30 June 2010

Closer, but not quite...

From a BBC story about various actions being taken against people accused of unauthorised file-sharing:
ACS: Law has said its actions are legitimate, given how big a problem illegal file-sharing is for the music and film industries.

"It is the equivalent of someone stood outside HMV with a pile of the latest albums, handing them out to people who were intending to go in the shop and buy it," ACS: Law partner Andrew Crossley told the BBC.
On the positive side, it's good to hear a far more sensible analogy than the usual "it's no different to going into HMV and stealing a CD." This one at least acknowledges the difference between taking an item of material property, which prevents the owner using it and unauthorised copying, which doesn't.

On the negative side, the analogy still falsely implies that every file shared is a sale lost, but given ACS's business strategy, it's not too surprising that they'd want to maintain that implication.

28 June 2010

Ritchie Bottles it Again

This time, he didn't even bother to go down the route of putting up the "this comment has been deleted" sign, he just deleted two comments as if they'd never been there, including one which he'd already replied to and then posted this, in which he seems to have inadvertently barred himself from his own site:

@Richard Murphy and others - I am aware you are piling in with typical time wasting neoliberal pedantry on this issue - You add nothing to debate by doing so bar proving you have time to waste - As such I am closing this entry to further comment - And issue a polite warning that I am not inclined to ever post your nonsense - for precisely this reason - So please desist from time wasting again
The link goes to one of his previous replies to one of my posts, so I suspect I'm his actual intended target. As I've said previously, Ritchie seems to get most annoyed when you say something he should agree with, if he was being consistent, but doesn't want to.

In this case, the subject was football clubs and the high wages of footballers in the Premier League. As another poster commented that he viewed it as "A classic example of what happens when capital trumps regulation," to which I replied:
If anything, I would say it is a triumph of labour over capital.

English football is a relatively high-revenue, low-profit business. The scope for the capitalist, in this case, the owner of the club, to make a profit is severely constrained by the fact that the people labouring in the business to create the majority of the value to the consumer, in this case the players, are getting such a high proportion of the revenue.

I find it odd that people who would generally describe themselves as on the left (not directed at you, BenM, as I don’t know how you would describe yourself) are so quick to criticise a situation where the vast majority of the return goes to labour and very little goes to capital.
Ritchie chipped in:
If you really think £100,000 a week is a return to labour you have a lot to learn Paul

98% of that is capital

These people are businesses
This threw me a bit, as I was a bit confused about what capital he was implying was being provided by someone who, it appeared to me, was supplying nothing but their body. In the hope of getting some clarification, I posted this response, which was initially allowed through the moderation process, but subsequently deleted:
"If you really think £100,000 a week is a return to labour you have a lot to learn Paul"

It is a simple statement of fact. The player is paid for providing labour to the business.

"98% of that is capital"

What exactly is the capital that you believe they are providing? Other people own the shares in the club, the stadium, etc. The only asset they provide is their physical person and as far as I am aware, the human body stopped being viewed as capital when slavery was abolished.

"These people are businesses"

To the extent that anybody working in order to earn money is a business, then yes they are. It doesn't alter the fact that they are providing labour and not capital.
Ritchie replied (and bizarre left the reply even after deleting my comment):
Nonsense

Labour is not subject to transfer fees running to millions of pounds from which they do not by any means entirely benefit

The business is about the brand, not the labour

Brands are capital
My final reply, before he pulled down the shutters, was:
"Nonsense

Labour is not subject to transfer fees running to millions of pounds from which they do not by any means entirely benefit"


I think that's a bit off topic. Players enter into long term contracts to provide labour to clubs, which then have a value to the club, as they can insist on payment to allow the player to break the contract.

"The business is about the brand, not the labour

Brands are capital"


The business, if we are talking about the player, is the service provided by the individual. It is the training, playing and other labour provided by the person. If that labour provides an opportunity for the player to generate revenue from his reputation, it doesn't alter the fact that all he provides is labour, as all he is using is his physical person.

The only way he could be reasonably viewed as a capitalist is if you believe that a human being can be viewed as capital. I would hope that no civilised person would hold that viewpoint.
I really don't see anything controversial there. I was under the impression that Marxists and those with similar opinions on the the authoritarian left, generally wanted labour to get the full return from a business and in the Premier League, that seems to come close to happening. What many who call for greater state regulation of the sport tend to miss is that it would probably allow the owner to profit at the expense of the player.

