Internet to Traditional Media: We Are Better At This Than You

Those of us who are in our early 30's are part of the last generation who remembers life without the internet. If you did not know, there was in fact a time when there were no email, chat rooms,social networks,youtube, google, wiki, smartphones or downloading. There was even a time, not all that long ago, when traditional media WAS the media. Yet, those days are long gone. Now the internet is at the center for all human thought and creativity. We have also reached a point in which the internet has become better at doing what traditional media used to be the kings of. The internet is now better at, not only creating and spreading media, but also better at making money from all that creating and spreading.

If you are willing to spend enough time and effort on the net, you can make a whole hell of a lot of money. There are countless people making a boat load of cash by creating and spreading their own media. The net has allowed all of us to get a piece of the action. The basics of the net model is actually pretty simple. It has two basic forms. One form is to give all your products and services away for free to the end user. You develop all the products and services yourself and tell everyone to 'come and get it!' If what you are giving away is useful and popular, you generate a lot of traffic pretty quickly. There are also a lot of other people who want to sell their products but lack the amount of traffic you got. So, you sale ad space to those people who want to sell something. In turn, you make a lot of money from ad revenue. Everyone wins! The prime example of this is Google.

The second basic method is to form a partnership with a company or another person. Let's say someone has developed a really cool way to distribute content but they cannot produce all the needed content to drive enough traffic to sale ad revenue. So, they partner with other people to produce the needed content. The partners make a little money every time their content brings traffic. Again, everyone wins. Youtube is the prime example of this.

These two very basic methods of making money on the net sound like something everyone would be on board with; right? WRONG!  There is a big problem with making money on the net which makes traditional media damn angry. The net cuts out the middle man and allows everything to be shared, downloaded and viewed by pretty much anyone at anytime. You no longer have to turn on the TV,  go to the local news stand,go to the CD store, a rental shop or even a movie theater to get the media of your desire. You can get any type of media you want quickly from your fellow net users. There is no way in hell traditional media can match the level of distribution the internet can. Traditional media is dead in the water if the net keeps developing in the way it is now. The outdated traditional media needed to find a way to stop this crazy thing called the internet. What did they come up with? Copyright laws!

The outdated media is now attempting to use their outdated laws to shut down the internet. Sounds crazy but that is exactly what is happening. At first, the old media did not have much success using their outdated laws. Then in 1992 the Audio Home Recording Act came into law(know as chapter 10 in US copyright law).  It did two things: It allowed people to make home copies of copyrighted material and share it between friends. It also required that all DAT recorders to included The Serial Copy Management System; which prevented the end user from making a copy of a copy.  Well, this worked for a while until, of course, people found a way around this. It seems that people were way more creative then the old media thought they were. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act came into law(known as chapter 5 subsection 512 of US copyright law). This was the first law used to limit the internet. It was not exactly what old media wanted but it was close. The DMCA made it illegal to store or transmit material which was copyrighted. It also made it harder to use parts of copyrighted material to create something new. Although, it did not make it illegal to share something copyrighted or to provided a link to something which was copyrighted. So, if you stored something copyrighted and transmitted it over the net, your ass was busted. It did not make service providers liable or require them to police which material is transmitted over their networks. Of source, you cannot enforce such a law on the net because the net behaves in such a way which leads to copyrighted material being used in a way which the old media never intended. So, the net laughed and kept on making money using the new internet model.

As the internet continued to evolve and new and exciting ways of creating, sharing and making money developed, the old media damn near had a heart attack. It became very clear that the outdated copyright laws were unable to control the internet. It was even more clear to the internet that the outdated copyright laws got in the way of being creative and cutting out the middle man. Then along comes SOPA(known as HR.3261.IH in the US Congress). SOPA, as most of you know, would finally give the old media exactly what they wanted. It would make it illegal to share, link, talk about or transmit any material deemed to be copyrighted. Also, service providers and websites would be liable for the actions of users. SOPA, as we all know, would kill the internet. There is no way in hell the internet could operate under SOPA. The net has evolved way past SOPA. The framework of the net is not designed to be manage in such a way as SOPA thinks it does. So, the net finally fought back. Major websites carried out a blackout to show Congress, and net users, what a SOPA net would be like. Common since won out and for now SOPA is dead.

