#and then promoting someone saying copyright should only last a decade??? WHAT??

[thetrekkiehasthephonebox]

dear lord

[florrickandassociates]

TGF Thoughts: 5x06- And the two partners had a fight...

I’ve been waiting for this episode for nearly a decade, and I didn’t even realize it. More under the cut. 

(This is very long! Please fight me on stuff and disagree because I just wrote all these words about this episode and I STILL want to talk about it more, it was that interesting!) 

This is the second episode in a row to start off with a TikTok video. 5x02 and 5x03 both ended with elevators. Is there some sort of pattern they’re going for here?  

This case—which is, it’s important to note, in Wackner’s court—is about TikTok content creators and copyright laws. Probably not enough material for a full case, but definitely an interesting theme to explore.

Marissa doesn’t have her laptop volume off (which I suppose makes sense; she was just playing the TikTok videos) and a notification sounds. She shuts the laptop.

Wackner rules that the profits made from the TikTok dance must be split evenly between the guy who stole the dance for his video game and the creator. The thief does not like this, removes his moose costume (oh, yeah, did I mention they’re in costumes again?), and starts shouting that he’s going to sue and then moons the whole court. Okay!

He follows through on his threat, and next thing we know, Liz, Cord, Wackner, and Marissa are meeting to discuss strategy.

Liz’s computer makes the same noise Marissa’s did; she punches some keys.

Liz points out that Wackner’s biggest problem is that real judges are not going to like Wackner playacting as a judge. “I’m not playing a judge. I am a judge,” Wackner says. Liz notes that Wackner’s court lacks any way of forcing people to comply with his rulings, but real court can shut him down.

I guess whatever keys Liz punched did not silence the annoying notification sound.

She asks Wackner to try not to become the focus of the court case, since that’s how they’ll lose. “This is why I started a court,” Wackner says after Liz instructs him to only answer yes or no and to wear a suit.  

Liz asks Marissa to keep Wackner in line. She says she’ll try.

Now we are at the Black Lawyers Association, where there’s a panel with leaders from Chicago’s four top black law firms. For reasons passing understanding, DIANE is on this panel. This makes absolutely no sense (I mean, unless only white people were involved in this decision, and even then!) and I’ll only excuse it because they mention later that it makes no sense for Diane to have been on this panel.  

I wonder why everyone else’s firm gets named but not Diane’s.  

Diane also gets the first question, which is, pointedly, about opportunities for black lawyers. Her phone starts making the annoying notification sound. Ever heard of silent mode??  

The annoying sound happens every five seconds at the RL offices. According to David Lee, it happens twenty times an hour, but it seems like more than that! He, for some reason, goes to Carmen to ask how to stop the sound. He also wants to know what it is. Carmen explains that it is “Dawnk” which is a new messaging system within the company.  

On Dawnk, you can talk about anything you want and be anonymous. Who approved this?! In one frame, I can see there’s someone complaining about someone being promoted too fast because of “the future is female bs.” In another, someone is upset that they are anonymous and wants to use their real name (only Jay, who is otherwise absent from this episode, seems to have figured out how to turn this anon mode off).

Sorry, before I can get on board with this plot, I just need to note for the record how phenomenally stupid the idea of using anonymous messaging software within a company is. This was obviously not going to end well! It’s like workplace YikYak... (remember YikYak?!)  

David Lee hates the idea of a messaging software; Carmen says the associates prefer this.  

Jay is being very nice in the chat and defends the person who was promoted “too fast”.

“Who’s ‘Anonymous Crab’?” David Lee asks. Well, I think the fact they are “anonymous” should be a bit of a hint there, David.  

Anonymous Crab asks, “How the hell did this happen??! How did Diane end up at a Black Conference speaking for our firm?” Good question, Anonymous Crab.

Anon Crab also shares a video and David Lee doesn’t understand how to press play. Carmen plays it for him. Diane looks really awful on the panel. No shit! David Lee seems to enjoy Diane looking bad, even though he should be able to connect the dots between Diane looking bad and potential for bad things to come for the firm...  

