17 March 2011

Liberals: On 'Taking Without Paying'

So I noticed this news item today which shows that the White House is cracking down on 'illegal streaming' and wants to make it a felony.  I can tell you that if someone is watching the latest Lady Gaga that way, there's a crime.  But seriously, how many kids can tell whether the latest tech is kosher? They probably can't. And they should be saddled with 'felony' for the rest of their lives any more than teenage Romeo & Juliet should be labeled 'sex offender.'

Isn't rape "taking without paying?"

The no-labels crowd would have us believe that the Scarlet Letter is going away...but it seems there is no evidence of that.

But the purpose of this blog entry is to illustrate something else.  What the White House wants to do is to crack down on people who are getting something without paying for it.  I submit to you that the poor, defenseless union protesters in Wisconsin (now forklifted by Michael Moore to Michigan and DC for Project Gaslight) are asking for benefits without paying for them.  Often disguised as 'concessions' (not the hot dog and Coke) these folks want freebies thrown in to their pay or they will hold services for ransom.  Public unionizing is a chokehold on the proverbial golden goose.

Aren't taxes at the point of a gun "taking without paying?"

This dichotomy of Liberals illustrates their lack of moral compass. It spins which ever way suits them best.

A public union member might argue with the White House, "But I deserve to download that movie for free.  The evil corporations who produce it get rich off controlling ticket prices, paying movie houses to feature their movies instead, and above all...I can't afford it.  It's only fair that everyone get to see the movies...set them free."  They would then kick over the moneychangers pots of gold, etc.

Isn't stealing from the produce aisle, even if you're hungry, "taking without paying?" (Les Miserables cue for Madison, WI demonstrators...what a laugh.)

But in this instance, the producers are the movie producers.  The product is artwork.  And the payments and royalties are paramount.  There is no talk of the poor unfortunates who can no longer afford cable TV, driven to stream movies or Doctor Who at the library, or swap mp3's with a friend to check out a new artist, or back up a copy of your favorite DVD for personal use, or fair use of recording audio played over your computer...no.

Now the talk is felony.  Potential here is to take your freedom and YOU'RE paying.

So which is the bigger crime, stealing from the wealth earmarked with the education of America's children? or children streaming content which does not air (because there is little demand) in the United States?  Which seems more felonious? How does 'skin in the game' relate in this situation?

What technologies might be affected by this? Netflix, TiVo, mobile phones, xfinity
What content might be affected by this? YouTube, streaming radio (talk?), government video, video chat

Another Pandora's box of uncertainty...and this time they've hooked the Chamber of Commerce in.

Obama's Big Government is putting the moves on the internet.  Remember how that worked out in Egypt?