personally, I appreciate Lawrence Lessig's more nuanced understanding of the Citizen's United ruling.

You're missing the point of this video. He never mentioned Democrats or Republicans. Reich, while he was Labor Secretary under Clinton, is currently part of Common Cause. As it slogan says, Holding Power Accountable. Similar to Lawrence Lessig and Change Congress / RootStrikers, they want to lessen the corporate influence on politics to bring it back to a government for the people. Reich is pointing out the flaws in legally allowing companies like Bain Capital to do what they do and profit excessively from it.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All you really need to know is that its a Robert Reich video to know to throw it in the trash where it belongs. It is such a dumbed down, simplistic 'unnuanced' (to use a leftist term) interpretation. Aw - and he even uses cartoons.
I see a lot of pontification, and moralizing, and oh-so-much self-righteous indignation. This kind of business practice is perfectly legal, and it is engaged in by Democrats and liberals all the time, but somehow only Romney is to blame of course. :eyeroll: Typical. As usual, its an election year hit piece used to angry up the blood of the ignorant and the stupid.
You guys act like firing people is some sort of horrible thing that should never never never be done. I know leftists are blindingly ignorant and uninformed of how things are in the "real world" rather than thier fevered imaginations... But companies have to fire people all the time. In fact, if they don't fire people then they become bloated, cumbered, over-saturated dinosaurs that get annihilated by thier competitors. I notice that even the moronic Robert Reich freely admits that the process makes the business work better and more profitable. No one likes to be fired, but as the years go buy companies build up headcount, and as time goes on there are jobs that become obsolete, tasks that are redundant, and processes that are inefficient. Tightening the screws is healthy. It is how companies survive and thrive.
I myself was a casualty of a "downsizing" a few years ago. It happens. It isn't the end of the world. You brush up your resume, get out and hustle, and find a new job. Only in the tortured, idiotic mindset of a liberals does it make any sense that all jobs should be permenant and unending. Grow up people.

Also, here's a much better TYT segment on the issue:

http://videosift.com/video/Glenn-Greenwald-Vs-Prof-Lessig-On-Citizens-United

A debate between thoughtful people who actually know what they're talking about, as opposed to the silly demagoguery in this video.

yeah, we really need to separate the money from politics.
not just reversing citizens united, but making fundamental changes to the election system...
a reasonable taxpayer funded campaigns with limited duration would ultimately cost a lot less than what we're currently paying at the other end.

when we have separated money from politics, only then the meaningful policy changes are possible.
the way it is now, it's almost impossible to beat the lobbies on any issue.

Lawrence Lessig's talk on campaign finance reform:
http://fora.tv/2012/01/17/How_Money_Corrupts_Congress_and_a_Plan_to_Stop_It

found a shorter version on sift here =)
http://videosift.com/video/Laurence-Lessigs-New-Lecture-On-Money-In-Politics

"Only if the word 'no-brainer' appears in it somewhere..."


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

No brainer.



P.S. Seriously with the Philip Glass music?

Lawrence "Larry" Lessig
is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention.
He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center, an advisory board member of the Sunlight Foundation and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig


Chris Hedges
is an American journalist, author, and war correspondent, specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies.
Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

Furthermore, the opposite correlations have been shown to exist for at least the first case, and the second seems almost completely decoupled.

I am not asserting that the RI/MPAA does not waste their money alienating their customers. Only that when they do that they don't have an evidence based economic reason for doing so.

I object to the industries "common sense" observation that they "must" be losing money ( when they are making the same or better money than prevailing trends would project at less expense ) being taken as a given without the slightest concern for facts.

If you search for "Could the industry as a whole be gaining" that's near the beginning of the details I'm referring to. Lessig cuts them a lot of slack, but the basic facts he lays out don't conform to the industry narrative I am disputing.

Full disclosure: my annual purchasing of music and movies went from ~$100 to ~$500 the year I started file sharing, and then from ~$500 to $0 the year the MPAA served me with papers, and I stopped file sharing. I'm biased, but I have been following this whole thing very closely, and I know they made money off me sharing, and they lost money by stopping me.

Okay, I downloaded it. Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion). Or even the passage you are citing as quantitative evidence that there is in fact a financial benefit to copyright holders from piracy?

Everything I've read so far agrees with most everything I've said.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^bmacs27:
@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.

While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html
I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

>> ^bmacs27:

@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.


While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html

I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

You can't cause the electorate to become educated any more than you can cause people to stop being greedy, unless you're talking OWS-style education.>> ^marinara:

Feb 15, 2010 is the date of this video.
IMHO, there's no good way to prevent cash from deciding elections. public campaign financing is a start. but IMHO an educated electorate is more important.

Um, you do realize the Patriot Act reduced restrictions on the use of power right @GeeSussFreeK ? A patriot act on the rich would allow them greater flexibility in how they continue to drain the economy and environment of whatever remains.

Also, using the word "attack" when talking about the rich is simple rhetoric. Rational policy that redistributes some of the wealth (as one example) is not 'attacking' - it is something that would benefit everyone.

What sort of campaign finance reform would you support btw? Do you like Lawrence Lessig (and others) idea of publicly financed elections via a constitutional convention?

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/4/as_states_take_on_citizens_united

tyvm!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

>> ^kulpims:

promote


beat me to it!
lessing gives great lecture....

And you would agree that we the people have created this lose-lose, toxic atmosphere?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.
For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.
Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband
-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed
Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.

Obama and Paul are both good guys. I give them both the benefit of the doubt that they'd like to kick some ass in Washington, but it's not possible with the way our elections are structured. In order to get elected, you not only need big business bucks, but you also need to reassure big business that their power will not be challenged, lest they tear you apart in the media. This creates an election to election cycle of dependency that nullifies not only the voice of the people, but also the vision of the politician.

For Ron Paul to get elected, he would need both the financial and moral support of multinational corporations, which leaves his supporters with 2 possible outcomes: a principled loser or a neutered winner.

Lessig talks about this cycle of dependency in the latter half of this video: http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Your-Broadband-Milked-For-Profit-Not-Speed

Until we sort out our campaign finance system, we will always have subservient leaders.