow that would have been more civilised...
Somehow that would have made them pitiful, human...
Somehow that would have removed much of the fear associated with the name Hussein...
A strong public trial would have been healing: expose all their misdeeds to the light of day, in testimony.
Then lock them up for life.
Well, however and whatever, they are gone.
Good!
Now the father.
Iraq
So, the sons are dead.
You wont find me crying tears of pity.
I wish they had captured them alive, though.
They could have, had they wanted: they had them cornered.
Patience could have prevailed: had the Americans cut of electricity and water, they would have come out at some point.
Surrender!!
Somehow that would have been more civilised...
Somehow that would have made them pitiful, human...
Somehow that would have removed much of the fear associated with the name Hussein...
A strong public trial would have been healing: expose all their misdeeds to the light of day, in testimony.
Then lock them up for life.
Well, however and whatever, they are gone.
Good!
Now the father.
So, the sons are dead.
You wont find me crying tears of pity.
I wish they had captured them alive, though.
They could have, had they wanted: they had them cornered.
Patience could have prevailed: had the Americans cut of electricity and water, they would have come out at some point.
Surrender!!
Somehow that would have been more civilised...
Somehow that would have made them pitiful, human...
Somehow that would have removed much of the fear associated with the name Hussein...
A strong public trial would have been healing: expose all their misdeeds to the light of day, in testimony.
Then lock them up for life.
Well, however and whatever, they are gone.
Good!
Now the father.
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Over 600 prisoners are still being held there, in limbo, new ones arriving regularly.
No rights, no lawyers, no outcry from mainstream America.
After all, their president said "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people", Donald Rumsfeld called them "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists".
Well, on Friday, the USA again released some prisoners, about 30 of these "evil" men.
Sixteen were sent to Afghanistan, eleven to Pakistan.
These men were all declared innocent by the US government.
So, this is it, then, you keep people imprisoned for about two years, some in wire cages, with virtually no rights, with a military court and death penalty hanging over their heads.... and at the end of it you ship them off to wherever and release them? So they can once again be endlessly interrogated by their own governments???
That is it.... hell, no bloody way!!! That isnt right!!!
If there is a legal fund for these people, I want to know. I want to contribute. I think they at least deserve some monetary compensation for all they had to live through!!! Let them sue the American government for acting so completely outside of their own laws, let alone international law. If they act like a rogue state, they should be held accountable.
Stealing two years of a person's life is not okay, it will NEVER be okay!!
Over 600 prisoners are still being held there, in limbo, new ones arriving regularly.
No rights, no lawyers, no outcry from mainstream America.
After all, their president said "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people", Donald Rumsfeld called them "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists".
Well, on Friday, the USA again released some prisoners, about 30 of these "evil" men.
Sixteen were sent to Afghanistan, eleven to Pakistan.
These men were all declared innocent by the US government.
So, this is it, then, you keep people imprisoned for about two years, some in wire cages, with virtually no rights, with a military court and death penalty hanging over their heads.... and at the end of it you ship them off to wherever and release them? So they can once again be endlessly interrogated by their own governments???
That is it.... hell, no bloody way!!! That isnt right!!!
If there is a legal fund for these people, I want to know. I want to contribute. I think they at least deserve some monetary compensation for all they had to live through!!! Let them sue the American government for acting so completely outside of their own laws, let alone international law. If they act like a rogue state, they should be held accountable.
Stealing two years of a person's life is not okay, it will NEVER be okay!!
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Over 600 prisoners are still being held there, in limbo, new ones arriving regularly.
No rights, no lawyers, no outcry from mainstream America.
After all, their president said "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people", Donald Rumsfeld called them "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists".
Well, on Friday, the USA again released some prisoners, about 30 of these "evil" men.
Sixteen were sent to Afghanistan, eleven to Pakistan.
These men were all declared innocent by the US government.
So, this is it, then, you keep people imprisoned for about two years, some in wire cages, with virtually no rights, with a military court and death penalty hanging over their heads.... and at the end of it you ship them off to wherever and release them? So they can once again be endlessly interrogated by their own governments???
That is it.... hell, no bloody way!!! That isnt right!!!
If there is a legal fund for these people, I want to know. I want to contribute. I think they at least deserve some monetary compensation for all they had to live through!!! Let them sue the American government for acting so completely outside of their own laws, let alone international law. If they act like a rogue state, they should be held accountable.
Stealing two years of a person's life is not okay, it will NEVER be okay!!
Over 600 prisoners are still being held there, in limbo, new ones arriving regularly.
No rights, no lawyers, no outcry from mainstream America.
After all, their president said "The only thing we know for certain is that these are bad people", Donald Rumsfeld called them "very tough, hardcore, well-trained terrorists".
Well, on Friday, the USA again released some prisoners, about 30 of these "evil" men.
Sixteen were sent to Afghanistan, eleven to Pakistan.
These men were all declared innocent by the US government.
So, this is it, then, you keep people imprisoned for about two years, some in wire cages, with virtually no rights, with a military court and death penalty hanging over their heads.... and at the end of it you ship them off to wherever and release them? So they can once again be endlessly interrogated by their own governments???
That is it.... hell, no bloody way!!! That isnt right!!!
If there is a legal fund for these people, I want to know. I want to contribute. I think they at least deserve some monetary compensation for all they had to live through!!! Let them sue the American government for acting so completely outside of their own laws, let alone international law. If they act like a rogue state, they should be held accountable.