Yet, the attack on the net took a very different turn. By way of the UN, another weapon from the old media has hit the net. ACTA(link provides all sections of the treaty)  is now the latest attempt to stop the net from doing what it does best; create, share and make money from the fluid open flow of information without the use of a middle man.  ACTA is being carried out though the UN. Using the UN in this way is a excellent way to by pass the people of all sovereign nations. ACTA creates an international agency to police anti-piracy in several industries including the internet. It does pretty much the same thing SOPA aims to do but without the consent of the people of sovereign nations. And as you might have guessed Obama signed ACTA while giving strong support at the same time. ACTA is the real internet kill switch everyone has been talking about for several years now. A independent agency which answers to no sovereign government would have the power to shut down any part of the internet at a moments notice if a company says a website has something copyrighted on it in any way shape or form. So, many leaders from many nations are signing up for ACTA without approval from their domestic governments. The battle for a free and open internet is not over by a long shot. Until then the internet will keep doing what it does best; being better at doing what the traditional media used to do.     

Freedom of Speech Is the Right to Offend Everyone

Howdy! Yes, your man of liberty has returned to this little blog. Time to dust off the tables and sweep up a bit. It has been a while so please excuse the mess.

Anyway...

This blog has always focused on Libertarian ideas and issues. Well, with that in mind I was watching an interview that Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell did on Larry King back in 1996(watch it by clicking here) and it got me thinking about if freedom of speech actually has any limits. Of course my first response is HELL NO! Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should, in theory, have no limits at all. Yet, in reality the only real limits in the case of free speech and expression is slander and liable. Both slander and liable are not easy to prove in the court of law because you must prove that what was said or expressed was meant to damage, by way of lying, a person's ability to maintain a job and live within their community. You can also sue someone in civil court for emotional damages if what was said or expressed caused you deep emotional trauma. In both situations, it is very subjective and comes down to a matter of taste in the majority of cases within the US court system.

I did mention Larry Flynt, so before going forward let's take a look at his battle with Falwell all those years ago. Flynt thought it was damn funny to publish a parody of Falwell. So, in Hustler magazine Flynt published a parody ad of Falwell having sex with his mother in an outhouse(after first kicking the goat out of course). It was meant as a joke to give working class people, the majority of Hustlers readership, a good cheap laugh. Well, Falwell took offense to this and dragged Flynt and his company though a long court battle which took years to finally resolve. It was clear from the start that Falwell was not going to win this case in the end. The supreme court finally had to get involved and of course ruled in Flynt's favor. Yes, Flynt lied about the sexual history of Falwell but he did not intend to cause damage to Falwell's ability to maintain a job or live within the community. He was simply expressing himself and making a joke. It was clearly stated under the ad in question that it was a parody and meant as humor. So, what we can learn from that is freedom of speech cannot be limited on matters of taste. The fact that Flynt made an off color joke in a magazine intended to be risky and adult themed is not a violation of Falwell's right to live peacefully in his own community. Nor did such a joke damage Falwell's ability to maintain his job. Yes, Falwell was really offended but it is highly unlikely he suffered any deep emotional trauma. In the case of Flynt VS. Falwell, it is perfectly legal to offend another person in the United States of America.

