"I don't have a clue what you mean in your last 2 sentences."

He means that businesses want to push costs off to the government.

And he probably thinks that's 'normal' too, as in 'fine and dandy'.

The problem with privatizing any government is simple: while government belongs to all citizens, private business belongs to the owners. Privatized government is no better then despotic dictatorship.

Unless you believe in the benevolence of corporate leadership. Just ask them, they'll tell you how much they care about you.

Who are homophobes really afraid of?

Other homophobes.

I always wondered why people were so sure that Colin Powell was a man of integrity and honour. He became a media star from his Gulf War I press conferences. Good looking, articulate, confident, all this from a black man! The press swooned and fell in love. They all referred to Powell with deep respect and admiration.

Looking good, sounding good, this is the mark of a man of integrity?

Was Powell really a hero in Vietnam? Not if you look at what he actually did; nothing really heroic or self-sacrificing. He was best at getting noticed and moving up the ladder.

When Bush installed Powell in 2000, I said "well this will wipe away that halo soon enough."

Damn that war, but I like making accurate predictions.

When rich people invest money, there may be some stimulating effect. But trickle-down proponents never mention what trickles back up; ownership and dividends.

Stimulating the economy from the top down distributes encumbered money, resulting in more power for the rich.

Just what the power-mad super-rich want, which is why they gave us Bush.

If we were just coming out of the period when women were chattel, it would be justifiable to interpret this trend as a sexist backlash. But that was well over 100 years ago, and it's been over 40 years since Feminism was a revolutionary idea. Equality of the sexes is a virtually universally accepted principle.

To me it seems to be a trend in pursuit of a more stable and long-lasting marriage, not a bow to patriarchy.

Are you my ex-wife?

Grandma was a tough lady, she could whip up thick bread dough like it was chiffon, and grab and haul a 12 year old boy across the kitchen floor and out the breezeway door with no trouble at all. And she taught me many more useful facts about the world then Grampa ever did.

All hail the venerable grandmothers of the world.

David Sugarman may get annoying and obnoxious at times, but other times he's right on the money, IMO. This is such a time.

David, please don't go over the top on Greenwald's blog, your banishment would impoverish the dialog.

It's ironic that you posted Dylan lyrics as a metaphor addressing this issue. Bob Dylan went to Washington to testify before Congress as an advocate for the Copyright Extension Act of 1998.

( from life plus 50 to life plus 70 )

I've lost all respect for Dylan as anything other then a good songwriter. He's greedy and un-principled.

Snark: And his singing is intentional punishment to his fans for liking his songs.

"Artists who don't get paid for their work, are quickly out of business, or worse."

Sure enough, although the world doesn't owe anyone an income.

Art has always been a risky business. That's probably why so much popular music isn't the least bit artistic. :)

"As for not selling copyright, that's just silly. Consider Brahms."

I'm not saying the author can't have someone else manage the business, I'm just saying the copyright proper can't be transfered to new ownership.

No Michael Jackson owning the Beatles songs.

"Copyright is an asset like any other, and should be fungible. And so it is."

I disagree.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature - Thomas Jefferson

http://www.usewisdom.com/sayings/patentsj.html

Ideas are not fungable assets, and should not be considered so.

A limited copyright is a reasonable perversity for the sake of incentive, not for income insurance.

"My point was simply that artists should be paid. We have copyright law to enable this. Sure, it's abused. What law isn't? But it's better than nothing at all."

Artists should get paid when someone agrees to pay them for art to be delivered. That's what musicians do every concert. ( or gig, in my case )

We don't have copyright law to ensure that artists get paid, that's what contract law is for. Copyright law was sold to the founders as an incentive to counter the risks due to the high cost of copying process, which are much cheaper today.

"If people download music illegally, and they know it's illegal, they deserve what they get."

And if you speak your mind at a Republican rally, you deserve what you get, eh?

If you dare to disagree with a police officer, you deserve what you get....

Might is right?

How un-American.

Copyright made sense when it took a lot of money to buy a printing press or a recording plant, but now it's dirt cheap to publish print or audio.

Add to that the fact that there is *so* much music and writing to choose from, the supply has far outpaced the demand.

So the price of music and words should drop, except for the artificial monopoly of the life-plus-70 copyright laws.

A free market would price this stuff correctly.

disclaimer: I am *not* a free-market-faith-healer. It's just a good argument because so much free market faith has infected people's minds, courtesy of your friendly well-financed right-wing think tanks.