Take the example of sports in the US, such as American Football. While the set-up is created by a closed-market franchise system, rather than state regulation, the end result is similar to what those calling for the latter in football want - capped wages, greater financial stability, very little business failure, etc. The overall consequence is that American Football tends to be more profitable, in spite of generating less revenue, so taking a similar approach would probably make more money for the owners of football clubs, while leaving the players with less.

This is what I think makes the situation so difficult for the authoritarian left to handle. They are presented with two options,
  1. A relatively free market, which will tend to favour the people providing the labour.
  2. A more heavily regulated market, which will tend to favour the people providing the capital.
and while in principle, they should probably favour the former, instinctively, they seem to prefer the heavy regulation that goes along with the latter.

19 June 2010

The Priceless Ritchie

I feel almost cruel fisking him, given what a soft target he is, but he invites it by his conduct. Even when he makes a post with some reasonable elements to it, he can't help but have a hissy fit if somebody points out, in reasonable terms, something which might hint that he isn't infallible.

Take the piece he posted today, the substance of which is essentially that a government isn't like a company because it can print money endless if it wants to. There's some merit to the point, but there are some issues with it. Another reader touched on one of them, to which Ritchie posted a reply which included this:
Take one simple example: there is no chance whatsoever of any company ever paying itself in currency it creates

But the government can demand it be paid in currency only it can create
In response to which, I posted this:
It generally operates that way, but it isn't inherently the case.

Any company can demand it be paid in whatever form it chooses and in terms of self-created currency, company issued scrip has existed in numerous forms.

I think the more significant difference is that, unlike most companies, a government can extract revenue by force and in doing so can maintain effective demand for its currency.

In short the difference is not so much that "the government can demand it be paid in currency only it can create" but that "the government can demand it be paid."
I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable point to make, but unsurprisingly, as I am a heretic who has previously denied the absolute truth of the word of Ritchie, it was blocked.

Of course, a government printing more money to cover its debts is perfectly possible. The flip side is that as a course of action, it doesn't exist in a bubble; it creates side effects. Most obviously, it is inflationary. Another significant element, which doesn't get mentioned as frequently, is that it is effectively a tax; it's just less obvious, because instead of the government taking cash directly, it funds its activities by making the cash which is in circulation less valuable.

Now, as Ritchie has previously criticised me for suggesting that it would be a good idea to increase the proportion of tax taken from land based taxes, on the basis that he feels that Council Tax is regressive, then I would expect him to examine whether or not this is a regressive tax before supporting it. I'm going to guess he hasn't, because it would appear to be a tax which is, at the very least, moderately regressive.

The burden of the tax falls on those who hold Pounds Sterling (or assets denominated in Pounds Sterling), with the burden being in proportion to the amount held. At first glance, that may appear to be a fairly progressive wealth tax, as the very poorest will have no savings and will face almost none of the burden. However, as you go up the wealth scale, a different picture emerges. Those with a small to moderate amount of savings will tend to have most of it in cash and accounts denominated in pounds. As you move further up the wealth scale, you would expect that proportion to fall, for two main reasons; firstly because those with more wealth will tend to feel a need to diversify and secondly, because there are transaction costs involved in converting cash to other investments which tend to produce economies of scale. For example, the dealing costs involved in buying a few shares would probably outweigh any potential gain in a way that wouldn't be the case if buying a larger number.

So, it would appear that the burden would fall, in proportion to total wealth, most heavily on those with low to moderate levels of savings. That's not the most obvious thing for somebody who supposedly dislikes regressive taxation to support.

17 June 2010

Quote of the Day

From Mervyn King's Mansion House Speech:
Still, we should not put all our faith in regulation. It has limits. If the structure of banking creates incentives to take excessive risk then regulators will be overwhelmed by the avarice so vividly captured by Michael Lewis in his book The Big Short. Incentives must be right. One misalignment of incentives today is the implicit guarantee to banks that are "too important to fail", so that creditors have little incentive to monitor the behaviour of banks because they believe they will be bailed out. This problem is too important to ignore.
It's not the first time he's made a point of letting people know that he understands how incentives matter and that moral hazard is a serious problem which has to be allowed for.