Stealing two years of a person's life is not okay, it will NEVER be okay!!
Friday, July 18, 2003
Nelson Mandela
South African statesman, 1993 Nobel Prize for Peace. Modern Hero. 1918-
Nelson Mandela is 85 years old today.
Happy Birthday, Madiba!!!
Happy Birthday!
Long may you live.
South African statesman, 1993 Nobel Prize for Peace. Modern Hero. 1918-
Nelson Mandela is 85 years old today.
Happy Birthday, Madiba!!!
Happy Birthday!
Long may you live.
Nelson Mandela
South African statesman, 1993 Nobel Prize for Peace. Modern Hero. 1918-
Nelson Mandela is 85 years old today.
Happy Birthday, Madiba!!!
Happy Birthday!
Long may you live.
South African statesman, 1993 Nobel Prize for Peace. Modern Hero. 1918-
Nelson Mandela is 85 years old today.
Happy Birthday, Madiba!!!
Happy Birthday!
Long may you live.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Iraq
Bush at a press conference this past Monday July 14, 2003 at the White House, during Q&A:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
Well!!
Now I've heard everything!
I wonder if he will get away with saying this...
Bush at a press conference this past Monday July 14, 2003 at the White House, during Q&A:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
Well!!
Now I've heard everything!
I wonder if he will get away with saying this...
Iraq
Bush at a press conference this past Monday July 14, 2003 at the White House, during Q&A:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
Well!!
Now I've heard everything!
I wonder if he will get away with saying this...
Bush at a press conference this past Monday July 14, 2003 at the White House, during Q&A:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region.
Well!!
Now I've heard everything!
I wonder if he will get away with saying this...
Iraq
Poor bastards.
US Soldiers are not going home as promised.
Their families must be going nuts, what with the daily attacks on soldiers in Iraq.
The mental condition of these soldiers must be indescribable by now.
First fighting a war, most of them living in squalid conditions, in this terrible heat, confronted daily by a hostile population whose language they cannot understand, seeing and hearing of other soldiers being picked off every day... only to hear you cannot go home as promised...
Poor bastards!
Poor bastards.
US Soldiers are not going home as promised.
Their families must be going nuts, what with the daily attacks on soldiers in Iraq.
The mental condition of these soldiers must be indescribable by now.
First fighting a war, most of them living in squalid conditions, in this terrible heat, confronted daily by a hostile population whose language they cannot understand, seeing and hearing of other soldiers being picked off every day... only to hear you cannot go home as promised...
Poor bastards!
Iraq
Poor bastards.
US Soldiers are not going home as promised.
Their families must be going nuts, what with the daily attacks on soldiers in Iraq.
The mental condition of these soldiers must be indescribable by now.
First fighting a war, most of them living in squalid conditions, in this terrible heat, confronted daily by a hostile population whose language they cannot understand, seeing and hearing of other soldiers being picked off every day... only to hear you cannot go home as promised...
Poor bastards!
Poor bastards.
US Soldiers are not going home as promised.
Their families must be going nuts, what with the daily attacks on soldiers in Iraq.
The mental condition of these soldiers must be indescribable by now.
First fighting a war, most of them living in squalid conditions, in this terrible heat, confronted daily by a hostile population whose language they cannot understand, seeing and hearing of other soldiers being picked off every day... only to hear you cannot go home as promised...
Poor bastards!
Sunday, July 13, 2003
The UK and USA show, or: Who said what, to whom, and when...
It goes like this:
You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
First, you argue that it is not a cookie jar.
Then you say you were not planning on stealing the cookies but wanted to measure the size of the neck in case you needed to take out a cookie in future.
When that does not work, you get angry and demand to know why people are trying to attack you.
You say you only took a few cookies from the overstocked jar to make sure the rest of us would not overeat and get sick.
Obfuscate: Someone had told you the stuff in the jar only looked like cookies, it really was something else!
When the accusations still do not stop, you pull out the big guns:
Deny, deny, deny. Simply deny that you are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar! Even if someone takes a picture and shows it to you (everyone knows, pictures can be doctored).
Start a fight about something else: someone put Oreo's in the jar instead of shortbread cookies!
Blame someone else: if Tom, Dick or Harry had not neglected to get you your lunch, you would not have been so hungry that you had to get some cookies from the jar!
You know something?
In the end, you still are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar.
It goes like this:
You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
First, you argue that it is not a cookie jar.
Then you say you were not planning on stealing the cookies but wanted to measure the size of the neck in case you needed to take out a cookie in future.
When that does not work, you get angry and demand to know why people are trying to attack you.
You say you only took a few cookies from the overstocked jar to make sure the rest of us would not overeat and get sick.
Obfuscate: Someone had told you the stuff in the jar only looked like cookies, it really was something else!
When the accusations still do not stop, you pull out the big guns:
Deny, deny, deny. Simply deny that you are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar! Even if someone takes a picture and shows it to you (everyone knows, pictures can be doctored).
Start a fight about something else: someone put Oreo's in the jar instead of shortbread cookies!
Blame someone else: if Tom, Dick or Harry had not neglected to get you your lunch, you would not have been so hungry that you had to get some cookies from the jar!
You know something?
In the end, you still are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar.
The UK and USA show, or: Who said what, to whom, and when...
It goes like this:
You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
First, you argue that it is not a cookie jar.
Then you say you were not planning on stealing the cookies but wanted to measure the size of the neck in case you needed to take out a cookie in future.
When that does not work, you get angry and demand to know why people are trying to attack you.
