all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Apr 27th 2006

Alberto Gonzales: Idiot

I always had my doubts about the crony-ish appointment of Alberto Gonzales to be our nation’s Attorney General. Now I know why. He is simply an idiot.

He wants to enlarge the scope and reach of the already ridiculous DMCA. Why? To combat music piracy. But wait…here is what Alberto “I’m a Dumb Tool” Gonzales actually said:

“Because of the changes in technology, it’s so much easier (to pirate) now. What that’s doing is encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual property theft, and that involvement is used, quite frankly, to fund terrorist activities. It is a great concern to the Department of Justice and the administration.”

This is just too much. I am not voting for a single Republican this coming fall in congressional races. Sorry Michael Steele.

I just don’t see the point any longer of having Republicans in power in DC. We’ve got uncontrollable spending, wishy-washy immigration reform, a bigger federal influence in local education, and the list goes on and on. Now the Bush administration is trying to fly this crap that a college freshman downloading MP3s is funding terrorism.

Enough!

19 Responses to “Alberto Gonzales: Idiot”

  1. scruff

    Now that you’ve sworn off voting for a single Republican (!), it’s a good thing that the law permits you only to vote for, well, a single Republican (or candidate of a different party affiliation) in the coming congressional races.

    Presumably, you’ve registered to vote only once, right? So that means you’ll have the opportunity, like every other registered American, to vote for ONE congressional candidate. Of course, if you meant to include senatorial races under the “congressional” umbrella, then you’d get to vote someone into that foolish body, too (provided your state has a race this year). And, I’m assuming you weren’t referring to state legislative races, either, since those candidates aren’t joined at the hip with the national party, nor did they have anything to do with the confirmation of anti-P2P Aberto Gonzalez.

    Not to be too nitpicky, but in light of the fact that you don’t exactly have a ton of votes to throw around this fall’s congressional races, your line-in-stand bit of rhetoric seems kind of weak. Plus, if you’re still a resident of Utah, then abandoning the Republican contender in your district matters even less. Don’t mind my pessimism, though–I wouldn’t want to stand in your way as you throw down the gauntlet and teach the GOP a lesson!

    Either way, I love reading this blog, and realize that it must take a lot of work to maintain, but can’t you do better than Alberto “I’m a Dumb Tool” Gonzalez? Kind of harsh, don’t you think? Ironic, too, because a mere two months ago the J. Reuben Clark Society awarded that dumb tool its national award for distinguished service.

    There are plenty of dumb tools in this country to go around; perhaps your scorn would be better directed at them. Admittedly, Gonzalez’s new piracy-equals-terrorism idea sounds pretty ridiculous, yet it’s hardly the worst bit of insanity floating around the Capital right now. That you chose to point it out over much sillier and more pressing examples, and take a cheap shot at Gonzalez in the process, reflects negatively on the rest of your opinions. Such lazy thought doesn’t deserve to be posted alongside the rest of your quality posts.

    Also, if you need a reason to vote for Republicans this fall, turn on C-Span while Feingold, Clinton, Dean, or Pelosi are speaking–three minutes, tops, and might change your mind.

    Furthermore, punishing Michael Steele, a candidate who hasn’t even been in a national position yet and thus bears little, if any, responsibility fo the current mess in D.C., is shortsighted and, let’s be honest, downright retarded. You’d really give up all the potentional–for political success AND for implenting more conservative policies–that Steele could bring just to teach the Republicans *already* in power a lesson?

    Um, if one lesson is to be learned about the members of Congress in power, it’s that they’ve lost sight of any long-term goals and care only about retaining their own power. So, appropriations comitteehead Lewis, for example, isn’t going to shed tears, or learn a lesson, when Micheal Steele loses his race. The best way to combat the awful intransience in Congress is to elect more prinicipled conservatives. Or would you vote against, say, Mike Pence, too?

    Otherwise, great blog. I comment now only becuase I typically enjoy your posts and was disappointed to find such misplaced anger and myopic political perspective in place of the usual hilarity and dead-on commentary.

  2. Yeah. Um. What he said.
    Love your work, though.
    But really, most dems are worse.

  3. Ryan

    Doug, are you going to vote for independents or something?

  4. I share your frustration but I liked what scruff said:

    Also, if you need a reason to vote for Republicans this fall, turn on C-Span while Feingold, Clinton, Dean, or Pelosi are speaking–three minutes, tops, and might change your mind.

    I have found this to be true on numerous occasions.