16 June 2010

WTF? of the Day

From the BBC:
Fifa is considering legal action against a Dutch brewery it accuses of using women fans to advertise its beer at the World Cup.

Stewards ejected 36 Dutch supporters from Monday's match between the Netherlands and Denmark midway through the second half in Johannesburg.

All were dressed identically in tightly hugging short orange dresses, sold as part of a gift pack by a Dutch brewery.

...

However, they were reportedly taken to a Fifa office where police quizzed them about the dresses and asked if they worked for the brewery, Bavaria.
FIFA establishing a dress code which bans the use of clothing for advertising in a World Cup venue sounds reasonable enough. If the rules are made clear up front, then requiring people to leave the ground for breaking the rules also sounds perfectly fair.

What I find outrageous is the existence of a system of law and policing which appears to be so corrupted by corporate interests that a choice of clothing which, at most, constitutes a breach of contract, should be considered worthy of police investigation.

Who is Materialistic?

I ask the question as a result of reading this sentence from a piece by George Monbiot addressing the Tea Party movement:
In the United States one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has ever seen - people gathering in their millions to lobby unwittingly for a smaller share of the nation’s wealth
I have mixed feelings about the Tea Party movement, so I've no desire to be seen to defend it or align myself with it, but Monbiot's criticism of it contains an ironic focus on materialism which often appears when instinctive authoritarians criticise those who are more liberty minded.

Those of us who value liberty highly are often criticised by authoritarians for wanting to created a selfish "me, me, me" world. That certainly isn't true in my case and while it may be true for others, it seems to me that, more often than not, it is the authoritarians making the criticism who are the more materialistic.

Take another look at the quote. Monbiot is criticising people for choosing to follow a course of action which does not appear to serve their financial self-interest. It's a thought process which appears to put the material above all else (or at least, above liberty) and assumes that those who do not focus on the material must be driven by misunderstanding, rather than a focus on other values.

It seems that those who value liberty face being both criticised by authoritarians for being selfishly materialistic and ridiculed by authoritarians for failing to be sufficiently selfish materialistic.

14 June 2010

Ofcom - Disgraceful and Pointless

I say that primarily because they've announced that they're happy to give the BBC the power to control which devices you can watch their transmissions on and even to delegate that decision to an unaccountable trade body.

This is going to be a significantly longer post then normal, but I think it's worthwhile given the issues involved. In January, Ofcom published a consultation in response to the BBC's application to amend their licence so that they could apply content management technology to their HD transmissions, which would allow them to restrict the ability to receive those transmissions to devices which had received their approval and which would follow their instructions with regard to copying and re-use of the material. Disgracefully, Ofcom has agreed to this.

Of course, the fact that a regulatory body has done something which I personally disagree with doesn't make it a disgraceful decision in itself. In this case, the two things which I think do make it a disgraceful decision are:
  1. The scheme completely violates the basis on which the BBC operates. The fact that the BBC is funded by a compulsory levy has been partly justified by the fact that it provides an unconstrained, free to air services. For broadcasts using future technologies, it seems that principle is being thrown out of the window. In spite of my generally market liberal principles, I've generally been relatively tolerant of the BBC, on the basis that, in a democracy, both electorate and elected need information and having a state broadcaster, in the area of news, at least, can serve a valuable purpose by supplying that information to a predefined editorial standard. However, if were moving to a situation where the BBC is no longer meaningfully free to air, I see no justification for it's continued existence in its current form. A BBC which wants to operate this way should not be licence fee funded. If the news aspect is capable of existing in an unencrypted form, then I think there is an argument for separating it and enabling it to do so, but the rest of the corporation should be privatised and left to fend for itself.
  2. In spite of the vast majority (running into hundreds) of responses being overwhelming negative, the response by Ofcom was almost wholly dismissive of any criticism of the BBC's proposed approach, in such a way that it looks like nothing more than one arm of the state doing what is wanted of it by another arm of the state, irrespective of what any of its obligations to the private individual may be.
With regard to the second point there were two aspects of Ofcom's detailed response that stood out, on the first skim through, as being particularly outrageous. The first related to the fact that proposed system would make it difficult or even impossible for people to exercise "fair dealing" exemptions to copyright:
Whilst we recognise that viewers may wish to record or copy material within the confines of the provisions of the CDPA, that legislation does not grant rights to copy material to viewers. Rather, it provides a defence to any action for copyright infringement. Viewers do not therefore have any right to copy any material broadcast on the HD DTT platform. In this context, it would not be appropriate for Ofcom to refuse to allow copy management on the basis of such a right.
This is, of course, an idiotic argument. By the same token, the law doesn't grant a specific right to watch the BBC, so using the same line of reasoning, Ofcom would have granted them the right to completely block transmissions as and when they felt like it, if that's what they'd asked for.