You say you only took a few cookies from the overstocked jar to make sure the rest of us would not overeat and get sick.
Obfuscate: Someone had told you the stuff in the jar only looked like cookies, it really was something else!
When the accusations still do not stop, you pull out the big guns:
Deny, deny, deny. Simply deny that you are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar! Even if someone takes a picture and shows it to you (everyone knows, pictures can be doctored).
Start a fight about something else: someone put Oreo's in the jar instead of shortbread cookies!
Blame someone else: if Tom, Dick or Harry had not neglected to get you your lunch, you would not have been so hungry that you had to get some cookies from the jar!
You know something?
In the end, you still are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar.
It goes like this:
You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
First, you argue that it is not a cookie jar.
Then you say you were not planning on stealing the cookies but wanted to measure the size of the neck in case you needed to take out a cookie in future.
When that does not work, you get angry and demand to know why people are trying to attack you.
You say you only took a few cookies from the overstocked jar to make sure the rest of us would not overeat and get sick.
Obfuscate: Someone had told you the stuff in the jar only looked like cookies, it really was something else!
When the accusations still do not stop, you pull out the big guns:
Deny, deny, deny. Simply deny that you are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar! Even if someone takes a picture and shows it to you (everyone knows, pictures can be doctored).
Start a fight about something else: someone put Oreo's in the jar instead of shortbread cookies!
Blame someone else: if Tom, Dick or Harry had not neglected to get you your lunch, you would not have been so hungry that you had to get some cookies from the jar!
You know something?
In the end, you still are standing there with your hand in the cookie jar.
Friday, July 11, 2003
Iraq
This Thursday at Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, at a meeting between representatives of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment and a group of sheiks:
Sheik Fadal Ismail of Rutbah said he was tired of hearing coalition promises.
"We have yet to witness results," he said. "Fuel supply is zero, and power supply is terrible."
Many say the killings would stop if the Army were to stop the searches and pull back its forces. Col. David Teeples, commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment in Ramadi, refused to promise that.
"I will continue to take action as I have in the past," he said. "I have had soldiers killed and wounded in every county represented here today. Ten soldiers of mine have died. I want the information on people who are bad in your community."
No one in the crowd spoke up.
I had to laugh when I read this, despite the gravity of the situation.
This is a farce.
This Thursday at Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, at a meeting between representatives of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment and a group of sheiks:
Sheik Fadal Ismail of Rutbah said he was tired of hearing coalition promises.
"We have yet to witness results," he said. "Fuel supply is zero, and power supply is terrible."
Many say the killings would stop if the Army were to stop the searches and pull back its forces. Col. David Teeples, commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment in Ramadi, refused to promise that.
"I will continue to take action as I have in the past," he said. "I have had soldiers killed and wounded in every county represented here today. Ten soldiers of mine have died. I want the information on people who are bad in your community."
No one in the crowd spoke up.
I had to laugh when I read this, despite the gravity of the situation.
This is a farce.
Iraq
This Thursday at Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, at a meeting between representatives of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment and a group of sheiks:
Sheik Fadal Ismail of Rutbah said he was tired of hearing coalition promises.
"We have yet to witness results," he said. "Fuel supply is zero, and power supply is terrible."
Many say the killings would stop if the Army were to stop the searches and pull back its forces. Col. David Teeples, commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment in Ramadi, refused to promise that.
"I will continue to take action as I have in the past," he said. "I have had soldiers killed and wounded in every county represented here today. Ten soldiers of mine have died. I want the information on people who are bad in your community."
No one in the crowd spoke up.
I had to laugh when I read this, despite the gravity of the situation.
This is a farce.
This Thursday at Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad, at a meeting between representatives of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment and a group of sheiks:
Sheik Fadal Ismail of Rutbah said he was tired of hearing coalition promises.
"We have yet to witness results," he said. "Fuel supply is zero, and power supply is terrible."
Many say the killings would stop if the Army were to stop the searches and pull back its forces. Col. David Teeples, commander of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment in Ramadi, refused to promise that.
"I will continue to take action as I have in the past," he said. "I have had soldiers killed and wounded in every county represented here today. Ten soldiers of mine have died. I want the information on people who are bad in your community."
No one in the crowd spoke up.
I had to laugh when I read this, despite the gravity of the situation.
This is a farce.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Iraq
Now that the situation in Iraq is completely on the verge of disintegration, the Americans want others involved.... through NATO, no less! Forget the UN, they will turn blue in the face before they will ever even think of calling them in. While the UN should have been the obvious first choice!
"Internationalisation" the Americans call it. According to Rumsfeld, they have asked up to 90 countries to participate.
I dont know of a better recipe for disaster than occupying an unwilling country with a complete mish-mash of cultures and languages, under the volatile leadership of the Americans.
For heavens sake USA, get off your high horse and admit what we all have known from day one: you were wrong! Call in the peacekeepers of the UN and let them help Iraq form a new government! Kick out the czar of Baghdad and hand over the mess you created to the UN so it can be fixed. While it still can be.
Meanwhile, I am happy to see the sluggish US newspapers finally shaping up: the lies leading up to the war are being dismantled, one by one. The uranium purchase lie may well be the one to bring down the US and UK leadership. I certainly hope so! On why they went to war, Rumsfeld now says: "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
This whole affair disgusts me and I sincerely hope the American and British public too. I hope the Americans show it in their vote in 2004 and I hope the British toss Tony Blair and his sincere face out of power. They and their cronies should be brought to stand before an international court, for going to war for no other reason than because a bunch of powerful neo-conservatives wanted them to.