Not only does Diane get quizzed about why she’s running a firm that is still insisting on calling itself a black firm, she also gets questions about her insurrectionist husband. “He was completely cleared of those charges,” Diane notes. Oh, hey!!!!! Remember how last week I said I’d be more surprised if that was the end of the FBI nonsense than if it continued? I am surprised!! And relieved. Mostly relieved. Dealing with the consequences of that high profile, relationship-straining ordeal is so much more interesting to me than any FBI machinations.  

Next Diane is asked if Kurt just took a job to revitalize the NRA. She hasn’t heard of this yet. I’m glad she’s getting grilled on this stuff... it is about time.  

There’s a hint that Carmen will be representing Mr. Rapey next week. I assume that’s why there’s a line where David checks in with Carmen on Mr. Rapey’s case?  

Anon Platypus says, “I heard she didn’t even have seniority. She just jumped past other black partners to become our name partner. It’s crazy!!!” Anon Platypus is correct—technically. Diane was a name partner at one of Chicago’s top firms before joining RL, so while she skipped the line... that doesn’t seem to me like the PRIMARY issue in bringing her on. The primary issue is that bringing on someone that senior from outside the company is more similar to a merger than a promotion, and Diane’s partnership meant changes for the firm.  

Other anonymous animals also don’t like Diane. One calls her clueless; another says that “Liz needs to do something about this.” Someone responds to that, “Liz will never do it on her own,” which is an interesting sentiment I want to come back to in a little bit.  

“What is Black Twitter?” David Lee asks Liz out of the blue. “People on Twitter who are black and talk to each other,” Liz responds. David Lee asks how he can find it. “I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you,” Liz jokes. And to think Jay said Liz wasn’t funny!  

The Dawnk conversation shifts and now everyone’s ragging on Julius for representing Kurt and just generally being a Trump voter. There’s a lot of heated and racial language I’m not going to type here, enough to make Julius spit out his coffee and storm down to the associate floor.

He goes to Devin, who I’m not sure if we’ve seen before but is high ranking enough to have Lucca’s old office, to get information on the anonymous posts.

Anonymous Bison says, “Unpopular opinion: I blame Adrian.” Hey, Anon Bison, let’s be friends! I am with you. Adrian is the one who brought Diane on, who encouraged them to lean into Julius’s Trump connections, and who pushed the firm to pursue profit over everything else. Diane and Julius aren’t blameless (though I don’t actually think defending Kurt is a bad thing) but if there’s someone who actively strategized to make RL what it is today? Adrian all the way.  

In what world does noting that Julius is pissed in an anonymous message do ANYTHING to stop people who are pissed at him? If they were that concerned about him being pissed they wouldn’t have said anything in the first place.  

Liz and opposing counsel talk over each other in court until the judge makes them stop. I think we’ve seen both the judge and opposing counsel this season, making me wonder if there’s a bit of a COVID bubble situation going on here with the guest stars.  

Judge Farley jokes about “contempt cards” that go up in value and Wackner, of course, is all, “Wow, I really love that.”  

Liz, whose entire strategy was to not let on that anyone calls Wackner a judge, refers to Wackner as “Judge Wackner.” Come on, Liz! (I buy that she’d slip up—there's no one in the world I wouldn’t believe slipping up—but ugh!)  

How did the opposition not realize that they could make this about Wackner’s “crazy court” by referring to him as Judge Wackner? You’d think they’d be all over that.  

Judge Farley looks SO unhappy that Wackner would refer to himself as a judge; it’s phenomenal.  

Now Marissa stumbles over stuff because she’s, for some reason, speaking in court. I bought Liz’s dumb moment more.  

The plaintiff’s strategy is to make it look like Wackner is of unsound mind, and they’ve got video evidence. Remember how Del, Cord, and Wackner all chatted in the RL elevator? Well, turns out that lead to a reality show about Wackner for Del’s streaming service. Sounds about right.  