The point is not that people have a right to copy for fair dealing purposes, it is that they are currently able to copy for fair dealing purposes. In removing that ability, the proposal creates a negative impact on the viewer. Given that the basis on which Ofcom claimed to be carrying out the assessment was:
Our aim in assessing the BBC's proposed licence amendment has been to determine whether this change would deliver net benefits to citizens and consumers by ensuring they have access to the widest possible range of HD television content on DTT, whilst not unduly restricting their ability to make use of content or the range of receiver equipment available in the DTT receiver market.
In refusing to consider a negative impact on the consumer, they have put themselves in a position where they can't claim to have, in any meaningful way, calculated whether or not there is a net benefit.

The second aspect of the response which stood out as being outrageous was the response to this section:
Along with a small number of individual respondents, the RNIB opposed the BBC's proposal on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on partially sighted viewers. The RNIB asserted that a large number of receivers with special functionality for the partially sighted (for example audio description set top boxes) are produced as a result of innovations made by open source developers. The RNIB argued that the proposed licence amendment would restrict the use of open source software and therefore constrain innovation in this area. Additionally, the RNIB was concerned that small niche manufacturers that produce specialist equipment for the partially sighted may not be able to absorb the licensing costs associated with content management technology. The RNIB contended that this would result in a reduction in the availability of receivers with audio description functionality.
I agree with RNIB's point. In fact, I was one of that "small number of individual respondents" who Ofcom refer to. It is a serious concern. When there is a regulatory barrier introduced, it would be reasonable to expect it to impact most heavily on those benefiting least from economies of scale, chief amongst which would be those manufacturing equipment aimed specifically at those with disabilities.

Ofcom's response to that point, tacked on at the end of a comment about open source software, is so dismissive as to be offensive.
As discussed in the previous section, the evidence we have reviewed indicates that DTLA licensing does not preclude manufacturers from including open source software within products, although we recognise that manufacturers are required to prevent users from easily modifying or re-configuring the equipment such that the content management is circumvented (and that this will generally be achieved through the inclusion of proprietary elements within the receiver). We expect that the availability of these proprietary solutions based on open source software could allow the development of niche products, such as those of interest to the RNIB. We also note that audio description capability will be required to be included in all HD Freeview receiver products, which was not the case for standard definition receivers.
The comment about open source software is technically irrelevant to the significant issue regarding open source software, which is that the ability to amend the software will be significantly constrained. In terms of technology which is useful to those with disabilities, this is significant. On a computer running free and open source software and capable of receiving TV signals, the software can be amended to suit the specific needs of the end user. With the locked-down nature of the system approved by Ofcom, where the output must by definition be strictly controlled, that will not be possible. The end user will be constrained to use a device which works as defined by the manufacturer, which will in turn have to ensure the device works only in ways authorised by the BBC. The final comment about audio description is nothing more than an insulting attempt to patronise, by pointing out that a small amount of what is being taken away is being offered back.

Below, I've attached my original submission to Ofcom, should anybody be interested in my more detailed arguments, but the significant thing I've taken from this process is that neither Ofcom, nor the BBC, are fit to serve their claimed purpose.

MY RESPONSES

Question 1: Do you agree that copy management would broaden the range of HD content available on DTT and help secure its long term viability as a platform? :
No, in fact the opposite is more likely to be the case.

On the supply side, I see no evidence that copy management would broaden the range of content available. In the US, a similar proposal was made to mandate the use of a "broadcast flag" which would have enabled copy management, a proposal driven by claims made by content producers that without it, they would cease to supply content. The proposal was rejected, but that decision appears to have had no tangible negative impact. While it is to be expected that producers might like to have copy management in place, the idea that they would no longer supply content without it appears to have been a bluff. The principle would appear to apply even more strongly in the UK. The idea that producers would refuse to provide content to the largest broadcasting corporation in the world, solely because it didn't employ copy protection which would, in any case, be useless at stopping those determined to produce copies, is simply not credible.