Now that the situation in Iraq is completely on the verge of disintegration, the Americans want others involved.... through NATO, no less! Forget the UN, they will turn blue in the face before they will ever even think of calling them in. While the UN should have been the obvious first choice!
"Internationalisation" the Americans call it. According to Rumsfeld, they have asked up to 90 countries to participate.
I dont know of a better recipe for disaster than occupying an unwilling country with a complete mish-mash of cultures and languages, under the volatile leadership of the Americans.
For heavens sake USA, get off your high horse and admit what we all have known from day one: you were wrong! Call in the peacekeepers of the UN and let them help Iraq form a new government! Kick out the czar of Baghdad and hand over the mess you created to the UN so it can be fixed. While it still can be.
Meanwhile, I am happy to see the sluggish US newspapers finally shaping up: the lies leading up to the war are being dismantled, one by one. The uranium purchase lie may well be the one to bring down the US and UK leadership. I certainly hope so! On why they went to war, Rumsfeld now says: "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
This whole affair disgusts me and I sincerely hope the American and British public too. I hope the Americans show it in their vote in 2004 and I hope the British toss Tony Blair and his sincere face out of power. They and their cronies should be brought to stand before an international court, for going to war for no other reason than because a bunch of powerful neo-conservatives wanted them to.
Iraq
Now that the situation in Iraq is completely on the verge of disintegration, the Americans want others involved.... through NATO, no less! Forget the UN, they will turn blue in the face before they will ever even think of calling them in. While the UN should have been the obvious first choice!
"Internationalisation" the Americans call it. According to Rumsfeld, they have asked up to 90 countries to participate.
I dont know of a better recipe for disaster than occupying an unwilling country with a complete mish-mash of cultures and languages, under the volatile leadership of the Americans.
For heavens sake USA, get off your high horse and admit what we all have known from day one: you were wrong! Call in the peacekeepers of the UN and let them help Iraq form a new government! Kick out the czar of Baghdad and hand over the mess you created to the UN so it can be fixed. While it still can be.
Meanwhile, I am happy to see the sluggish US newspapers finally shaping up: the lies leading up to the war are being dismantled, one by one. The uranium purchase lie may well be the one to bring down the US and UK leadership. I certainly hope so! On why they went to war, Rumsfeld now says: "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
This whole affair disgusts me and I sincerely hope the American and British public too. I hope the Americans show it in their vote in 2004 and I hope the British toss Tony Blair and his sincere face out of power. They and their cronies should be brought to stand before an international court, for going to war for no other reason than because a bunch of powerful neo-conservatives wanted them to.
Now that the situation in Iraq is completely on the verge of disintegration, the Americans want others involved.... through NATO, no less! Forget the UN, they will turn blue in the face before they will ever even think of calling them in. While the UN should have been the obvious first choice!
"Internationalisation" the Americans call it. According to Rumsfeld, they have asked up to 90 countries to participate.
I dont know of a better recipe for disaster than occupying an unwilling country with a complete mish-mash of cultures and languages, under the volatile leadership of the Americans.
For heavens sake USA, get off your high horse and admit what we all have known from day one: you were wrong! Call in the peacekeepers of the UN and let them help Iraq form a new government! Kick out the czar of Baghdad and hand over the mess you created to the UN so it can be fixed. While it still can be.
Meanwhile, I am happy to see the sluggish US newspapers finally shaping up: the lies leading up to the war are being dismantled, one by one. The uranium purchase lie may well be the one to bring down the US and UK leadership. I certainly hope so! On why they went to war, Rumsfeld now says: "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
This whole affair disgusts me and I sincerely hope the American and British public too. I hope the Americans show it in their vote in 2004 and I hope the British toss Tony Blair and his sincere face out of power. They and their cronies should be brought to stand before an international court, for going to war for no other reason than because a bunch of powerful neo-conservatives wanted them to.
washingtonpost.com `
Why the CEO in Chief Needs an Audit
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A23
The Bush White House is run on a business model. The president is the CEO. He delegates to others, including the vice president, who was once a CEO himself. It therefore should come as no surprise that George W. Bush, a Harvard MBA after all, is doing what other CEOs do when they get into trouble. In his case, he's "restated" his reasons for going to war.
Corporations do this all the time. If a profit of, say, $2.8 billion turns out to be a loss of a similar amount on account of unanticipated developments (corruption, greed, the demands of mistresses), the figure merely gets "restated." Usually no one is held responsible for this, because a billion here or a billion there can, as we know, fall through the cracks. In fact, the CEO -- having been given a bonus for such a banner year -- is then given another one for managing his company through difficult times.
In the same way, the president recently restated some of the reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, which Bush told the world was being "reconstituted," may in fact not exist. The White House the other day restated its earlier insistence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the West African nation of Niger. It turned out that the supporting documents had been forged. The White House admitted that in a press release left behind after Bush had departed for Africa.
Similarly, the accusation that Iraq was buying high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons," has to be restated. The tubes appear to have been bought for another purpose entirely and may not be high-strength after all.
As for the charge that Iraq was bristling with other weapons of mass destruction, none have yet been found, raising the distinct possibility that -- in an upcoming quarter -- this too will be restated and the Bush administration will take a one-time charge against future credibility.
In fact, should we -- the stockholders of this operation -- look back at the original business plan for the proposed Bush administration, we will find that almost everything has been restated. During the campaign, Bush said he would not go in for peacekeeping operations abroad. He appears ready to do so in Liberia. He also said he would not get engaged, as did the previous CEO, Bill Clinton, in the nitty-gritty of Middle East peace negotiation. The administration is now choosing intersections in Gaza for traffic lights.
Restatement follows restatement until we poor stockholders have no choice but to conclude that either the Bush administration did not know what it was talking about when it came into office or does not know what it is talking about now. Not even in corporate America can you hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. One of them, as any CEO can tell you, has to be restated.
The Bush administration's interim business plan called for the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. On account of a botched operation in the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan, this now has to be restated. Similarly, the proclaimed determination to rid the world of Saddam Hussein also has not succeeded. As with bin Laden, this failure will be restated as not being all that important. You learn this sort of thing in business school.
In fact, the entire business plan for Iraq has to be restated. It turns out that the country simply will not govern itself, that some elements resent the U.S. occupation and that it will take more troops to administer the country than originally thought. In some way, this abject failure to plan for an occupation -- despite repeated warnings -- will have to be creatively restated. To paraphrase the president, bring on the restatement.
The dangers of an immense budget deficit have been restated. Rising unemployment has been restated to blame the Clinton administration. The critical importance of relations with Mexico has been restated. The evils of affirmative action were -- after the Supreme Court ruled -- restated and so, of course, were the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Now it is to rid that country of Saddam Hussein and establish the predicates for a Middle East peace. I like them both.
Still, all these restatements suggest a business plan that was both flawed from the start and implemented with an appalling level of incompetence. Despite that, the CEO of this mismanaged operation is not held accountable and remains popular with the shareholders. It used to be that the buck stopped with the president. To state the obvious, that's been restated.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Why the CEO in Chief Needs an Audit
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A23
The Bush White House is run on a business model. The president is the CEO. He delegates to others, including the vice president, who was once a CEO himself. It therefore should come as no surprise that George W. Bush, a Harvard MBA after all, is doing what other CEOs do when they get into trouble. In his case, he's "restated" his reasons for going to war.
Corporations do this all the time. If a profit of, say, $2.8 billion turns out to be a loss of a similar amount on account of unanticipated developments (corruption, greed, the demands of mistresses), the figure merely gets "restated." Usually no one is held responsible for this, because a billion here or a billion there can, as we know, fall through the cracks. In fact, the CEO -- having been given a bonus for such a banner year -- is then given another one for managing his company through difficult times.
In the same way, the president recently restated some of the reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, which Bush told the world was being "reconstituted," may in fact not exist. The White House the other day restated its earlier insistence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the West African nation of Niger. It turned out that the supporting documents had been forged. The White House admitted that in a press release left behind after Bush had departed for Africa.
Similarly, the accusation that Iraq was buying high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons," has to be restated. The tubes appear to have been bought for another purpose entirely and may not be high-strength after all.
As for the charge that Iraq was bristling with other weapons of mass destruction, none have yet been found, raising the distinct possibility that -- in an upcoming quarter -- this too will be restated and the Bush administration will take a one-time charge against future credibility.
In fact, should we -- the stockholders of this operation -- look back at the original business plan for the proposed Bush administration, we will find that almost everything has been restated. During the campaign, Bush said he would not go in for peacekeeping operations abroad. He appears ready to do so in Liberia. He also said he would not get engaged, as did the previous CEO, Bill Clinton, in the nitty-gritty of Middle East peace negotiation. The administration is now choosing intersections in Gaza for traffic lights.
Restatement follows restatement until we poor stockholders have no choice but to conclude that either the Bush administration did not know what it was talking about when it came into office or does not know what it is talking about now. Not even in corporate America can you hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. One of them, as any CEO can tell you, has to be restated.
The Bush administration's interim business plan called for the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. On account of a botched operation in the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan, this now has to be restated. Similarly, the proclaimed determination to rid the world of Saddam Hussein also has not succeeded. As with bin Laden, this failure will be restated as not being all that important. You learn this sort of thing in business school.
In fact, the entire business plan for Iraq has to be restated. It turns out that the country simply will not govern itself, that some elements resent the U.S. occupation and that it will take more troops to administer the country than originally thought. In some way, this abject failure to plan for an occupation -- despite repeated warnings -- will have to be creatively restated. To paraphrase the president, bring on the restatement.
The dangers of an immense budget deficit have been restated. Rising unemployment has been restated to blame the Clinton administration. The critical importance of relations with Mexico has been restated. The evils of affirmative action were -- after the Supreme Court ruled -- restated and so, of course, were the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Now it is to rid that country of Saddam Hussein and establish the predicates for a Middle East peace. I like them both.
Still, all these restatements suggest a business plan that was both flawed from the start and implemented with an appalling level of incompetence. Despite that, the CEO of this mismanaged operation is not held accountable and remains popular with the shareholders. It used to be that the buck stopped with the president. To state the obvious, that's been restated.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Iran
Two very special women died today: the conjoined twins Ladan and Laleh Bijani.
The operation to separate them, failed.
They knew the odds, still they chose to take this path so they could lead separate lives.
My condolences to their community, they will be sorely missed.
Two very special women died today: the conjoined twins Ladan and Laleh Bijani.
The operation to separate them, failed.
They knew the odds, still they chose to take this path so they could lead separate lives.
My condolences to their community, they will be sorely missed.
Iran
Two very special women died today: the conjoined twins Ladan and Laleh Bijani.
The operation to separate them, failed.
