When beaten back, even in the miniscule way that they have, they reveal more and more of their priorities by attrition. The elements that were in SOPA/PIPA/etc. that aren't in this, we can figure are the things that they're secure with, or that they don't care about. Regardless, there's plenty of business intelligence in the selection criteria between then and now.
Ah, the good ole boy 21st district candidate. This corrupt politician has free reign as long as his district remains gerrymandered. Just throw a few bones to the rednecks and a few kickbacks to the rich white folk and then collect checks from the MPAA/RIAA.
I just want to clarify my definition of corruption. I believe a politician is corrupt when his or her district looks like the end-game of a round of Go. Or two simultaneous rounds as is the case in district 21.
Not only legal, but required. It's another example of how something that was intended to ensure the voice of minorities, has turned into a tool for entrenching the powerful.
After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts. This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats in government. Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).
It's a safely Republican district; if Smith was to be defeated, it would have been in the GOP primary. (He cruised to victory over two challengers from more libertarian/tech-friendly backgrounds.)
If Smith were to be defeated the RIAA would just start throwing money at whoever became the chairman of the committee that he's currently in charge of. (The new chairman would likely be another Republican since they currently have a majority in the House.)
Corruption is so deeply entrenched in the system that you won't get rid of it by throwing out one politician, no matter how influential. The best approach might be to publicize as widely as possible how the system works in the hope that there will eventually be widespread support for reforming it (maybe by passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the kind of legalized corruption that we call "campaign finance" in the U.S.). If I were a billionaire, that's what I'd put my money behind.
Historically, contributions by the RIAA have been pretty evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Lobbyists care more about influence than they do about the R or D after the name. Politicians care more about reelection campaign funding then they do about ideology.
You need to look through the last few election cycles for a full picture. The MPAA, it seems, leans towards Democrats, but they do shift contributions according to which party controls each chamber.
Maybe now countries around the world will see that strong copyright is an one-way street to channel money for USA.
And then we'll see adoption of more public-oriented copyright regimes.
I'd never heard of Lamar Smith before, but the name conjures up the image of a sheriff in a cheesy western, ready to cut the bad guys down with a six shooter.
I was reading a report today that states the following
"Digital TV Research calculates that China became the largest digital TV household nation in 2010, and will boast 417 million digital homes by end-2017, by which time India will almost certainly have overtaken the US."
The USA (eg read Hollywood) has been a long time social influencer of the world because of its ability to export its tv/movies to the rest of the world powered by a profitable cable revenue generation cash machine that is the US cable tv market (just look at the recent A&E sale as a guide to valuation).
So my question is this......
If India takes over the USA in terms of pay tv market size, and China already bigger than the USA (almost as a rounding number with continued annual growth), Could we ever see a situation where "BollyWood" or "Shanghai" is the exporter of cool around the world? Will it get to a situation where Hollywood police no longer matter?
Note: As can be seen on the topic list, there are a number of different topics, and the IPAA is not being discussed yet as of writing this comment.
(This second, they're talking about Child Prevention Act of 2012, HR 6063.)
It's possible that some disagreements between Republicans and Democrats will prevent IPAA from coming up in today's markup, reports seemed to indicate as of last night.
25 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 58.1 ms ] threadSeriously, look at this map: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/District/InteractiveMap.htm
Off-topic: I can't help but to note how meta your username is right now.
After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, some states created "majority-minority" districts. This practice, also called "affirmative gerrymandering", was supposed to redress historic discrimination and ensure that ethnic minorities would gain some seats in government. Since the 1990s, however, gerrymandering based solely on racial data has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently in Miller v. Johnson (1995).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Voting_Rights_A...
Iowa, I believe, has a fairly rational process for redistricting. Civic virtue? Lower stakes?
Here's his Democratic opponent in 2012 https://candaceduval.nationbuilder.com/contribute
Corruption is so deeply entrenched in the system that you won't get rid of it by throwing out one politician, no matter how influential. The best approach might be to publicize as widely as possible how the system works in the hope that there will eventually be widespread support for reforming it (maybe by passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the kind of legalized corruption that we call "campaign finance" in the U.S.). If I were a billionaire, that's what I'd put my money behind.
A truly corrupt individual.
Edit - sources:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cm...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00139519...
You need to look through the last few election cycles for a full picture. The MPAA, it seems, leans towards Democrats, but they do shift contributions according to which party controls each chamber.
"Digital TV Research calculates that China became the largest digital TV household nation in 2010, and will boast 417 million digital homes by end-2017, by which time India will almost certainly have overtaken the US."
The USA (eg read Hollywood) has been a long time social influencer of the world because of its ability to export its tv/movies to the rest of the world powered by a profitable cable revenue generation cash machine that is the US cable tv market (just look at the recent A&E sale as a guide to valuation).
So my question is this......
If India takes over the USA in terms of pay tv market size, and China already bigger than the USA (almost as a rounding number with continued annual growth), Could we ever see a situation where "BollyWood" or "Shanghai" is the exporter of cool around the world? Will it get to a situation where Hollywood police no longer matter?
- http://blog.collins.net.pr/2012/07/bollywoodchinese-entertai...
You can see the topics and watch a LIVE VIDEO here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Markups%202012/mark_0710...
Note: As can be seen on the topic list, there are a number of different topics, and the IPAA is not being discussed yet as of writing this comment. (This second, they're talking about Child Prevention Act of 2012, HR 6063.)
BTW, did the stream suddenly die? Or did they finish or go into recess when I wasn't watching?