On the demand side, previous evidence shows that whenever copy management is applied to a platform, it tends to drive people to other, less restrictive media. If the same content is available without copy management, either in an authorised or unauthorised form, which it almost certainly will, people will tend to prefer it to the unencumbered format.

As has been shown with failed attempts at imposing DRM on music, it is the removal of copy management which opens up the possibility of a platform becoming viable, not the imposition of it.
Question 2: Do you agree that the BBC's proposed multiplex licence amendment represents the most appropriate means for securing an effective content management system on HD DTT? :
No. There is an implication in the consultation that encrypting the EPG is somehow materially different to encrypting the whole stream and that the BBC's proposal somehow qualifies as being free-to-air, whereas encryption of the whole stream doesn't. I see no basis for this implication. The objective and the end result for both approaches is the same and as such, they deserve to be viewed as being equally bad.
Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed change to Condition 6 in the Multiplex B Licence? :
No.
Question 4: Do you agree that Multiplexes C and D should be granted a similar amendment to their Licences as Multiplex B?. :
No.
Question 5: Do you agree that the BBC's proposed approach for implementing content management would safeguard citizens and consumers legitimate use of HD content, and if not, what additional guarantees would be appropriate? :
No. Content management will impinge on fair dealing rights and no safeguards, no matter how strong or well intentioned, will prevent that. Of particular concern is the impact on the disabled. By creating a "locked-down" environment, where the only receivers available will be those created by approved manufacturers, under non-disclosure terms and incorporating consumer resistant features sufficient to make circumvention of the content management technology sufficiently onerous, it will become much harder for those with sensory or physical difficulties to adapt either their hardware or software to make it better suited to their needs, which could otherwise be achieved either by incorporating improved software or using non-standard devices combined with a receiver.
Question 6: Do you agree that the BBC's proposed choice of content management technologies will have only a negligible impact on the cost of HD DTT receivers and their interoperability with other HD consumer equipment? . :
No. By its very definition, the purpose of content management is to impede interoperability, so that content cannot be transferred to devices not produced by a manufacturer approved by the producer. This is also likely to stifle innovation.

The cost impact is debatable. It may end up being negligible, but it is also possible that receivers could become significantly more expensive if, for example, the uptake of receivers is reduced as a result of them being less attractive due to the incorporation of content management.

Where the impact is much more likely to be severe is in more specialist areas, such as, as addressed in the response to question 5, devices aimed at those with disabilities. The smaller market for such devices would make it much more likely that the cost of compliance with the content management requirements would be felt much more severely in their manufacture, resulting in such devices either becoming more expensive, or perhaps not manufactured at all. That situation would be made even worse by the fact that incorporating content management would make ordinary devices less easily adapted to the needs of users.
Question 7: Do stakeholders agree that the BBC's proposed Huffman Code licensing arrangements would have a negligible effect on the market for HD DTT receivers? :
No, they could potentially have a very severe impact. The need for a licence would inherently require non-disclosure of the look-up tables. The compliance issues surrounding such a requirement would present a barrier to entry into the market, impeding new entrants to the market and limiting the amount of competition which could occur.

Particularly noteworthy is the assertion that the licensing arrangements for the look-up tables would be on a non-discriminatory basis, which would almost certainly not be the case in practice. Almost certainly, large electronics manufacturers would be granted licences, but I would be astonished if the BBC were prepared to grant a licence to a lone electronics enthusiast looking to build his or her own receiver. The very nature of this kind of proposal is "security through obscurity" which relies on the information being available to as few people as possible. Non-discriminatory access terms would make the look-up tables available to anybody prepared to agree to the disclosure and use terms, which could result in them being so widely available as to be effectively useless.