They knew the odds, still they chose to take this path so they could lead separate lives.
My condolences to their community, they will be sorely missed.
Two very special women died today: the conjoined twins Ladan and Laleh Bijani.
The operation to separate them, failed.
They knew the odds, still they chose to take this path so they could lead separate lives.
My condolences to their community, they will be sorely missed.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
Bush
What an uncultivated boor the man is!
He will be the first head of state to not meet with Nelson Mandela when he visits South Africa next week!!
Okay, so Mandela was very critical of him and Blair re Iraq.
They bloody should have listened to him!
In my eyes, Mandela is the conscience of the world: if he says a specific course of action is immoral, people should pause, listen and think it through very carefully before acting.
I love what he said though:
With regard to Bush: he "cannot think properly", for bypassing the United Nations.
With regard to Tony Blair, calling him the "Foreign Affairs Minister of the United States".
Mandela rules!
What an uncultivated boor the man is!
He will be the first head of state to not meet with Nelson Mandela when he visits South Africa next week!!
Okay, so Mandela was very critical of him and Blair re Iraq.
They bloody should have listened to him!
In my eyes, Mandela is the conscience of the world: if he says a specific course of action is immoral, people should pause, listen and think it through very carefully before acting.
I love what he said though:
With regard to Bush: he "cannot think properly", for bypassing the United Nations.
With regard to Tony Blair, calling him the "Foreign Affairs Minister of the United States".
Mandela rules!
Bush
What an uncultivated boor the man is!
He will be the first head of state to not meet with Nelson Mandela when he visits South Africa next week!!
Okay, so Mandela was very critical of him and Blair re Iraq.
They bloody should have listened to him!
In my eyes, Mandela is the conscience of the world: if he says a specific course of action is immoral, people should pause, listen and think it through very carefully before acting.
I love what he said though:
With regard to Bush: he "cannot think properly", for bypassing the United Nations.
With regard to Tony Blair, calling him the "Foreign Affairs Minister of the United States".
Mandela rules!
What an uncultivated boor the man is!
He will be the first head of state to not meet with Nelson Mandela when he visits South Africa next week!!
Okay, so Mandela was very critical of him and Blair re Iraq.
They bloody should have listened to him!
In my eyes, Mandela is the conscience of the world: if he says a specific course of action is immoral, people should pause, listen and think it through very carefully before acting.
I love what he said though:
With regard to Bush: he "cannot think properly", for bypassing the United Nations.
With regard to Tony Blair, calling him the "Foreign Affairs Minister of the United States".
Mandela rules!
Saturday, July 05, 2003
Why I think the RIAA should get with the times:
Whenever I turn on the radio and TV I dont hear the kind of music I like.
The only chance I have of finding music I could like is on the P2P networks.
I do a search for a song I like a lot and end up with a couple of users sharing at that time. I check out what other songs they have that I dont know. I download them and listen to them. Sometimes more songs per artist (nobody is great all of the time). I listen. Every now and then I stumble across a gem. I then hotfoot it (online, the record shops generally dont offer my kind of music) and buy a CD of this artist. Some recent purchases thanks to P2P: Aimee Mann, William Topley, Dave Matthews, Venice.... RIAA had better deal with it, I will never buy Britney Spears!
This cycle gets repeated a lot. I love music... so, all you righteous people, tell me, how else will I ever be able to expand my music collection? Should I forever be stuck in the sixties/seventies??
I found an interesting piece on file sharing and the RIAA written by a computer student over here.
Here is an exerpt:
Here is how the exploitation works. When an artist first signs to a major label, visions of millions of dollars and thousands of screaming fans allow them to sign their freedom away on a dotted line. A typical contract goes something like this: the artist forever loses all copyright and control over any music recorded during the length of the contract; the artist loses the final say over what songs end up on the album; the artist loses the right to say what his music can and can't be used for (e.g., suddenly, the artist’s most cherished song can be used to sell long distance, or SUV’s); and, finally, the musician signs away these rights to future recordings. But the most telling piece of freedom the artist loses is when he signs away the ownership to his own name. That thing that makes a band a band, makes a rapper a rapper, even an individual an individual, now belongs to the record label. Recall that Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol precisely because Warner Bros. owned his name.
To the label, the artist is no more then a servant who is there to do it’s bidding and to generate massive amounts of capital. In return, the label grants the artist a tiny cut of the wealth that he produces. When indentured servitude was a common part of life, the masters would sometimes allow their servants to go out into the world and work for wages, then the cruel owner (having done no work) would take all of the servant’s earnings as his own, possibly giving the servant a few cents for his long labor. This is the relationship of the artist to the major label. By being able to work away from his owner, the servant feels almost like a free man, and the artist enjoys the same false sense of freedom. The artist is able to do many things that makes him feel free, but these are just allowances provided by the master label. The artist can do drugs, swear, get arrested, etc., and the label says nothing—in fact, these things are encouraged because they provide free marketing. But until the artist completes his contract with the label he is still merely a servant.
In exchange for giving the label all these things, the artist gets in return a lump sum ranging from $100,000 to millions of dollars—which the artist has to pay back—to cover studio costs, manager fees, etc., and the label grants royalties from the sale of the album.