  5. briant

    Scruff: Idiot and Lobotomy Candidate

    Dear Scuff and other close-minded morons who don’t understand Doug’s post.

    For once this blog has called the GOP on their hypocrisy and double standards. Is Doug wrong to voice his opinion against Republicans?

    1) They aren’t spending our tax dollars wisely;
    2) They don’t have enough tax dollars so they increase the nation’s deficit;
    3) They only people they serve are people with deep pockets.

    Why did it take him so long to realize that the Republicans are arrogant and self serving?

    I love the counter arguments that Scruff gives. You are completely in the dark. Most likely you are addicted to soma and you haven’t had a free thought in 6 years. I know soma is yummy, but here are some problems with your reasoning.

    1) “Doug has one vote.” Hooray you can count. But the fact that you and many other people read this blog points to the fact that Doug can voice his opinion and help others see his point of view. Scruff, you are anti-democratic and a mere sheep in the herd of the GOP. You smell too.

    2) “Alberto Gonzales must be awesome because he got an award from the JRCLS.” Although this may indicate that Alberto has some integrity and has worked hard, how does this make his political reasoning sound? Scruff, in your comment when you address the actual issue, you admit that Gonzales is wrong, and yet you bash Doug and tell him that this is wrong issue to get uptight about. Have you heard of the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back? Did I mention you were anti-democratic?

    3) “Also, if you need a reason to vote for Republicans this fall, turn on C-Span while Feingold, Clinton, Dean, or Pelosi are speaking–three minutes, tops, and might change your mind.”
    Right, you assume that all Dems are in the same boat as you: mindless followers. There are dumb people in both parties, but that doesn’t mean the entire party is wrong. Voters should consider candidates, not just parties. Scruff, next election go to vote-smart.org instead of wasting your time with Hannity and other biased media. Did I mention you are a soma addict?

    Thus ends my ranting. Scruff, I have nothing personal against you and agree with a few good points you made about how to combat the frustrations Doug has raised. But bashing Doug for voicing a legitimate concern will not help anyone. Let’s discuss the issues and not make it so personal. Eye for an eye, bash for a bash.

  6. doug

    Scruff,

    Thanks for the comment and for your continued readership.

    Had you visited the Michael Steele link, or done a google search of his name, you could have saved yourself the trouble of your first three paragraphs (he is the de facto GOP nominee for Senate in Maryland).

    …in light of the fact that you don’t exactly have a ton of votes to throw around this fall’s congressional races, your line-in-stand bit of rhetoric seems kind of weak.

    True. This is, after all, a personal blog. I can only comment on how I vote. 🙂

    …can’t you do better than Alberto “I’m a Dumb Tool” Gonzalez?

    Nope. Although if I could go back I would also refer to him as an ignorant tool, an off-task tool, a crony tool, a lying tool, and a corporate tool.

    Ironic, too, because a mere two months ago the J. Reuben Clark Society awarded that dumb tool its national award for distinguished service.

    I did not realize that The Great Oz had spoken on the matter. Forgive me. 😉

    …punishing Michael Steele…is shortsighted and, let’s be honest, downright retarded.

    I don’t view not voting for a candidate as punishing them. If Lt Gov Steele feels punished by those who don’t vote for him, so be it, I suppose. Punished or not, I don’t see the point of voting for any normal GOP candidate, especially one who is going to enter the Senate or House with very junior status.

    The best way to combat the awful intransience in Congress is to elect more prinicipled conservatives.

    Yeah…we did that in 1994, didn’t we? And you know what? It worked as long as a Democrat was president!

    Heck, the GOP got Clinton to control spending, balance the budget, and reform welfare. It appears that Clinton accomplished more conservative policy goals with a GOP congress than Bush has.

  7. briant

    amen doug.

  8. Briant,

    While urging “scruff” not to take things personally, you also insult him as a soma addict, which is an Ad Hominem Variant – that’s making it personal.

    scruff, your post was a snore. Holy cow, we know he only has one vote per type of candidate. However, I have heard that they’ve made special provisions in the law for people who have proven themselves capable of maintaining two contradictory positions (such as shaming someone over an imagined oversight of democratic principle, yet discouraging democratic expression in the very act), which means that you will probably get two votes.

    Wait. Am I going ad hominem?

    Your post also had an I’M NOT SAYING THIS Sleight of Mind, a COMPLIMENTARY INSULT Cheap Shot Tactic and Irritant.. and probably some other stuff.