Now, let's look at another example from, my current home for almost six years, Tokyo, Japan. The laws on freedom of speech and expression are pretty much the same in Japan except for a few minor differences. I will not get into Japanese free speech laws at this time. What I want to point out is the difference between violating someone's rights under the natural law of liberty vs. simply expressing yourself in a manner which might offend others. I took the picture featured in this post at Shibuya, Tokyo. It was in the early evening when a truck rolled by with an ad featuring a row of almost naked young women. The ad was for some web site which had little to do with beautiful young women. In Japan, such types of ads are so common that it is really rare for anyone to feel deeply offended. This truck was driving around the main section of Shibuya to expose this companies ad to as many people as possible. Let's use the America idea of freedom of speech and expression to judge if this ad damages the local business's  ability to make money and exist in the community. If this trucking company regularly drives ad trucks around Shibuya featuring almost naked young girls promoting a variety of products, and sales of several businesses in the area drop during the same time, is the trucking company liable for damages caused by the ad?

Frist of all, we would have to prove that the ads directly lead to a drop in sales for the local businesses. The only two ways to do that would be to get ahold of public complaints filed concerning the ads or customers saying, on record, they will not shop at the area due to the ads. Even if you have both of those things it would still be very hard to prove the trucking company is liable for damages. Shibuya is an area in which there are plenty of ads featuring half naked young women. So, it becomes clear very quickly that being offended does not fall into the terms of liable or slander.

It would appear that freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to offend everyone. Morality or personal taste has no bearing on freedom of speech or expression. Like wise, if someone does say something which offends you, it is your right to respond to what was said. You cannot respond with violence or attempt to damage someone's ability to maintain their job or live peacefully within their community. A war of words is the only proper way to respond to speech which offends you; under the natural laws of liberty.

The Resistance of Our Times

There always comes a point in which most people ask your man of liberty, `What are you resisting? You seem to be against everything.` I considering such a question to be strange and fair at the same time. I consider it strange because it is so clear that humanity is at a cross road between independent republic sovereignty and tyrannical global governance. I  also consider it a fair question because, sadly, a lot of people are just not aware of what is happening before their eyes. Humanity, as a whole, are still in a very eyes wide shut situation. It seems as if most people know what is going on but refuse to admit it. They are just not aware of the gravity of our times.

To be frank, we as a human race really are in the fight of our lives. So many things happening at an increasingly fast pace that a man of liberty really is left with little choice but to be against just about everything. After years of watching, reading, writing, researching about world government I know full well that the ideas of liberty are not in favor with the powers that be. It seems every decision, policy and law is totally against the classical ideas of liberty. It is sickening at times that those in power seem to take the position that they grant liberty to those who they see fit to receive it. Liberty is not something to be granted. Yet, it is something every human on the planet is born with and must choose to give it away. All too often most people give up their liberty without a second thought.

The common person just does not see the point in standing up for their born rights as a human being. The image of global government projects such power that most people simply feel powerless. In their minds they must know that their liberty is being taken from them. Yet, they go along with it because they feel powerless. They feel that if they stand up for themselves they will end up being labeled a `trouble maker` and bring great suffering to their lives. So in their feelings of powerlessness and fear they give up their liberty in order to avoid trouble.

They feel safe if they just go along with having their liberty taken from them as long as they don`t say anything. What most people don`t realize is that it will get worse. As global government takes hold the power elite will never be satisfied. They will keep taking more and more until the common people are nothing more than stomach zombies who go along with anything they are told.

This is the resistance of our times. Liberty vs. Tyranny. Such struggle has been fought though out the history of humanity. In our modern times this battle has taken turns which no every foresaw. Which side will you be on when the hammer comes down?

The Power of the Tenth

2011 has now arrived. Many American`s, having no job and losing hope daily, still found a way to smile and ring in the new year. Now that all the cheap wine has been drank and merry making is over we are still left with the question; How to we take our nation back? So many people are left scratching their heads as to what to do. For many liberty lovers it seems everything attempted to restore liberty to Americans ends in failure. The big knock out blow to government tyranny seems to be unattainable. Maybe it is time to bring out the secret weapon. The one thing which always scares the scum bags running the Federal government is of course the tenth amendment of the US Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In short the tenth amendment states that any power not granted to the Federal government,by the US Constitution, is a power of a state or the people directly.