These royalties are calculated in “price points” and typically amount to about 9¢ per album. Now, this deal seems pretty bad: the artist has signed away all the rights to his music, the ownership of his name, and, indeed, his freedom—in exchange for a loan and a few cents from each CD sold. Why would an artist agree to this? The answer is simple: choosing not to sign to the major label is in essence choosing not to be heard. Historically, the selling of records was a complex venture. It took visionaries to predict what would and would not be popular. It took record company promotion people who had personal relationships with local DJ's to get a song played on the radio, and even then there was little guarantee. But, recently, the music moguls have found that the secret to making popular music is to simply maintain complete control of all the mainstream access the public has to new music. And unholy unions with the two major outlets of music—the radio and MTV—have accomplished just this.
In the last couple of years, the corporate labels have rejoiced because they no longer have to struggle with any local radio stations across the country for airtime; they now only have to deal with one corporation: Clear Channel Worldwide.
Clear Channel began its take over of the radio waves in 1999. Since then, it has acquired nearly 1,500 popular radio stations worldwide. No longer are radio DJs in control of what music is played on the radio, it is the corporate executives in Clear Channel's corporate headquarters, located in Austin, TX, (the ones receiving huge kickbacks from the major labels) who control it. All one has to do is look at the 'press room' of the Clear Channel website to understand the horrifying corporate nature of music today.
In a recent interview with Fortune magazine Clear Channel's founder and CEO, Lowry Mays (who was originally an investment banker before joining the radio business), states, "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products." Fraternity brothers who studied together at business school—not people who actually care about music—are now in charge of what gets played on the radio.
Whenever I turn on the radio and TV I dont hear the kind of music I like.
The only chance I have of finding music I could like is on the P2P networks.
I do a search for a song I like a lot and end up with a couple of users sharing at that time. I check out what other songs they have that I dont know. I download them and listen to them. Sometimes more songs per artist (nobody is great all of the time). I listen. Every now and then I stumble across a gem. I then hotfoot it (online, the record shops generally dont offer my kind of music) and buy a CD of this artist. Some recent purchases thanks to P2P: Aimee Mann, William Topley, Dave Matthews, Venice.... RIAA had better deal with it, I will never buy Britney Spears!
This cycle gets repeated a lot. I love music... so, all you righteous people, tell me, how else will I ever be able to expand my music collection? Should I forever be stuck in the sixties/seventies??
I found an interesting piece on file sharing and the RIAA written by a computer student over here.
Here is an exerpt:
Here is how the exploitation works. When an artist first signs to a major label, visions of millions of dollars and thousands of screaming fans allow them to sign their freedom away on a dotted line. A typical contract goes something like this: the artist forever loses all copyright and control over any music recorded during the length of the contract; the artist loses the final say over what songs end up on the album; the artist loses the right to say what his music can and can't be used for (e.g., suddenly, the artist’s most cherished song can be used to sell long distance, or SUV’s); and, finally, the musician signs away these rights to future recordings. But the most telling piece of freedom the artist loses is when he signs away the ownership to his own name. That thing that makes a band a band, makes a rapper a rapper, even an individual an individual, now belongs to the record label. Recall that Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol precisely because Warner Bros. owned his name.
To the label, the artist is no more then a servant who is there to do it’s bidding and to generate massive amounts of capital. In return, the label grants the artist a tiny cut of the wealth that he produces. When indentured servitude was a common part of life, the masters would sometimes allow their servants to go out into the world and work for wages, then the cruel owner (having done no work) would take all of the servant’s earnings as his own, possibly giving the servant a few cents for his long labor. This is the relationship of the artist to the major label. By being able to work away from his owner, the servant feels almost like a free man, and the artist enjoys the same false sense of freedom. The artist is able to do many things that makes him feel free, but these are just allowances provided by the master label. The artist can do drugs, swear, get arrested, etc., and the label says nothing—in fact, these things are encouraged because they provide free marketing. But until the artist completes his contract with the label he is still merely a servant.
In exchange for giving the label all these things, the artist gets in return a lump sum ranging from $100,000 to millions of dollars—which the artist has to pay back—to cover studio costs, manager fees, etc., and the label grants royalties from the sale of the album.
These royalties are calculated in “price points” and typically amount to about 9¢ per album. Now, this deal seems pretty bad: the artist has signed away all the rights to his music, the ownership of his name, and, indeed, his freedom—in exchange for a loan and a few cents from each CD sold. Why would an artist agree to this? The answer is simple: choosing not to sign to the major label is in essence choosing not to be heard. Historically, the selling of records was a complex venture. It took visionaries to predict what would and would not be popular. It took record company promotion people who had personal relationships with local DJ's to get a song played on the radio, and even then there was little guarantee. But, recently, the music moguls have found that the secret to making popular music is to simply maintain complete control of all the mainstream access the public has to new music. And unholy unions with the two major outlets of music—the radio and MTV—have accomplished just this.
In the last couple of years, the corporate labels have rejoiced because they no longer have to struggle with any local radio stations across the country for airtime; they now only have to deal with one corporation: Clear Channel Worldwide.
Clear Channel began its take over of the radio waves in 1999. Since then, it has acquired nearly 1,500 popular radio stations worldwide. No longer are radio DJs in control of what music is played on the radio, it is the corporate executives in Clear Channel's corporate headquarters, located in Austin, TX, (the ones receiving huge kickbacks from the major labels) who control it. All one has to do is look at the 'press room' of the Clear Channel website to understand the horrifying corporate nature of music today.
In a recent interview with Fortune magazine Clear Channel's founder and CEO, Lowry Mays (who was originally an investment banker before joining the radio business), states, "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products." Fraternity brothers who studied together at business school—not people who actually care about music—are now in charge of what gets played on the radio.