If Ofcom wishes to answer this question effectively, it needs to demand that the BBC discloses the exact licensing terms that it would wish to use, so that everybody can see what "a royalty-free basis and on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" actually means and comment accordingly.
Question 8: Do the BBC's proposed content management states and their permitted use for different categories of HD content meet the requirements of other HD broadcasters on DTT? . :
I don't believe that the broadcasters have requirements in the sense implied by the question. I would not be surprised if some broadcasters wished to have a content management system, but that does not amount to a need for one, as evidenced by the existence of television for decades without such a system.
Question 9: Are there any issues that you consider Ofcom should take into account in assessing the BBC's proposal, that have not been addressed by this consultation?:
I have seen no evidence that HD content is materially any different to standard definition content, in terms of being reproduced and redistributed, yet the BBC's entire case seems to be based on an assumption that HD content inherently needs more restrictive technology attached to it. This makes little sense. HD content, which consists of more data, will take up much more memory space and bandwidth if redistributed over the internet than SD and will tend to be viewed on hardware which is less well suited to getting the full benefit of HD. If anything, SD broadcasts are much more vulnerable to illicit copying and redistribution, yet the absence of content management on the BBC's SD broadcasts has not resulted in its demise, which makes me very sceptical of the BBC's claimed benefits of content management on HD.

This proposal appears to be an opportunistic attempt to bypass the BBC's PSB and FTA principles under the cloak of a relatively minor shift in technology and I believe it should be rejected.

12 June 2010

You can always count on John Prescott...

...to say something thoroughly banal:
Mr Prescott said people should blame the City, not the last government, for the scale of the deficit facing the country and its future impact on public services such as new housing.

"Don't be silly, that was an international problem. Why is it that US, Spain, Portugal, Greece have all got similar problems about debts."
Off the top of my head, is it possibly because their government's took the same irresponsible approach to state finances as the one you were a part of?

It's thoroughly ridiculous to claim that, because other people have made the same poor decisions as you, none of you should be held responsible for those choices. I wonder what Prescott's response would have been if, when the scale of problems at RBS came to light, its senior management had taken the same approach and claimed that, as other financial institutions were facing similar problems, they clearly couldn't be blamed for those problems.

01 June 2010

Ofcom's Plans to Build Corporate Cronyism into the Digital Economy Act

I've been meaning to talk about the Digital Economy Act for a while and I'll address the wider issues in another post, but I thought I'd raise this issue while the Ofcom consultation document is still fresh.

On the basis that Big Government and Big Business generally work hand in hand, I thought it was inevitable that the provisions of the DEA, as terrible as they already were, would be made even worse by the Ofcom code ensuring that all the benefits go to Big Content and other corporate associates, while all the restrictions fall on the private individual.  Two items in particular in the draft code consultation seem to point to that being the case:
  1. Corporate providers of open Wi-Fi will be offered some degree of protection, private individuals won't.

    From the code:
    In principle, operators of Wi-Fi networks would fall within the definition of internet service provider where the service is provided by means of an agreement with the subscriber, even where this is oral or implicit. Indeed, Wi-Fi operators would be regarded as offering a fixed service on the basis that it is offered from fixed locations and is not a licensed mobile network. It may not, however, apply to open access Wi-Fi networks where there is no payment from, and no agreement with, those making use of them. In those circumstances, the person making open access Wi-Fi available would themselves be a subscriber

    ...

    Where a Wi-Fi network is provided in conjunction with other goods or services to a customer, such as a coffee shop or a hotel, our presumption is that the provider is within the definition of internet service provider.
    So, as the initial obligations will only apply to the seven largest ISPs, commercial providers of Wi-Fi won't initially face any consequences if their customers use their networks to share copyright protected material without the copyright holder's permission. In itself, that's a good thing, but it's quite clear that the intention is to treat non-commercial providers differently and make them responsible for all users of their networks.

  2. The copyright infringement notification scheme will be geared so that it is only readily usable by Big Content

    From the code:
    section 124C(4) of the 2003 Act indicates that it may be appropriate for the Code to specify that rights or obligations do not apply unless a copyright owner has made arrangements with an ISP in relation to the number of CIRs which it intends to make to the ISP within the relevant period and has paid a contribution to the costs of the ISP in advance.

    ...

    In the Code we therefore propose that, to be a qualifying Copyright Owner for a given notification period, a Copyright Owner must have provided estimates of the CIRs it intends to make two months before the beginning of the notification period.
    First of all, I find it more than a little bizarre for somebody to suggest a regulatory process which requires that a person has to estimate how many unlawful acts will occur in future. It sounds a little bit too "Minority Report" to me. That aside, it's clear that the process is only really practical for bulk holders of copyright.
The act stank before, it stinks even more now.

Another Political Quiz

Found via Jock Coats, I had a go at the C4SS Political Philosophy Quiz.  These are my results: