dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
649
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

1 recommendation

rdmiller

Member

Reliable source

Karl is quoting (FNU) Masnick as his "reliable" source. Chuckle.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

1 recommendation

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by rdmiller:

Karl is quoting (FNU) Masnick as his "reliable" source. Chuckle.

I fail to see the issue what the issue with Mike Masnick is, he has a blog he reports on Copyright from a consumer perspective.

Copyright maximalists quote liberally from Chris Castle's blog (www.musictechpolicy.com) and somehow his perspective on copyright gets passed off as truth all the time.

Chuckles indeed.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

said by El Quintron:

I fail to see the issue what the issue with Mike Masnick is, he has a blog he reports on Copyright from a consumer perspective.

His bias shows a little in Karl Bode See Profile's quote from Masnick's article.
said by Mike Masnick :

negotiated in the backrooms with private parties and no participation from the actual stakeholders: the public.

The public is only one stakeholder of several, not THE stakeholder.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

said by Mike Masnick :

negotiated in the backrooms with private parties and no participation from the actual stakeholders: the public.

The public is only one stakeholder of several, not THE stakeholder.

Karl's quote said "actual stakeholders".
It was you who said "THE stakeholder".

The folks who create legislation are ethically bound to serve only constituents. Those constituents are actual stakeholders.

A corporation isn't entitled to a stake in legislation.
Purchasing legislative favors from elected officials doesn't alter that.

Even so; corporations continue to confuse their interest in legislation, with a right to have legislation that serves them.
Many voters and legislators are similarly confused.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re-read the quoted text from Masnick.
said by Noah Vail:

The folks who create legislation are ethically bound to serve only constituents. Those constituents are actual stakeholders.

A corporation isn't entitled to a stake in legislation.

Why not? If corporations aren't going to be represented, perhaps they shouldn't pay taxes. Anyway, Congress Critters will do whatever creates/maintains jobs and/or raises revenue in their districts. Enforcing copyrights and minimizing potential loss of revenue based on infringement benefits the economy at large.

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

Pirate515

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

Re-read the quoted text from Masnick.

said by Noah Vail:

The folks who create legislation are ethically bound to serve only constituents. Those constituents are actual stakeholders.

A corporation isn't entitled to a stake in legislation.

Why not? If corporations aren't going to be represented, perhaps they shouldn't pay taxes. Anyway, Congress Critters will do whatever creates/maintains jobs and/or raises revenue in their districts. Enforcing copyrights and minimizing potential loss of revenue based on infringement benefits the economy at large.

Corporations have people working for them. If these people are treated well, then it is these people who should go lobby their elected officials to push forward their corporate agenda.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Those people working for the corporations pay taxes, so yes, they should be represented in government. Corporations pay taxes as well, so should they not be represented in government?

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

1 recommendation

Pirate515

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

Those people working for the corporations pay taxes, so yes, they should be represented in government. Corporations pay taxes as well, so should they not be represented in government?

IMO they should also be represented; however, the main thing to consider is how much weight should corporate representation hold against representation of the people? With people, it's very simple (1 person = 1 vote).

The main problem today is that many elected representatives put corporate representation way higher than that of the people.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Noah Vail

Premium Member

to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:

said by openbox9:

said by Mike Masnick :

negotiated in the backrooms with private parties and no participation from the actual stakeholders: the public.

The public is only one stakeholder of several, not THE stakeholder.

Karl's quote said "actual stakeholders".
It was you who said "THE stakeholder".

The folks who create legislation are ethically bound to serve only constituents. Those constituents are actual stakeholders.

A corporation isn't entitled to a stake in legislation.
Purchasing legislative favors from elected officials doesn't alter that.

Even so; corporations continue to confuse their interest in legislation, with a right to have legislation that serves them.
Many voters and legislators are similarly confused.

The golden rule: money talks in politics like everywhere else. Constituents aren't nearly as important to a politician winning reelection as money is.

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Why not? If corporations aren't going to be represented, perhaps they shouldn't pay taxes.

Corporations as it stands pay less taxes, and the risks to the individuals running the corporation is less than in other structures of private enterprises.

This is because a corporation is supposed to contribute to the public good, hence why "the people" assume a percentage of the risk. So no, corporations should not be represented anymore than they already are, because the don't assume the same risks or financial liabilities that private companies and individual do.

Historically speaking, that's why corporations were allowed to exist in the first place.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

said by El Quintron:

Corporations as it stands pay less taxes, and the risks to the individuals running the corporation is less than in other structures of private enterprises.

Sometimes, definitely not always. Corporations pay taxes multiple times as monies flow through them and then the money is taxed again with the people that the money goes to. Plus, the US now has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world.
said by El Quintron:

So no, corporations should not be represented anymore than they already are, because the don't assume the same risks or financial liabilities that private companies and individual do.

Corporations actually assume more risk and have more to lose. Anyway, you do agree that corporations should have representation in government, right?

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

Corporations actually assume more risk and have more to lose.

Define more to lose... corporation goes bankrupt creditors seize assets, person(s) who bankrupted corporation escape with their personal assets intact.

Person/Private company goes bankrupt... owner's assets are on the hook. Seems like more risk comes from an individual or private venture.
said by openbox9:

Anyway, you do agree that corporations should have representation in government, right?

Not particularly, or at least nowhere near the amount of representation they do now.

Pirate515
Premium Member
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY

1 edit

Pirate515

Premium Member

said by El Quintron:

Define more to lose... corporation goes bankrupt creditors seize assets, person(s) who bankrupted corporation escape with their personal assets intact.

Person/private company goes bankrupt... owner's assets are on the hook. Seems like more risk comes from an individual or private venture.

You are 100% correct. In fact, IMO the main purpose of allowing corporations to exist was to give people the incentive to open businesses without the risk of their personal assets being seized in the event of a failure.
Pirate515

Pirate515 to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Sometimes, definitely not always. Corporations pay taxes multiple times as monies flow through them and then the money is taxed again with the people that the money goes to.

I though that corporations only get taxed on profits, not revenues. In other words, they must pay taxes off the money that they have left after paying rent/mortgage, bills, materials, equipment, employees' salaries and whatever other expenses they may incur. Employees' salaries are written off as expenses and thus not taxable to the corporations, which makes employees themselves responsible for paying taxes as this is their personal income.