I don’t really think Wackner cares about attention or anyone else’s motivations... I think he just likes the idea of budget and an audience and a platform.  

Liz meets Del for a romantic dinner and asks him when he was going to tell her about Wackner’s show. Del doesn’t understand why she’s upset. He doesn’t get why he would’ve needed her permission to go into business with Wackner. (I don’t think he’s wrong from a business POV, but from a relationship POV, he totally should’ve let her know!)  

Liz says he should’ve asked because they’re using it against her in court. “That is unfortunate, baby, but this streaming show could be really good for Wackner. It’ll draw attention to his court. And... as I say that...that sounds... okay, look I’m sorry,” Del realizes. I like that he sees that Liz has a point. He goes on to note that he would be totally open to Liz trying to go into business with any of his acquaintances, and I think he genuinely means it.  

Del notes that this is what “power couples” do. Oh? So they’re an official couple? Don’t power couples also associate in public and not hide their relationship from their colleagues?  

This is the place where I note, yet again, that it is always going to be more interesting to see a relationship that feels realistic than to see a relationship that feels like it takes place in a vacuum.  

Liz doesn’t want Wackner becoming popular. Del argues someone else would’ve made the show if he didn’t, and that “disrupters gotta disrupt.” Oh God.  

Are we going to remember that Liz has a child at any point this season?  

Diane is reading the Dawnk discussion at home. It’s still lively even after work hours. The associates appear to be discussing the vaccine before someone changes the topic to “the Diane situation.”

One associate notes that the partners probably aren’t happy about Diane either and just have to vote her out. Kurt arrives home as Diane reads this, reacts to the loud music Diane has playing, the open alcohol, and her general demeanor and asks if they’re getting drunk. “Are we getting a job with the NRA?” she counters.  

Turns out it’s not entirely untrue about Kurt and the NRA. They want him for a new role. It would pay $167,000. I can’t decide if I think that’s a lot (objectively that’s a high salary) or not very much at all (isn’t Kurt the top of his field?)  

Kurt notes he doesn’t have a job so he’s considering it. “Diane, our politics are very different,” he starts. “I know,” Diane says. “I’m, lately, struck by just how different they are.”

“I would just like one week when I don’t have to defend you,” Diane says in frustration. Kurt doesn’t even know what that means at the current moment.  

“You’ll tell me when they offer you the job?” Diane asks. “They may not offer it,” Kurt says. “No, they will,” Diane says, because she knows that it’s basically a done deal already.  

In the middle of the night, Diane turns to Kurt and tries to ask him a question. That wakes him up. She asks who he voted for in 2020 and he doesn’t answer. Uh oh.  

Dreaming now, Diane sits up and asks, “Hello? What do I do?” More on that later...

The HR nightmare known as Dawnk is still going wild the next day at the office. (Seriously, with HR that strict, the anon feature would’ve been disabled the second the first semi-controversial comment was posted.) Everyone’s obsessed.  

The partners, minus Diane, all gather in Liz’s office to discuss Dawnk (and the topics of conversation on Dawnk). Madeline says they should ignore it. I say they should make STR Laurie shut it down and be the bad guy. It is nonsensical that this workplace would continue to allow Dawnk to continue! In addition to being an HR nightmare, it’s also a drain on productivity if everyone’s constantly glued to it, and I imagine STR Laurie cares about profit more than anything else.  

But like I really don’t get why Madeline says they can’t censor their associates. Of course they can shut down the app if they want to! Someone put the app there in the first place, no? I do understand not wanting to look like you’re violating free speech (even though taking away anonymous commenting in the workplace would not be a violation of free speech) but I highly doubt it would be only the partners complaining. Tina, whose promotion was called into question, would be complaining too. Anyone trying to get work done, or anyone who didn’t like the toxic culture, or anyone who was uncomfortable with a joke made, would be complaining. There are more than enough reasons it would be perfectly acceptable to take the anon commenting away.