The tenth amendment is often dismissed as simply overstating the already clearly defined relationship between the Federal and State governments. It is also seen as something not to be invoked due to the fact that the tenth was used by the Southern States as a way to justify seceding from the Union during the civil war. The latter point is used by many to dismiss anyone invoking the tenth as grounds to claim the Federal government has overstepped its bounds. Yet, these `talking points` commonly used to marginalize the tenth fail to take from it the power to keep the Federal government in check. Just because it is hard to invoked the tenth successfully, does not mean to cannot be done.

How can the tenth be used to get the Federal government under control? This is a question which gets asked often. Well, there are many things which the Federal government does these days which can be challenged by invoking the tenth amendment. The most effective way to use the tenth is in situations in which the Federal government makes agreements or treaties without making the same agreements or treaties with the states. This becomes very important when you consider all the various treaties the Federal government makes with the UN; just as an example.

Lets take the UN gun ban (which you can read a bit about here) that is slowly coming to realization in the chambers of the UN. This planned treaty would start the process of banning private gun ownership by the central governments of all member nations. Under certain conditions, the Congress could actually ratify this and the Supreme Court could give them a legal pass. Yet, this does not mean that the local state government would be powerless to stop such a clear attack on personal liberty and national sovereignty. The tenth amendment would have to be used by the state governments to block Federal authority.

Some might argue that since the Senate represents, in theory, the states then by the Senate ratifying such a treaty than an agreement will have been reached with the states. This is not true. The Senate is part of the Federal government and makes laws within the power of the Federal government; not the actual states themselves. A national gun ban would be completely out of line with the US constitution; even if the supreme court fails to make a ruling throwing out such a ban. At that point the tenth amendment would come into play. The states would invoked the tenth under the grounds that the only agreement the states have made with the Federal government, concerning the people`s right the hold arms, is the second amendment. The states would reserve the power to regulate fire arms sales and ownership since the Federal government does not have such power from within each state. So the Federal government could sign a UN treaty to ban fire arms but it would only apply on Federal property or outside of a union state(which is all states).

Now this may be a bit of a extreme example, based on something actually happening in UN chambers, but it does outline how the tenth can be used to keep the Federal government in check. Keep in mind the Federal government often abuses the ethos of common law to get around the tenth. This is why it can be hard to invoke the tenth amendment successfully. When attempting to use the tenth amendment a lot of research must be undertaken to ensure the Federal government does not use end-around tactics in common law to dismiss a tenth amendment argument.

For an extra case study in using the tenth amendment on a personal level to protect yourself from Federal intrusion read this.             

 

21st Century Liberty(New Year`s Edition)-Freezing, Starving, and Record Profits

It has been 18 days since my last post here on The Ghost of Liberty. Don`t worry I am not dead nor have I been arrested. December is usually a busy month for many folks and I am no exception. Although, this season is not so happy for many of our fellow Americans. Poverty has become widespread in our nation. So many people are living on the streets or in half-way houses. There are sure to be many people who will freeze to death during the winter snow storm currently engulfing the east coast. Many of our little ones are going hungry as their parents simply cannot provide them with food. Santa will not visit millions of families this year because they did not pay their bills to the bank. Speaking of banks, many of the nation`s biggest banks have been reporting record profits in 2010. All those people who are starving and freezing to death this winter bailed out those banks in order to insure record profits will be had in 2010. This is the face of American liberty in the 21st century.

It appears that becoming penniless and homeless in the land our forefathers built is the `new way` in modern America. Not only have our leaders sold us out, they have also decided to molest and abuse us when we make an attempt to travel. Yet, though all the suffering, hunger, and humiliation the banks are cleaning up and somehow America is recovering from a economic meltdown. The Federal government gave the people`s money away to the banks and in return the banks took everything from the American people. The United States made an investment in the nation`s largest banks and we have lost everything. We trusted our leaders to do the right thing and they sold us out to greedy cold blooded bankers. It has got to be very clear to the average citizen they have been robbed. How can anyone still believe that the bankers have not set them up and stole the nation`s riches. America got played for a fool big time!