Friday, July 04, 2003
Liberia
How about it, America?
In this case, you are being begged to come in and help!
As humanitarian efforts go, this one is a no-brainer.
You could score some good PR here, offset the damage you did (and still are doing) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plus, you would be completely within your rights to intervene: you are being asked to help.
How about it?
How about it, America?
In this case, you are being begged to come in and help!
As humanitarian efforts go, this one is a no-brainer.
You could score some good PR here, offset the damage you did (and still are doing) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plus, you would be completely within your rights to intervene: you are being asked to help.
How about it?
Liberia
How about it, America?
In this case, you are being begged to come in and help!
As humanitarian efforts go, this one is a no-brainer.
You could score some good PR here, offset the damage you did (and still are doing) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plus, you would be completely within your rights to intervene: you are being asked to help.
How about it?
How about it, America?
In this case, you are being begged to come in and help!
As humanitarian efforts go, this one is a no-brainer.
You could score some good PR here, offset the damage you did (and still are doing) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Plus, you would be completely within your rights to intervene: you are being asked to help.
How about it?
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Iraq
The sharks are in the pool and are in a feeding frenzy.
They are expecting to become very rich off Iraq.
Washington lawyer Robert Kyle, who represents several companies touting for business, said a big source of funds came from seized Iraqi assets, which he said were "subject to a less formal approach" in their allocation than those from USAID, which used U.S. taxpayer money.
Using Iraqi seized funds to outsource projects out of the country is morally not a-OK.
Something that truly bothers me about all this: do the Americans believe they are the only people who can exploit oil, build roads and bridges, factories etc. etc. ?? Who do they think exploited the oil in the past and built those bombed roads, bridges, factories, etc in the first place?? The Iraqi people are quite well educated and they have a good number of engineers, architects and the like to do the work. Let the Iraqi people do the reconstruction, keep the money in Iraq. Build up the country, dont leech it dry.
I would start to have a smidgeon of faith in the good intentions of the US/UK occupyers, were they to apply a kind of 'affirmative action' in Iraq and give preferential treatment to any Iraqi firm when it comes to handing out contracts.
So far, it's American companies almost all the way.
So far, their naked greed turns my stomach.
The sharks are in the pool and are in a feeding frenzy.
They are expecting to become very rich off Iraq.
Washington lawyer Robert Kyle, who represents several companies touting for business, said a big source of funds came from seized Iraqi assets, which he said were "subject to a less formal approach" in their allocation than those from USAID, which used U.S. taxpayer money.
Using Iraqi seized funds to outsource projects out of the country is morally not a-OK.
Something that truly bothers me about all this: do the Americans believe they are the only people who can exploit oil, build roads and bridges, factories etc. etc. ?? Who do they think exploited the oil in the past and built those bombed roads, bridges, factories, etc in the first place?? The Iraqi people are quite well educated and they have a good number of engineers, architects and the like to do the work. Let the Iraqi people do the reconstruction, keep the money in Iraq. Build up the country, dont leech it dry.
I would start to have a smidgeon of faith in the good intentions of the US/UK occupyers, were they to apply a kind of 'affirmative action' in Iraq and give preferential treatment to any Iraqi firm when it comes to handing out contracts.
So far, it's American companies almost all the way.
So far, their naked greed turns my stomach.
Iraq
The sharks are in the pool and are in a feeding frenzy.
They are expecting to become very rich off Iraq.
Washington lawyer Robert Kyle, who represents several companies touting for business, said a big source of funds came from seized Iraqi assets, which he said were "subject to a less formal approach" in their allocation than those from USAID, which used U.S. taxpayer money.
Using Iraqi seized funds to outsource projects out of the country is morally not a-OK.
Something that truly bothers me about all this: do the Americans believe they are the only people who can exploit oil, build roads and bridges, factories etc. etc. ?? Who do they think exploited the oil in the past and built those bombed roads, bridges, factories, etc in the first place?? The Iraqi people are quite well educated and they have a good number of engineers, architects and the like to do the work. Let the Iraqi people do the reconstruction, keep the money in Iraq. Build up the country, dont leech it dry.
I would start to have a smidgeon of faith in the good intentions of the US/UK occupyers, were they to apply a kind of 'affirmative action' in Iraq and give preferential treatment to any Iraqi firm when it comes to handing out contracts.
So far, it's American companies almost all the way.
So far, their naked greed turns my stomach.
The sharks are in the pool and are in a feeding frenzy.
They are expecting to become very rich off Iraq.
Washington lawyer Robert Kyle, who represents several companies touting for business, said a big source of funds came from seized Iraqi assets, which he said were "subject to a less formal approach" in their allocation than those from USAID, which used U.S. taxpayer money.
Using Iraqi seized funds to outsource projects out of the country is morally not a-OK.
Something that truly bothers me about all this: do the Americans believe they are the only people who can exploit oil, build roads and bridges, factories etc. etc. ?? Who do they think exploited the oil in the past and built those bombed roads, bridges, factories, etc in the first place?? The Iraqi people are quite well educated and they have a good number of engineers, architects and the like to do the work. Let the Iraqi people do the reconstruction, keep the money in Iraq. Build up the country, dont leech it dry.
I would start to have a smidgeon of faith in the good intentions of the US/UK occupyers, were they to apply a kind of 'affirmative action' in Iraq and give preferential treatment to any Iraqi firm when it comes to handing out contracts.
So far, it's American companies almost all the way.
So far, their naked greed turns my stomach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