Now the partners are fighting about Kurt’s case too. “Diane is not responsible for her husband,” Liz says when Madeline says that Diane should’ve known better than to get involved. Um, Liz, Madeline is right. Diane isn’t responsible for Kurt’s actions but she’s sure as hell responsible for volunteering to represent him.  

“In the real world of this firm, Diane’s billable hours speak for themselves,” Liz notes when a partner tries to call Diane’s unsavory associations into question.  

“The rest of us put in the hours too, for the record,” notes another partner. I’m sure... but do you put in DIANE’S hours and have DIANE’S client list? My guess is no. If Diane weren’t the biggest earner at the firm we wouldn’t be having this debate. She’d just be gone. She’d never have been at the firm to begin with.  

“Liz, when I joined this firm, it was because of your father’s legacy. It was about Black civil rights, activism, justice. That’s what people talked about in meetings. Now, people talk about billable hours, million-dollar clients, corporate payouts. Now, I know it’s not your fault. That was Boseman’s vision and we were trying to survive the Trump years by bringing in white lawyers, but those days are gone. They’re done with. And I miss being a strong black firm,” Madeline says. Everyone but Liz (and probably Julius) seems to agree with that.

This is one of many interesting facets of this issue. When Madeline argues against Diane, she’s not just arguing that she wants a black person running the firm for optics. She’s not saying that Diane-but-black would be an acceptable choice. She is saying she wants RL to be the firm it was at the very very start of the show—a firm committed to social justice, not maximizing revenue. A firm that didn’t just accept every client that came their way because they love profit. A firm that stood for something. So my question is: Does Liz want that firm?  

Liz is hard to read throughout this whole plot, and I think that may be intentional. Liz isn’t a manager by training—she was an AUSA who suddenly became a name partner at a firm (if you want to talk about seniority and skipping the line, Liz is a way better example than Diane—you can even through some nepotism, twice over, in there). She doesn’t seem to have a clear goal for her firm other than maintaining the status quo and keeping power. Liz not taking a stronger stance from the start (either accepting that they are no longer going to be a social justice-oriented firm or pushing to get them back to that place) allows these kinds of questions to fester. It’s my hope that this becomes text instead of subtext pretty soon, ‘cause this is the kind of thing that if it’s subtext for too long will start to feel like bad writing/Liz being conveniently clueless. It’s way more interesting if Liz is just not yet good at being a manager... because she is learning on the job.  

Anyway. I think the ideal solution here is probably that Diane and Liz continue to run RL: A STR Laurie Company (the fact they’re owned by corporate overlords kind of makes any decision about RL’s mission moot) since Diane wants to do that and Liz seems to be content where she is. Madeline and the other partners, instead of trying to force STRL to let them pursue the cases they want, can accept pay cuts and go start their own firm. Maybe they can even team up with Barbara Kolstad!  

None of that’s to say that the dilemma here is easily solvable, nor is it to say that Diane shouldn’t consider stepping down. I’ll say more on that later. My point here is just that this issue is much deeper than just if Diane is on the letterhead or not. As long as they’re owned by STR Laurie and have clients like Rivi, Diane stepping aside would just be a band-aid.  

(And that, I think, is intentional... they’ve been building the “why are we even representing x?” tension pretty consistently this season, so I imagine it’s on the writers’ minds.)  

Diane stumbles across the secret partner’s meeting and knows something’s up.  

“You gotta handle this, Liz. You cannot have a white partner leading a black firm. We’ll lose clients with that kind of hypocrisy” Madeline insists after Diane heads back to her office. I’ve already said it, but just to say it in a less rambly way: Madeline is right, but she’s right IF AND ONLY IF the goal is to be a black firm. So, Liz, is it?  

(They’ll lose clients, sure, but which ones? They’ll lose the clients Madeline wants while Diane continues to keep bringing in business and Rivi and Cord and Wolfe-Colman and their elk* stay put.)  

*I know this is not the correct word; see 6x17 of TGW

David Lee has also noticed the meeting in Liz’s office and thinks this may be the “beginning of the end.” Diane glares at him and he says he was just joking.

Diane schedules a meeting with Liz. Liz’s assistant doesn’t know Diane by voice, adding to her frustration.

Credits! We are 22 minutes in! This might be a record if 5x01 hadn’t saved the credits til the very end!  

I’ve already written more than I did last week by a couple hundred words.  

Two interesting things about the credits. First, this episode was written by Aurin Squire. Forgive me if I’ve mentioned this in a prior recap (I know I thought about it but can’t remember if I deleted), but I think Aurin Squire and Davita Scarlett are key to why TGF and Evil are both always so good. They’re the two writers other than the Kings who are in both the TGF and Evil rooms, and they both REALLY seem to be on the same wavelength as the Kings. I imagine that having four people who are in both rooms helps with managing both at basically the same time.  

(This isn’t where I wanted to go with this bullet point, but I may as well shout out how great Evil is this season, too! It also just aired an episode by Aurin Squire about the lead white female character realizing her privilege!)  

Second, this episode was directed by Brooke Kennedy. I didn’t know that going in, but seconds before the director credit popped up, I was thinking to myself, “this episode feels like it’s going to be a very important one. I bet Brooke directed it.” I was very pleased to see her name appear.  

(For anyone who doesn’t know, Brooke is an EP who’s been involved in nearly every episode of both Wife and Fight and she tends to direct important episodes that require a lot of familiarity with the characters. She directed 5x15 of The Good Wife and she’s done a bunch of the premieres and finales that Robert King hasn’t claimed for himself.)  

Diane and Liz meet in a bar to catch up. Diane’s still staring at Dawnk. Liz takes her phone and silences the notifications. “Who thought that sound was pleasing?” Diane complains. “All day in court today,” Liz commiserates. Carmen had to teach her how to silence the notifications. Liz, you’re using an iPhone, there is a very easy to use switch that silences your phone, like you would need to for court. I know you know this.  

(I think Diane, despite her complaining about the sound, is captivated by Dawnk.)  

Liz orders soda water instead of a drink. I assume that’s intentional, perhaps because she knows this isn’t going to be an easy conversation or a long night of drinking? She has wine in an earlier scene.  

I love that Liz and Diane chat about Dawnk even though there’s no real plot reason for them to spend this much time discussing it. Little moments like this make me believe Liz and Diane are actually colleagues who get along well and make management decisions together.  

Diane asks if Liz thinks Dawnk actually increases productivity. Liz laughs—she does not. But she knows the associates would “riot” if they got rid of it. She’s right. I still think they can get rid of it without too much blowback. But at least they’re acknowledging this.  

“What do the partners think?” Diane asks, very intentionally shifting the subject. You can hear it in Christine’s voice and see it in her body language—Diane is looking for an opportunity to talk about what she wants to talk about.

“God, Madeline can’t even open it. She’s lost her password three times. She finally just gave up,” Liz says. This is concerning! Madeline should know how to open an app! Probably not unrealistic, though. When you’re that senior, you probably don’t need to know how to use a messaging app. And messaging apps can be confusing sometimes. Like, I still don’t understand how to use Discord.  

The captions have a line I can’t hear in this scene—Liz (I presume?) saying “You know, ‘cause it’s Madeline.” This makes it sound like Madeline is a little less than competent, no?  

“Thanks for sitting down with me, Liz,” Diane says in a quite serious tone. “Of course. So, you’re wondering about the meeting today?” Liz immediately understands. “I am.” “Yeah. Uh, it was about Julius. He’s being harassed on Dawnk,” Liz explains.