As Americans eat pea soup, sleep on the streets, and listen to their children beg them for food remember why there are no jobs, heat, or food this holiday season. Remember who stole our money. Remember who sold us out. Remember it is time to get mad as hell!       

Geraldo Rivera Calls O`Reilly Out on Federal Stings to Create Terrorist.

The mainstream media can be a fun circus to watch at times. When your brain is so burnt out that only the lowest standards of debate and reporting can keep your attention, it is time for cable news. The cable news in post-modern America is a Stainest vision of how to convince the people that government is good for them. All the time and man power put into `creating the news` might just be the largest fascist corporate propaganda machine in the history of mankind. It sickens the soul to think that they put some slick `professional journalist` with a big white smile praising every action taken by the grand Federal government. Yet, sometimes the raw truth forces it`s way to the surface.

Case in point is the unusual news stories Geraldo Rivera has been picking up over at Fox News Network as of late. This sold out monkey of the corporate media has been pretending to be a journalist of the people since the 80`s. Back then he was busy getting his noise broken by Neo-Nazi`s. These days be is just another gear in the Fox News machine. Yet, we may have hard on Rivera over the years. Recently, as I pointed out in an earlier post Rivera did an entire segment on WTC ' with a group of professionals and victim`s family member. The interview was done on fair grounds and Rivera not once attack his guest. Such `reporting` on any cable news network is rare.

Rivera is at it again, only this time he is mixing it up with the pissed off neo-con Bill O`Reilly. The report was on a young kid in America getting arrested for trying to blow up a Federal building. The report is so clearly pointing out the fact that the government set this kid up was too much for Rivera to keep silent.

         

US government tracking Americans Without Warrent Though Use of a `Hotwatch`

American used to project an image of `The land of freedom` to the world. Yet, it seems these days the only image America projects is war,greed, empire and fascism.  As an American, it is not easy for your man of liberty to write such words but the truth is written on the wall. Of the numerous policies which destroy liberty in America, the one which may be ruining personal liberty in American the most tracking of US citizens by the Federal government. 

Most people are aware of the warrantless wiretapping program which was put in place by Bush W. and maintained by Obama. What has made this policy truly disturbing is that the Federal Government not only was out in the open about it but also defended secretly tracking US citizens without warrants and little or no oversight. At this point one would think that tracking phone calls, e-mails, and text messages would be enough but there seems to be no end to the Federal government desire to track US citizens every move. Due to the efforts of blogger Christopher Soghoian documents have been released which show the Federal Government tracking US citizen`s purchases without warrant and without the person targeted knowledge. As shocking as this new level of government tyranny is, I have no choice but to report that it all true.  The document which Chris pressured to get released details exactly how, and by which methods, the Federal government uses so-called Hotwatch tracking to see what any American buys. You can read the doc. by clicking here.

What makes this kind of spying program truly disturbing is that while the released docs. explain what kind of purchases they target and the method of going about it, what it leaves out is the standard to engage in such activity. This document, which took Chris over a year and a half to get release, contains no mention of a need to ask the courts for permission to engage in tracking a US citizen`s financial transactions. On page three of the ten page government doc. is clearly states the number one way in which such authority is granted is by `Administrative subpoena with a court order for non-disclosure.` In short, the government has agents signing off on their own orders to track US citizen`s financial transactions. The teeth of such an order is only a court order which prevents or bank or company from informing the person targeted.

With such a system in place the government now has FBI and CIA agents running around targeting anyone they want for pretty much any reason as long as they say it is for, `an ongoing investigation.` There is no oversight and the courts can do little to stop it. The level of corruption and revenge such policy creates must be massive. With the right paperwork any US citizen can have almost any financial transaction they do tracked and recorded by the government. The docs. express no standard so we can only assume government agents can order a `Hotwatch` whenever they want. When people talk about a police state this is what they are talking about.