Since I don't have the time to go through each one, just some general comments.
1) All the women need to stop thinking so damn much! Most of them seem to know the steps, but then they have these brain farts which get them all mucked up.
2) The men are better than last season. I'm impressed at how many of them can move their feet.
3) To the comedian who got booted last night: you cost us Edyta!!!!!!! Now who is going to set the standard for kicking the heels past their ear while wearing next to nothing.
Early picks: Lance, Mysti, and Brooke.
Who should stay for the entertainment value alone: Cloris "Battleship Geriatrica" Leachman.
Who needs to go now: Maurice Greene (the rhyming thing is driving me nuts)
Dark Horse: Warren Sapp
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Thinking About This Mess
So another day on Wall Street, another 300 plus point drop. This keeps up much longer and I'm going to start thinking that is the norm.
However, a little more seriously, I'm looking at what the Bush Administration intends to do. Essentially, it wants to pump a lot of, what will ultimately be, taxpayer money into saving people who are getting hit by the market downturn. Specifically, they (meaning the Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress) want to spend about $700 billion (more on the credit card I suppose, since as I recall, Bush and the Congress have collaborated to create a huge budget deficit already) in order to buy up bad mortgages from failing institutions.
My question is why?
Yes, I understand that if they go under, it will be economically bad. But the plan that seems to be floating out there is going to do very little to either A) undo the mess, B) prevent it from happening again or C) punish those who got us into this mess in the first place.
Now, the financial situation, from my lay point of view, was sort of inevitable. There is always going to be a downturn, especially when it comes to housing. It just is un-realistic to think that prices would never fall, that defaults would never happen, or that the value would continue to go upwards. The sub-prime loans were a bad idea, that too many people bought into, and that too many presidential administrations did nothing to ensure that they would remain monitored.
Consider this, subprime lending only became available when the laws in this country were relaxed in regards to usury. What is usury you may be wondering? In TV shows, its what a loanshark deals in regular basis. Originally, usury meant the charging of interest on loans. For centuries, the practice was banned in the Catholic Church (and as an interesting histotical side note, one of the reasons why the great banking houses were Jewish originally, i.e. the Rothschild family). However, in the U.S., the concept of usury evolved into situation where the interest on the loan exceeded the permissible rate. In California, its anything over 10%.
In 1980, at the tail end of the Carter Administration, Congress passed a law called the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act in 1980. One of the things which this law did was it eliminated interest rate caps for a number of types of credit loans, including mortgages. In the 1990s, Wall Street started to securitize (or making them tradeable on the market) mortgages. Since they could use them as securities, it was a way to make more money. The more mortgages, the more securities available to sell or trade. So the mortgage companies started to look for more people to loan money.
However, they ran into a problem. With interest rates as they were in the 1990s, there was already stiff competition for people with good credit. However, despite the 1980 Act, there was still a relatively large and untapped pool of people to market subprime mortgages.
Now, it should be noted, that subprime mortgages were meant to be used by people who could not get a traditional mortgage. These are people who have bad credit histories, credit scores of below 620, and people with bad debt ratios (i.e. more than 45% of their income goes to servicing debt).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated that in 1994, there were approximately 70 lenders who did subprime mortgages. By 1997, that number had more than tripled to 270. In 1993, subprime mortgages represented approximately $20 billion dollars in loans made. By 2000, the number had reached $140 billion and was continuing to rise.
With the increase in subprime lenders, there was also an increase in subprime mortgages being written. And the more that these companies got into the business, it seems, the more addictive it became for them. While this was happening, two administrations (Bush and Clinton) failed to recognize the potential problems that this could cause.
In addition to an overall expansion of subprime lending, there began to be a shift in how subprime loans were made. According to one report, the shift became most noticeable in 2006. Prior to that, subprime lenders were competing by making rates more attractive (i.e. not requiring such high interest rates to people who had blemished credit histories). However, begining with the mortgages in 2006, it appears that there was shift in the guidelines and a lowering of standards even further to allow more people to qualify for the loans.
Why did they do this? The answer is simple: profits. Prior to 2006, and specifically in 2004, interest rates on mortgages hit their lowest levels in decades. For people with good credit, that was a great. They could get mortgages at very low rates of interest. For people with bad credit, it was even better. They could get mortgages that were not usurious (or at least not as bad had been previously). The people who is was bad for was the corporations making the loans. For every dollar they loaned, they were making less than on previous years. Therefore, they needed to do somethign which would increase their profit margins. Their solution: raise the interest rates on their loans, but decrease or make exceptions to the requirements for people taking out the loans.
Let's see. A desire for ever increasing profits. Mixed that with predatory lending practices targeting people who have demonstrated they can not be trusted with credit in the first place. Sounds like a great plan to me.
What did this lead to? Increase home values (because so many people had access to money they were able to bid up the prices of real estate), increased profits over the short-term (looked great on their balance sheets) and lots of people owning property that they did not really have the money to support.
So now the Bush Administration, as well as both major candidates, want to bail everyone out. About the best that can be said for Senators McCain and Obama is that they both agree that none of the bailout money should be used to pay for CEO/executive compensations for getting us all into this mess. The initial plan proposed by the Bush Administration was best summed up here.
Now, where will we get the money to do this bailout? Well, it will have to be borrowed, since the government does not have nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars lying around (which by the way means that every taxpayer is on the hook for approximately $2,300). What will it do? Well that is a good question
Part of the argument which is going on now in Congress is exactly what should happen with the bailout. (If only half as much thought had been put in the PATRIOT ACT... but I digress).
Reading some of the interviews that are going on, its interesting to get some of the mindset of the Bush Administration people who are doing the talking. For instance, when asked about limiting executive compensation, Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson declined to consider that as part of the package. As he stated, if such language were included in the bailout package, "institutions aren't going to participate ...this won't work the way we need it to work,...." apparently because it will be viewed as punitive. It almost seems to me as if he is saying that the drowning man won't accept a lifeline because it means he will have to let go of the thing that is dragging him down.
Besides, if the entity accepting help under the bailout needs help, isn't that an indicator that something is wrong in the first place? When did we start rewarding failure as if it were success? Apparently, the Bush Administration wants to pretend as if nothing the financial houses did was wrong, because to admit to that might leave the door open to.... a modernized, comprehensive regulatory system that makes sense! Horror! Regulations are bad... and must be abolished to allow market freedom which will benefit everyone in the end. ... Except of course when the Republicans want to tinker with the market to protect their friends.
Which takes me to my next point. The people who owe the money on the mortages. They are just as complicit in this financial mess as the executives on Wall Street. Not partly. Equally. They sat across a table from someone and had a chance to review the terms. As long as they were all included, and all the necessary discolsures were made, they had a choice. Subprimes were always a gamble. They had to hope that the value of their property would increase enough to help them refinance or that they would continue to be making enough money to meet their loan payments. Many people, including myself, looked at subprime mortgages when they had an opportunity to buy property. Many people, including myself, walked away from subprime mortgages because they were simply too economically risky.
Why then should we reward these people by keeping them housed? All it will do is continue to artificially inflate the value of real property. This in turn will make it harder for people to put together sufficient capital necessary to get a prime mortgage, at a good rate.
In fact, part of the proposal put together by Congressional democrats includes a provision which will allow bankruptcy courts to refashion mortgage terms in order to avoid foreclosure. Apparently, to the Democrats, contracts are really meaningless until an outsider has a chance to reform the terms which the parties previously agreed to in good faith? Apparently, according to the Democrats, we should reward people for not taking into account what the terms of the contract means before signing. We should encourage people to not consult an independent financial or legal advisor, and instead just tell them to go ahead, fail, the government will come and bail you out just like the Republicans do for the executives on Wall Street.
From my point of view, the mortgage industry enhanced this mess by not realizing that they were going to get the profits which they hoped for and instead sat down to reformulate the terms with the customers. Instead, they just kept letting properties go into foreclosure, leaving them with worthless mortgage securities to trade. At the same time, too many of the people who took out these mortgages did not pay attention to wath they were doing. They did not do what was necessary to keep up with the mortgage payments. They were not proactive enough to get things done.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that there will be a recession if we do not bail out the mortgage industry. I am not in favor of a recession, but if all we are going to do is spend money to save the people who put us in this mess, without providing for real reform and real consequences to both Wall Street and the subprime defaulters, then it might not be a bad thing. Otherwise, we are just artificially inflating the markets... and inflation which will come back to hurt us even more later.
However, a little more seriously, I'm looking at what the Bush Administration intends to do. Essentially, it wants to pump a lot of, what will ultimately be, taxpayer money into saving people who are getting hit by the market downturn. Specifically, they (meaning the Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress) want to spend about $700 billion (more on the credit card I suppose, since as I recall, Bush and the Congress have collaborated to create a huge budget deficit already) in order to buy up bad mortgages from failing institutions.
My question is why?
Yes, I understand that if they go under, it will be economically bad. But the plan that seems to be floating out there is going to do very little to either A) undo the mess, B) prevent it from happening again or C) punish those who got us into this mess in the first place.
Now, the financial situation, from my lay point of view, was sort of inevitable. There is always going to be a downturn, especially when it comes to housing. It just is un-realistic to think that prices would never fall, that defaults would never happen, or that the value would continue to go upwards. The sub-prime loans were a bad idea, that too many people bought into, and that too many presidential administrations did nothing to ensure that they would remain monitored.
Consider this, subprime lending only became available when the laws in this country were relaxed in regards to usury. What is usury you may be wondering? In TV shows, its what a loanshark deals in regular basis. Originally, usury meant the charging of interest on loans. For centuries, the practice was banned in the Catholic Church (and as an interesting histotical side note, one of the reasons why the great banking houses were Jewish originally, i.e. the Rothschild family). However, in the U.S., the concept of usury evolved into situation where the interest on the loan exceeded the permissible rate. In California, its anything over 10%.
In 1980, at the tail end of the Carter Administration, Congress passed a law called the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act in 1980. One of the things which this law did was it eliminated interest rate caps for a number of types of credit loans, including mortgages. In the 1990s, Wall Street started to securitize (or making them tradeable on the market) mortgages. Since they could use them as securities, it was a way to make more money. The more mortgages, the more securities available to sell or trade. So the mortgage companies started to look for more people to loan money.
However, they ran into a problem. With interest rates as they were in the 1990s, there was already stiff competition for people with good credit. However, despite the 1980 Act, there was still a relatively large and untapped pool of people to market subprime mortgages.
Now, it should be noted, that subprime mortgages were meant to be used by people who could not get a traditional mortgage. These are people who have bad credit histories, credit scores of below 620, and people with bad debt ratios (i.e. more than 45% of their income goes to servicing debt).
The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated that in 1994, there were approximately 70 lenders who did subprime mortgages. By 1997, that number had more than tripled to 270. In 1993, subprime mortgages represented approximately $20 billion dollars in loans made. By 2000, the number had reached $140 billion and was continuing to rise.
With the increase in subprime lenders, there was also an increase in subprime mortgages being written. And the more that these companies got into the business, it seems, the more addictive it became for them. While this was happening, two administrations (Bush and Clinton) failed to recognize the potential problems that this could cause.
In addition to an overall expansion of subprime lending, there began to be a shift in how subprime loans were made. According to one report, the shift became most noticeable in 2006. Prior to that, subprime lenders were competing by making rates more attractive (i.e. not requiring such high interest rates to people who had blemished credit histories). However, begining with the mortgages in 2006, it appears that there was shift in the guidelines and a lowering of standards even further to allow more people to qualify for the loans.
Why did they do this? The answer is simple: profits. Prior to 2006, and specifically in 2004, interest rates on mortgages hit their lowest levels in decades. For people with good credit, that was a great. They could get mortgages at very low rates of interest. For people with bad credit, it was even better. They could get mortgages that were not usurious (or at least not as bad had been previously). The people who is was bad for was the corporations making the loans. For every dollar they loaned, they were making less than on previous years. Therefore, they needed to do somethign which would increase their profit margins. Their solution: raise the interest rates on their loans, but decrease or make exceptions to the requirements for people taking out the loans.
Let's see. A desire for ever increasing profits. Mixed that with predatory lending practices targeting people who have demonstrated they can not be trusted with credit in the first place. Sounds like a great plan to me.
What did this lead to? Increase home values (because so many people had access to money they were able to bid up the prices of real estate), increased profits over the short-term (looked great on their balance sheets) and lots of people owning property that they did not really have the money to support.
So now the Bush Administration, as well as both major candidates, want to bail everyone out. About the best that can be said for Senators McCain and Obama is that they both agree that none of the bailout money should be used to pay for CEO/executive compensations for getting us all into this mess. The initial plan proposed by the Bush Administration was best summed up here.
Now, where will we get the money to do this bailout? Well, it will have to be borrowed, since the government does not have nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars lying around (which by the way means that every taxpayer is on the hook for approximately $2,300). What will it do? Well that is a good question
Part of the argument which is going on now in Congress is exactly what should happen with the bailout. (If only half as much thought had been put in the PATRIOT ACT... but I digress).
Reading some of the interviews that are going on, its interesting to get some of the mindset of the Bush Administration people who are doing the talking. For instance, when asked about limiting executive compensation, Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson declined to consider that as part of the package. As he stated, if such language were included in the bailout package, "institutions aren't going to participate ...this won't work the way we need it to work,...." apparently because it will be viewed as punitive. It almost seems to me as if he is saying that the drowning man won't accept a lifeline because it means he will have to let go of the thing that is dragging him down.
Besides, if the entity accepting help under the bailout needs help, isn't that an indicator that something is wrong in the first place? When did we start rewarding failure as if it were success? Apparently, the Bush Administration wants to pretend as if nothing the financial houses did was wrong, because to admit to that might leave the door open to.... a modernized, comprehensive regulatory system that makes sense! Horror! Regulations are bad... and must be abolished to allow market freedom which will benefit everyone in the end. ... Except of course when the Republicans want to tinker with the market to protect their friends.
Which takes me to my next point. The people who owe the money on the mortages. They are just as complicit in this financial mess as the executives on Wall Street. Not partly. Equally. They sat across a table from someone and had a chance to review the terms. As long as they were all included, and all the necessary discolsures were made, they had a choice. Subprimes were always a gamble. They had to hope that the value of their property would increase enough to help them refinance or that they would continue to be making enough money to meet their loan payments. Many people, including myself, looked at subprime mortgages when they had an opportunity to buy property. Many people, including myself, walked away from subprime mortgages because they were simply too economically risky.
Why then should we reward these people by keeping them housed? All it will do is continue to artificially inflate the value of real property. This in turn will make it harder for people to put together sufficient capital necessary to get a prime mortgage, at a good rate.
In fact, part of the proposal put together by Congressional democrats includes a provision which will allow bankruptcy courts to refashion mortgage terms in order to avoid foreclosure. Apparently, to the Democrats, contracts are really meaningless until an outsider has a chance to reform the terms which the parties previously agreed to in good faith? Apparently, according to the Democrats, we should reward people for not taking into account what the terms of the contract means before signing. We should encourage people to not consult an independent financial or legal advisor, and instead just tell them to go ahead, fail, the government will come and bail you out just like the Republicans do for the executives on Wall Street.
From my point of view, the mortgage industry enhanced this mess by not realizing that they were going to get the profits which they hoped for and instead sat down to reformulate the terms with the customers. Instead, they just kept letting properties go into foreclosure, leaving them with worthless mortgage securities to trade. At the same time, too many of the people who took out these mortgages did not pay attention to wath they were doing. They did not do what was necessary to keep up with the mortgage payments. They were not proactive enough to get things done.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve says that there will be a recession if we do not bail out the mortgage industry. I am not in favor of a recession, but if all we are going to do is spend money to save the people who put us in this mess, without providing for real reform and real consequences to both Wall Street and the subprime defaulters, then it might not be a bad thing. Otherwise, we are just artificially inflating the markets... and inflation which will come back to hurt us even more later.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Why Do I Blog As AngryBell?
Its very simple. I blog under this pseudonym because it distinguishes my law practice from my personal opinions. While I do use my legal training to inform the opinions which I give here, it would be misleading to some people, and confusing to others, to put the name I use for my law practice here.
And quite frankly, given some of the comments which I have received, both on the comments and to the email which I check (located here), I think its not a bad idea to make it a little harder for some people to find my real name (i.e. telemarketers and cranks). However, if you want to know my name, email me and be a mensch about it. Otherwise, to the anonymous poster (see the comments left at 10:44 p.m. and 10:46 p.m.) who decided that invective was better than argument and facts, I say this: "Piss off".
And quite frankly, given some of the comments which I have received, both on the comments and to the email which I check (located here), I think its not a bad idea to make it a little harder for some people to find my real name (i.e. telemarketers and cranks). However, if you want to know my name, email me and be a mensch about it. Otherwise, to the anonymous poster (see the comments left at 10:44 p.m. and 10:46 p.m.) who decided that invective was better than argument and facts, I say this: "Piss off".
Monday, August 25, 2008
This Is What Happens After Your Brain Goes to Law School
So I am reading Lowering the Bar's post on the request for a TRO by Philip J. Berg. In case you have not heard of this little insanity, Mr. Berg, a Hillary Clinton supporter, is seeking a TRO to block Barack Obama from running for president because, Mr. Berg alleges, he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
After describing the attempt, Lowering the Bar comments on the phrase "natural born citizen", referring to previous candidates who had their own problems, or at least questions, with meeting this qualification. But while reading this, I thought to myself, there could be problems down the road for some future candidates. I mean, what if a candidate was conceived through artificial insemination, i.e. in vitro? That would seem to call into question the whole natural thing. And then I wondered, does giving birth through cesearian section mean that they were not a naturally born citizen?
I wonder if Justices Scalia and Alito would stick to their guns then or if they would look to outside sources then?
After describing the attempt, Lowering the Bar comments on the phrase "natural born citizen", referring to previous candidates who had their own problems, or at least questions, with meeting this qualification. But while reading this, I thought to myself, there could be problems down the road for some future candidates. I mean, what if a candidate was conceived through artificial insemination, i.e. in vitro? That would seem to call into question the whole natural thing. And then I wondered, does giving birth through cesearian section mean that they were not a naturally born citizen?
I wonder if Justices Scalia and Alito would stick to their guns then or if they would look to outside sources then?
Dancing With The Stars Just Announced Their Line-Up
And here it is:
Kim Kardashian, reality TV star, will be dancing with Mark Ballas.
Cloris Leachman, Oscar-winning actress, Corky Ballas (Mark Ballas' father)
Maurice Greene, Olympic sprinter, will have the enviable task of being partnered with two-time winner Cheryl Burke.
Lance Bass, former N' Sync star, will dance with Lacey Schwimmer (who is making her first appearance on Dancing with The Stars. She is the 2006 U.S. Youth Latin Champ and 2007 World Swing Dance Champ).
Rocco DiSpirito, TV chef, will be Karina Smirnoff's cross to bear... er I mean partner... this season.
Warren Sapp, NFL star, will be partnered with Kym Johnson.
Misty May-Treanor, two time gold medal winning Olympic beach volleyballer, will be Maksim Chmerkovskiy's partner/victim.
Toni Braxton, Grammy award-winning R&B star, will be partnered with Alec Mazo.
Cody Linley, that cute kid from "Hannah Montana" show (otherwise known as the Disney representative on the show), will be dancing with the other two-time winner Julianne Hough.
Ted McGinley, veteran actor, will be dancing with another newcommer to the show, Inna Brayer.
Brooke Burke, actress/TV personality, will partner up with Derek Hough.
Jeffrey Ross, celebrity roaster and comedian, will be the burden that Edyta Sliwinska must bear this season.
Susan Lucci, "All My Children" star, will be partnered with cougar-magnet Tony Dovolani.
Looking at this list... I can't really see an early favorite outside of Lance Bass, and that is based on how well Joey Fatone did on the show a few seasons back. The down side is that its been a while since the last album... not to mention that the girls who idolized him as teens will probably not be there for him like they were for Joey. The boys on the other hand...
Another favorite would have to be Warren Sapp based on the Jerry Rice and Emmit Smith finishes (as long as he doesn't go the "Clyde the Glide" route). At first glance, it looks like Karina Smirnoff is still draying the short ends of the stick, although Edyta would seem to be close behind in that department.
As far as my sleeper pick... at first glance (and without seeing how any of this breaks down), I have to go with Susan Lucci. Big fan base. Good partner in Tony Dovolani. If she picks up enough, and given Tony's track record with the partner's he's had in the past, she could win it. I'm curious though to see what Mysti May-Treanor can do.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Finally A Bit Of Sanity
Some people who have read this blog might know I normally that I really don't like intellectual property laws (short version I think they are protected vested interests rather than helping innovation). With the RIAA suits against down-loaders (real and imagined), and the extension of the copyright act (essentially to protect Disney properties), it was all making me wonder if I was going to get sued at some point for quoting a movie line.
However, a Federal judge in San Jose gave me a little hope that maybe there might be some sanity in the system. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, issued an order today that stated that prior to sending a take-down letter, a copyright holder must first determine whether the use of the work constitutes "fair use".
So what does this mean? In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The basic purpose of the act was to prevent piracy. The unintended consequence has the assault on fair use. When a copyright holder finds out that their work may be used in an infringing matter on the internet, they have the ability to issue a takedown order. What this means is that anytime a copyright holder notices that someone is using any part of their work, they could send a take down order.
Which is what happened in the case before Judge Fogel.
The case started when Stephanie Lenz made a video of her 13-month old son rocking out to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy". She put it up on YouTube. Universal Music Corp., which holds the rights to song, issued a take down order. Now, the entirety of the song that was used came to 29 seconds. YouTube, complying with the law, took it down. However, they restored it when Ms. Lenz stood up to Universal and responded and had YouTube restore the video based on the "fair use" doctrine.
However Ms. Lenz, fortunately, was not one to take Universal's action lying down. She took the offensive and filed a lawsuit against the corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In her suit, she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (meaning she is seeking a declaration of her rights, not seeking monetary damages).
Universal has taken the position that a copyright holder has no duty to consider whether the use if protected by "fair use". Essentially, any time someone uses any of their "intellectual property", they can initiate proceedings against them without first considering whether the use is legal. Or to put it simply: sue first and let the courts sort it out.
Judge Fogel denied this theory. In his order denying Universal's motion to dismiss, he wrote,
Hopefully it won't be the last.
However, a Federal judge in San Jose gave me a little hope that maybe there might be some sanity in the system. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, issued an order today that stated that prior to sending a take-down letter, a copyright holder must first determine whether the use of the work constitutes "fair use".
So what does this mean? In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The basic purpose of the act was to prevent piracy. The unintended consequence has the assault on fair use. When a copyright holder finds out that their work may be used in an infringing matter on the internet, they have the ability to issue a takedown order. What this means is that anytime a copyright holder notices that someone is using any part of their work, they could send a take down order.
Which is what happened in the case before Judge Fogel.
The case started when Stephanie Lenz made a video of her 13-month old son rocking out to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy". She put it up on YouTube. Universal Music Corp., which holds the rights to song, issued a take down order. Now, the entirety of the song that was used came to 29 seconds. YouTube, complying with the law, took it down. However, they restored it when Ms. Lenz stood up to Universal and responded and had YouTube restore the video based on the "fair use" doctrine.
However Ms. Lenz, fortunately, was not one to take Universal's action lying down. She took the offensive and filed a lawsuit against the corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In her suit, she seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (meaning she is seeking a declaration of her rights, not seeking monetary damages).
Universal has taken the position that a copyright holder has no duty to consider whether the use if protected by "fair use". Essentially, any time someone uses any of their "intellectual property", they can initiate proceedings against them without first considering whether the use is legal. Or to put it simply: sue first and let the courts sort it out.
Judge Fogel denied this theory. In his order denying Universal's motion to dismiss, he wrote,
[F]air use is a lawful use of a copyright. Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright.As the EFF noted, essentially the court held that copyright holders "ignore fair use at your peril!" The case continues, but the order is a first.
...
[I]n the majority of cases, a consideration of fair use prior to issuing a takedown notice will not be so complicated as to jeopardize a copyright owner’s ability to respond rapidly to potential infringements. The DMCA already requires copyright owners to make an initial review of the potentially infringing material prior to sending a takedown notice; indeed, it would be impossible to meet any of the requirements of Section 512(c) without doing so. A consideration of the applicability of the fair use doctrine simply is part of that initial review.
...
A good faith consideration of whether a particular use is fair use is consistent with the purpose of the statute. Requiring owners to consider fair use will help “ensure[] that the efficiency of the Internet will continue to improve and that the variety and quality of services on the Internet will expand” without compromising “the movies, music, software and literary works that are the fruit of American creative genius.
Hopefully it won't be the last.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Just Like Old Times (or Scary Times (Part II)
To think that I used to miss the Cold War.
Well it appears that a cease-fire has been negotiated in Georgia. Again. Let's see if the Russians respect it this time.
For an interesting article about what has been going on, I suggest reading Steve Levine's articles over at The Oil and The Glory.
As it appears right now, Russia will be retaining control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officially Russia will only be there as "peacekeepers". However, what will more likely happen is that in a year or so, I anticipate that there will be a Russian-sponsored referendum where the people of South Ossetia will "vote" to be annexed by the Russian Federation.
Just as the Georgian situation starts to, hopefully, calm down, a new situation is on the rise. As some people may know, for months, the Bush Administration has been seeking partners in Europe to act as location sites for a missile defense system. Among those that have been targeted are nations in Eastern Europe including Poland and the Czech Republic. Today, it was announced that Poland and the U.S. have reached an agreement on the missile defense program.
Russia reacted predictably. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy commander of the Russian Air Force and a deputy of the Chief of Staff, stated, when asked about the agreement, "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent[.]" He also quoted Russian doctrine which permits the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them."
Aside from the fact that Russia has shown that its true colors are no different from those of Imperial Russia or Soviet Russia, it is interesting that it has taken this long for it to do so. Looking at what Putin has been doing to Russia since he took over in 1999, he has been trying to restore the old luster to Russia.
Now what is interesting is the timing of Putin's actions. From my less trained eye, the timing of the Georgian invasion seems to have been delayed. Judging from reports of what happened in Georgia, the Russian response to the situation appears to have been planned and not improvised. If it was planned, why did they wait so long? If this is the first step in Russia attempting to bully its way into recreating a bipolar world, why did they wait so long.
Start from the position that U.S. is only world superpower. As such, the U.S. is the preeminent threat to any country which seeks to establish itself as a hegemon in a region, continent, or hemisphere. Simply put, the U.S. has the ability diplomatically, economically, and militarily to project its power to any corner of the world. When bullets start to fly, as they have in Georgia, or are threatened, as is the case of Poland, then the most concrete form of U.S. intervention is the military.
The threat of a carrier battle group being dispatched to a region, of USAF aircraft being dispatched to create a no-fly zone, or of a U.S. Army Division being dispatched, causes many countries to pause before embarking on a military option. However, the threat of U.S. intervention is diminished if we are already engaged in a large campaign elsewhere which requires us to commit large quantity of our resources.
Which has been the case for the past five years. For five years, the bulk of the U.S. Army and USMC have been rotating through either Iraq or Afghanistan. This has left the bulk of U.S. deterrence to the U.S. Navy, USMC MEU units (when they aren't needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and Air Force. In many cases, this has been enough. However, Russia has a large army, with an air force which boasts approximately 850 modern combat aircraft. They also have a sizeable nuclear arsenal.
Had Russia rattled its saber against Poland and attacked Georgia even a year ago, this would have left the U.S. in a position where it could do almost nothing concrete. A year ago, the U.S. was in the midst of the Surge in Iraq. Troops were committed there and withdrawing them , or even threatening to, would have been incredibly difficult. Had Russia, or any other nation which aspires to the position of superpower (i.e. China) or regional superpower (i.e. Iran), made their move then, the U.S. would not have been in a position to easily act to counter them.
However, times are changing. No matter who becomes president in November, the reality of Iraq has changed because of the events that occurred during the Surge. The Iraqis are increasingly eager to provide for their own security and to see all or the majority of the U.S. and Coalition forces in the region withdrawn. Although Afghanistan will continue to be a work a progress over the next few years, it is not Iraq. Large conventional forces that are deployed there do not pay the same dividends as they would in other areas.
Essentially, it's almost as if the Russians have begun flexing their overt muscles too late. In some areas, it has been suggested that Putin feels that the U.S. cannot do without his influence over events in Iran. Perhaps, but if we do decide to forgo Russian help there, it could lead to failure which will only cause Russia more trouble as it tries to bring the Central Asian republics back under its influence.
That being said, the Georgian operation could have been spurred by Putin wanting to accomplish his objective before the U.S. is in a more balanced position to meet overt threats to its allies. Therefore, could we be in a sitaution where for the next year to two years, Russia will be pressing its agenda (i.e. bringing the Central Asian republics back under its hegemony, as well as seeking to keep more of the former Warsaw Pact nations from becoming enmeshed in NATO/U.S. security guarrantees) before the U.S. can do more than just offer unsupported diplomatic notes and presidential proclamations to support its allies?
One thing seems clear: the bear is back in the woods. It would be prudent to be ready to confront this bear, or any other that is lurking there.
Well it appears that a cease-fire has been negotiated in Georgia. Again. Let's see if the Russians respect it this time.
For an interesting article about what has been going on, I suggest reading Steve Levine's articles over at The Oil and The Glory.