  9. briant

    alex,

    yeah, i know i was getting personal with scruff. it was too personal, and i did it to show him that getting personal doesn’t get us anywhere. my comment was ad-hominem-variantish, but i was simply making of caricature of scruff’s nit-picking and cheap-shot tactics. thanks for the word of the day.

  10. Ryan

    You’re all fools!!!

  11. Scruff

    By trying not to be completely negative in my comments–i.e., by pointing out that I enjoy reading this blog, which I do (or did)–I was taking a cheap shot, apparently, Well, whatever. I meant what I wrote, but I thought Doug himself was taking a cheap shot calling Alberto Gonzalez a tool.

    Briant, I honestly don’t understand your “rant.” First, you emphasize that Doug has “for once” called the Republicans on their hypocrisy, following your assertion with three reasons, only one of which, by the way, Doug explicitly mentioned in his post; I didn’t see anything in his complaints pertaining to not having enough tax dollars or serving only people with deep pockets, as you state, but maybe you were just hoping to educate. Great. Unsurprisingly, you conclude that I haven’t managed a free thought in six years. You’re right, if only I had spent less time on this blog and more on vote-smart.org, as you helpfully suggest, I wouldn’t be so “in the dark.” Thanks for enlightening me. (Then again, I smell, so why bother?) I disagreed with Doug, yet I didn’t obnoxiously declare that he couldn’t think for himself. But, of course, I’m the one, according to Alex, employing a “sleight of mind” (whatever that means).

    Briant, your points in turn.

    1) Yes, I can count. That was cute. For a five-year-old. My argument wasn’t that Doug couldn’t influence people–clearly, he hasn’t done all that much for you, however, if only now (“for once”) you find yourself in agreement with him on GOP double standards–it was that he was being overly dramatic and a bit silly in declaring that he wouldn’t vote for a single GOP congressional candidate this fall, considering he only has the ability vote for a single candidate anyway. Yes, I was nitpicking the rhetoric; so what? Doug bolded a line that doesn’t really make sense. I’ve read nothing among the subsequent comments that truly refutes what I said. On this blog, letters, columns, and other writings, are routinely eviscerated for their incoherence, ignorance and/or inanity. It’s practically a sport here, one I generally find entertaining. It’s ridiculous to lambast my nitpicking on a site partially predicated on the very same thing. (See the “fisking” examples in the archives.) I don’t think anything I wrote should be considered “too personal” for someone who’s calling the Attorney General a lying tool. Still, teaching me a lesson by writing that I smell was quite brilliant; I doubt Matlock could’ve made a stronger case. (See, I’ve dropped my apparent “sleight of mind” in favor of outright ridicule. Hope it’s appreciated.)

    2) I did not write that “Alberto Gonzalez must be awesome because he got an award from the JRCLS,” nor did I even imply as much. I wrote that it seems odd to call someone a “dumb tool” a mere two months after the same individual has won such a prestigious award from an influential group like JRCS. I didn’t use that as evidence that his political reasoning is sound, only as suggestive that calling him a “dumb tool” is gratuitous. As I wrote, I do think that Gonzalez is probably wrong on the issue that Doug highlights, but I don’t think his particular stand on that issue merits maligning him as Doug did. (If you do, that’s fine, but don’t mischaracterize my statements.) Additionally, I didn’t advise Doug to completely refrain from criticizing Gonzalez’s stance; rather, I urged him to perhaps show little more respect, adding that if he’s going to get so angry, he might as well start with bigger problems than this. Does that mean I’m infringing on his right as a blogger? If so, what’s the point of enabling comments? Regardless, I will save my time in the future.

    How exactly am I anti-democratic in pointing out that Doug has only a single congressional vote, that he shouldn’t abstain from voting for Republicans if he supports conservative principles (which seems to be the case), and that his ire might be better directed at bigger fish? Does that put me in opposition to democratic principles? In anything, I was clarifying an aspect of the process and urging a fellow citizen to engage the process in a certain way. There isn’t one thing anti-democratic about it.

    3) You’re right, mindless people can be found in both parties. I just happen to name the national party LEADERS of the Democrats. I suppose I’m being a little anti-Democrat, but not anti-democratic. Funny, too, that you reference Hannity, because I’ve never even heard the guy on the radio, watched a whole episode of his show on Fox or read anything he’s written.

    Doug, I understand that your blog is personal, and I understand that you can comment only about how YOU vote. Well, my comment was directed at you and was exactly about how you as an individual will vote. So I guess we agree.

    Unfortunately, I’m not the Great Oz, though I do enjoy helping farm girls from Kansas from time to time; I guess I’m halfway there. My opinions are what they are–opinions. Just like yours.

    We simply disagree over the question of whether not voting for a candidate equals punishment. Given your reference to a litany of Republican misdeeds, your accompanying withdrawal of support would appear to result from your desire to either remove Republicans from power or, less harshly, to send them a message; either could reasonably be interpreted as punishment. Further, by signally your indifference to Michael Steele’s campaign, you’re effectively holding him responsible with the rest of the GOP for what, in your opinion, has gone wrong, which also seems like punishment to me. That’s my take. Obviously, we don’t draw the same conclusion.

    About Michael Steele. Um, I did click on the link, even though I didn’t need to follow it in order to recognize Steele. I live in Washington D.C. and am very familiar with Michael Steele’s campaign. He has a great chance of becoming the first Republican senator from the state in over two decades. He’s refreshing, hardworking, and is committed to many positions with which I would presume, considering your other posts, you would agree. He could do great things. So, unlike you, I am not indifferent to his fate. Yes, GOP arrogance has brought many conservatives to decide as you have. It’s not your fault that so many Republicans in power have gone astray. Yet, I find our solution short-sighted and counter-productive.

    I still don’t get your point in italicizing that Steele is the de facto Senate nominee from Maryland. How does that solve the problem of my first three paragraphs as you say it will? You still can only vote for one congressional representative and one senator. I wasn’t sure where you lived, that’s all; I figured Utah, but didn’t want to make the assumption without being sure. Your bolded statement remains just as over-the-top, whether or not I knew who Steele was or even where you live.

    I have many friends who similarly repeat the hackneyed line about Clinton and the GOP achieving more conservative victories. Even though I see some truth in such an argument, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant or apt as a comparison but will not waste any more of your time trying to make that case. You may be right (though, the presidency of Reagan, which is a better example–conservative pres., Democrats in control of the leg.–suggests that such a balance won’t necessarily lead to a sudden sense of discipline among congressmen). In fact, if the GOP loses a lot of ground this fall, I really do hope that you are right.

    Either way, I remain disappointed with your branding of Gonzalez, especially now that you’ve so generously added “ignorant, off-task, lying, corporate and crony” to the list. Seriously, did he do something to you? Don’t worry, I won’t comment about Gonzalez any further after this–as I said before, I don’t want to get attacked for overstepping my bounds–but do you really think Gonzalez is that bad? Based on what?

    Maybe I’m going to have to go back and re-read your archives again, because I had pegged this blog completely differently. I can’t tell if you’re simply exaggerating to be funny or if you’re really that asinine. But I am sincerely disillusioned. As I indicated previously, I did not mean to be patronizing before when I said I enjoyed your blog; in fact, I have recommended it to several others. But maybe I should reconsider (I know, I know, good riddance to me, etc.). Gonzalez is nowhere near perfect, but you make it sound like the guy’s running Enron. Geez.

  12. briant

    scruff,

    sorry i came down so hard. your initial comment wasn’t as despicalbe as mine was, but i still believe that some of your arguments failed to address the actual issue. that was the only point i tried to make with my sill comment.

    sorry can’t type too much, soma made my fingers sticky and Limbaugh is on the telescreen.

  13. Uuuuuunnng.

    Probably Doug’s comments about Gonzalas were ridiculing, and scruff, you’re complaining of being ridiculed while you call someone else a “five year old”. I’ve totally lost sight or interest in your point of view in this, and I can see how I must have done that to others, elsewhere, in the dark and fading past..

  14. doug, i just briefly skimmed the hollywood reporter article, and i come to a different conclusion than you. it appears the administration’s main concern is overseas piracy, in such places as southeast asia, where any group can organize to sell pirated CDs on street corners. from the article:

    “It is vital the government has the tools and resources necessary to combat intellectual property theft globally, and I look forward to continuing cooperation with our government to protect America’s ideas and innovations.”

    while i was in chile, i saw that piracy was rampant. i do not have hard data, but my impression is that anywhere from 75% and up of vulnerable sales in chile were of pirated intellectual property. when i say “vulnerable sales” i mean sales of items easily capable of being pirated, like music, movies, software, etc.

    i would like to see more of a push for copyright protections internationally (where there truly is widespread piracy and there are relatively few legitimate purchases, in contrast to consumer behavior in the US, where legitimate purchases are still very high).

    so, on this one, i think you made an incorrect assumption, doug. i do not think gonzales and the MPAA were talking about college students in the US.

    however, just to be safe, someone should check to see that alberto has a valid SSN. [this is a half-joke. haha]

    i am very upset that the administration is taking such a limp-wristed approach to illegal immigration and runaway spending. current polls seem to reflect that americans share our disgust. if the politicians don’t listen to us, i hope everyone votes accordingly this fall. the best case scenario, of course, would be for conservative leaders to get the message and act before the election.

  15. doug

    while i was in chile, i saw that piracy was rampant.

    so, on this one, i think you made an incorrect assumption, doug. i do not think gonzales and the MPAA were talking about college students in the US.

    Perhaps, although my original point still holds. Here is what I said:

    Now the Bush administration is trying to fly this crap that a college freshman downloading MP3s is funding terrorism.

    Replace “college freshman” with “Chilean ‘businessman’ who is going to sell music for $1 a CD”. It’s still bogus. Maybe there is some obscure Bulgarian piracy ring that helps fund a a few thousand dollars worth of Chechnyan terror? But the guy that is selling the latest Kelly Clarkson CD outside the supermarket here in Argentina? Or China? Or basically anywhere outside the U.S.? I doubt it, but thanks for playing Alberto.

    Travis, your comment made me reread Gonzales’ comments, and this really grabbed my attention:

    Because of the changes in technology, it’s so much easier (to pirate) now. What that’s doing is encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual property theft…

    How counterintuitive is that steaming pile of cow dung? I have seen, first hand, the exact opposite happen in both the United States and Argentina. Before, only large-scale criminal enterprises could afford to commit piracy on a large-scale.

    Hence, pirated movies were only available on street corners in DC from guys who moved around pretty often. Now, any Joe Schmoe can download Ice Age 2 from the internet. Same thing here Argentina. Harder to pirate before, but now there are whole columns in the classified section from every Juan, Jose, and Jorge offering pirated CDs of music and software for $3 pesos a pop.

    All you need now to commit large-scale piracy is a high speed connection to the internet and a CD/DVD burner. Several years ago, it was only large-scale criminal enterprises who could afford to be large-scale pirates…not so anymore.

  16. doug, you haven’t really answered my question. i can feel you wanting to give up your futile argument, but you are too stubborn. i like that about you.

    Maybe there is some obscure Bulgarian piracy ring that helps fund a a few thousand dollars worth of Chechnyan terror?

    yeah, i think chechnya is a likely trouble spot, as well as southeast asia. i don’t think piracy in chile is funding terrorism, just like i don’t think piracy at american universities is funding terrorism. but i think it is very likely that if piracy is rampant in south america and china, it might be popular elsewhere in world 3. china’s piracy problems are ridiculous:

    U.S. customs officials report that by far the majority of pirated goods entering the United States come from China. And the U.S. Trade Representative’s office estimates that last year, 85 to 93 percent of all sales of copyrighted products in China were pirated. [source]
    ::::::::
    The United States believes Beijing could open the door for billions of dollars of increased U.S. exports through tougher enforcement of laws on piracy and counterfeiting, which costs U.S. business an estimated $250 billion in lost sales annually. [source]

    piracy is huge in china, but it’s probably not an attractive way for people in malaysia or singapore to earn money…nah.

    gonzo: Because of the changes in technology, it’s so much easier (to pirate) now. What that’s doing is encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual property theft…

    doug-o: How counterintuitive is that steaming pile of cow dung? I have seen, first hand, the exact opposite happen in both the United States and Argentina. Before, only large-scale criminal enterprises could afford to commit piracy on a large-scale.

    it is counter-intuitive if you continue to use your powers of assumption like you’re doing. the question is not large versus small criminal enterprises, as you impute the meaning to be. the distinction gonzales raises could validly be interpreted to be between individuals downloading or acquiring copyrighted material extra-legally for personal use and groups mass-reproducing these digital copies in hard format for sale. i would argue that is what he means. an individual could, of course, commit piracy on a significant scale if he spent every waking hour at the job:
    =============
    5am: call to prayer; prayers facing mecca
    6am: toast and latte; read the new york times to remind yourself that the US will soon lose in iraq
    7am: start burning CDs and DVDs
    9am: take the five discs you just burned to the marketplace
    11am: sell out, come home, pray, watch CNN international to remind yourself that the US will soon lose in iraq
    12noon: burn more discs. you wish you had more people helping you, because this job is getting tiring.
    4pm: head out to market. you sell all nine discs you burned.
    6pm: prayers. personally deliver the latest beheading video to the manager on duty at reuters baghdad bureau. he says “thanks. come again, and remember, your secrets are safe with us.”
    9pm: you replay cindy sheehan and michael berg audio tapes over and over to help you fall asleep. they keep you filled with hope. you just hope the few pirated discs you managed to burn tonight will bring allah some money tomorrow.
    9:14pm: a US laser-guided missile hits your cave. your entrails do not even reach the walls to splatter upon them, as your entire sorry being has been completely obliterated upon its impact.
    =============
    do you see how hard it would be for an individual, even with technology, to carry out a large scale operation bringing in significant money from piracy? do you also see how, in the world of muslim extremists who live in caves and commute on camels, an individual’s “large-scale piracy enterprise” might be something we in america might call “small scale?”

    time to throw in the towel on this one, doug. i think you misread the article. that would be twice now.

  17. doug

    time to throw in the towel on this one, doug. i think you misread the article. that would be twice now.

    Ok. Make that three times.

    Here is what Alberto Gonzales wants passed (and I’m quoting the whole thing so that my misreading of what he wants doesn’t interfere with reality) 😉 :

    — A change in the law that would recognize a copyright in a criminal case before it is filed with the Register of Copyrights so authorities don’t have to prove that thousands of works pirated over the Internet are all copyrighted;

    — Expand the forfeiture and restitution requirements so that equipment, goods, records and other items used or intended for use in piracy are forfeited to the government and to hold pirates criminally libel for restitution for damages to the rights-holder;

    — Make it a crime to attempt to infringe a copyright;

    — Increase the amount of jail time for repeat offenders;

    — Clarify that importing and exporting infringed goods is illegal;

    — Allow authorities to obtain a wiretap for suspects in intellectual property crimes.

    The only thing I see in these provisions with any relation to the “ridiculous” piracy in China is where his pet law clarifies that “importing and exporting infringed goods is illegal”. Yet the two articles you referenced explicitly refer to internal piracy in China, nothing about the millions of fake Chinese DVDs that are being imported and flooding the streets of Anytown, USA.

    Oh, wait, that’s because it isn’t happening.

    In fact, I think that Briant hit the nail on the head in his original comment to this post regarding Republican enthusiasm on the issue.

    They only people they serve are people with deep pockets.

    Amen.

    Now, regarding my second misreading of his comments. Here is Gonzales:

    Because of the changes in technology, it’s so much easier (to pirate) now. What that’s doing is encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual property theft…

    And here was your take on it:

    the distinction gonzales raises could validly be interpreted to be between individuals downloading or acquiring copyrighted material extra-legally for personal use and groups mass-reproducing these digital copies in hard format for sale.

    Exactly!

    And what I’m saying is that he is an idiot thinking that technology has suddenly made it easier for large-scale criminal enterprises to do this. They were stamping CDs and DVDs years ago (long before Napster, Kazaa, and BitTorrent). Technological advances in the past several years hasn’t made it “so much easier” to pirate for large-scale criminal enterprises, aside from lower marginal costs of blank CDs and DVDs.

    Quite the contrary, it is now quite easy for small scale folks to make money doing this. Not a ton of money, but enough to live comfortably.

    A quick example…

    A guy here in Cordoba, Argentina can place a classified ad in the local newspaper offering pirated music and software for $3 pesos per CD. He sells them in packs of 5 CDs. He sells seven packs a day. That’s 35 CDs. He can burn those on his two PCs easily in under 4 hours. He makes over $2,000 pesos a month. That’s a nice income here in Argentina. Not enough to fund any kind of terrorism, but a decent lifestyle is made possible by “changes in technology” that have made it “so much easier (to pirate) now”.

    Of course, this is all irrelevant to Gonzales and his fellow MPAA/RIAA tools like Orrin “I Will Destroy Your Computer” Hatch. They don’t care about passing this law to stop piracy here in Argentina. This expansion of the DMCA will be used against “pirates” in the United States. And it is abundantly clear who they consider pirates in the USA:

    a 12 year-old girl
    an 83 year-old dead woman
    a computer-less family

    Thanks but no thanks, Alberto. You can peddle your DMCA warez elsewhere.

  18. […] –Scruff, Apr / May 2006 [link and link] I wonder….if GW Bush is as insincere and conspiratorial as this blog leads me to believe […]

  19. […] then go about the business of staffing government at every level with–wait for it–more and more […]