As it appears right now, Russia will be retaining control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officially Russia will only be there as "peacekeepers". However, what will more likely happen is that in a year or so, I anticipate that there will be a Russian-sponsored referendum where the people of South Ossetia will "vote" to be annexed by the Russian Federation.
Just as the Georgian situation starts to, hopefully, calm down, a new situation is on the rise. As some people may know, for months, the Bush Administration has been seeking partners in Europe to act as location sites for a missile defense system. Among those that have been targeted are nations in Eastern Europe including Poland and the Czech Republic. Today, it was announced that Poland and the U.S. have reached an agreement on the missile defense program.
Russia reacted predictably. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy commander of the Russian Air Force and a deputy of the Chief of Staff, stated, when asked about the agreement, "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent[.]" He also quoted Russian doctrine which permits the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them."
Aside from the fact that Russia has shown that its true colors are no different from those of Imperial Russia or Soviet Russia, it is interesting that it has taken this long for it to do so. Looking at what Putin has been doing to Russia since he took over in 1999, he has been trying to restore the old luster to Russia.
Now what is interesting is the timing of Putin's actions. From my less trained eye, the timing of the Georgian invasion seems to have been delayed. Judging from reports of what happened in Georgia, the Russian response to the situation appears to have been planned and not improvised. If it was planned, why did they wait so long? If this is the first step in Russia attempting to bully its way into recreating a bipolar world, why did they wait so long.
Start from the position that U.S. is only world superpower. As such, the U.S. is the preeminent threat to any country which seeks to establish itself as a hegemon in a region, continent, or hemisphere. Simply put, the U.S. has the ability diplomatically, economically, and militarily to project its power to any corner of the world. When bullets start to fly, as they have in Georgia, or are threatened, as is the case of Poland, then the most concrete form of U.S. intervention is the military.
The threat of a carrier battle group being dispatched to a region, of USAF aircraft being dispatched to create a no-fly zone, or of a U.S. Army Division being dispatched, causes many countries to pause before embarking on a military option. However, the threat of U.S. intervention is diminished if we are already engaged in a large campaign elsewhere which requires us to commit large quantity of our resources.
Which has been the case for the past five years. For five years, the bulk of the U.S. Army and USMC have been rotating through either Iraq or Afghanistan. This has left the bulk of U.S. deterrence to the U.S. Navy, USMC MEU units (when they aren't needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and Air Force. In many cases, this has been enough. However, Russia has a large army, with an air force which boasts approximately 850 modern combat aircraft. They also have a sizeable nuclear arsenal.
Had Russia rattled its saber against Poland and attacked Georgia even a year ago, this would have left the U.S. in a position where it could do almost nothing concrete. A year ago, the U.S. was in the midst of the Surge in Iraq. Troops were committed there and withdrawing them , or even threatening to, would have been incredibly difficult. Had Russia, or any other nation which aspires to the position of superpower (i.e. China) or regional superpower (i.e. Iran), made their move then, the U.S. would not have been in a position to easily act to counter them.
However, times are changing. No matter who becomes president in November, the reality of Iraq has changed because of the events that occurred during the Surge. The Iraqis are increasingly eager to provide for their own security and to see all or the majority of the U.S. and Coalition forces in the region withdrawn. Although Afghanistan will continue to be a work a progress over the next few years, it is not Iraq. Large conventional forces that are deployed there do not pay the same dividends as they would in other areas.
Essentially, it's almost as if the Russians have begun flexing their overt muscles too late. In some areas, it has been suggested that Putin feels that the U.S. cannot do without his influence over events in Iran. Perhaps, but if we do decide to forgo Russian help there, it could lead to failure which will only cause Russia more trouble as it tries to bring the Central Asian republics back under its influence.
That being said, the Georgian operation could have been spurred by Putin wanting to accomplish his objective before the U.S. is in a more balanced position to meet overt threats to its allies. Therefore, could we be in a sitaution where for the next year to two years, Russia will be pressing its agenda (i.e. bringing the Central Asian republics back under its hegemony, as well as seeking to keep more of the former Warsaw Pact nations from becoming enmeshed in NATO/U.S. security guarrantees) before the U.S. can do more than just offer unsupported diplomatic notes and presidential proclamations to support its allies?
One thing seems clear: the bear is back in the woods. It would be prudent to be ready to confront this bear, or any other that is lurking there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