“Okay, and I couldn’t be a part of that?” Diane wants to know. “He’s being harassed because he’s defending your husband,” Liz explains. Diane doesn’t seem surprised (perhaps because she, too, would have read these messages?). “Well, that’s unfortunate. We’ve represented people far worse than Kurt, who, by the way, was found innocent,” Diane argues like they’re having a very different conversation. It’s one thing to represent rapists and murderers and drug lords—and I’d argue that the same people pissed about Kurt are also pissed about them!-- and another for your leadership to be married to/close friends with someone who you believe participated in the events of 1/6.  

“I’m not saying it wasn’t. But, January 6th. I mean, we watched the Confederate flag make its way into the Capitol building. You know, those people that Kurt didn’t want to turn over to the FBI, those people. They don’t even want us alive,” Liz says better than I ever could. I think it’s important that Liz mentions a POV that likely wouldn’t have ever crossed Diane’s mind here. This is a small glimpse of why it could be so important to have black leadership at a black firm. Would Diane be thinking about the implications of having the Confederate flag in the Capitol? Probably not in the same way that Liz instantly does.  

“Well, not all of them,” Diane Lockhart, who is suddenly an idiot, says. Liz looks at her drink and grimaces, and Diane realizes she’s said something wrong. “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that. I’m certainly not defending those people. They’re all despicable traitors.”

“And now, that’s what people are saying about Julius,” Liz explains. “And me?” Diane asks, though she already knows the answer. Liz doesn’t want to answer that. Before she can say anything, Diane asks if she’s being pushed out.  

“No. Not pushed out. You’re a name partner. You can’t be pushed out,” Liz clarifies. Diane knows there’s a but. “The partners just think you should do the right thing,” Liz adds.

“And step aside?” Diane asks. “No. Stay in the firm. Stay as an equity partner, just step back from your managerial role,” Liz says. Diane pauses. “Liz, I... I pull in the big clients. I... I get the billable hours. But still, ‘maybe you should step aside.’ Weren’t we going to form a firm led by women?” Diane argues. Oh, wow, I have so much to say.

First, I completely understand why Diane doesn’t want to give up her title or her power. She's Diane Lockhart! She’s been one of the best in her field for decades. She’s not wrong about the clients and billable hours. It’s just that every time Diane decides to be at this firm, making arguments about how she should retain her role in power, she’s saying that she values her own career/appearance more than the values she claims to care about. And every time she refuses to take a back seat or threatens to walk rather than sacrifice, she’s saying she’ll only through her weight behind her colleagues and their mission if she gets credit for it. To be clear, I don’t think it would be the shittiest decision in the world if Diane decided to walk, to take her clients to a new firm and to let RL become the firm Madeline and the rest envision. It’s asking a lot of her to give up that power and prestige. The interesting part of this dilemma is, to me, that Diane claims to value working for RL and to be active in the fight against racism... but the second she’s forced to choose between that fight and her own power, we all know what Diane is going to choose. There was never really any doubt. Diane doesn’t have to be on the forefront of this fight if she doesn’t want to... but she can’t claim to be invested in the fight if she isn’t willing to sacrifice, at all.

Second, LMAO at this firm led by women idea. Every time Diane talks about her firm led by women idea it sounds sillier! Not because a firm led by women is silly, but because Diane has a habit of saying this like it is a shared goal and each time she references it, it sounds less and less intersectional. For example, when she says it here, she’s essentially saying a firm led by women only has meaning if one of those women is a white woman (specifically a white woman named Diane Lockhart). Who’s to say that Madeline wouldn’t be made partner in Diane’s absence? Or Barbara (haha) or someone else we haven’t met? There is a very real possibility that Liz and another woman could run the firm and Diane would still be unhappy about it. Diane doesn’t ask Liz for a commitment that if she does step aside, her replacement would be female (idk if it’s legal to make this commitment but you get my point). Diane acts like asking her to step aside is already a betrayal of the female led firm.  

“And I hope that it will be,” Liz says, basically hinting to Diane that there are women in the world besides her.  

“But black women?” Diane says, agitatedly. “Diane, I... am not voting against you. I promised you that I wouldn’t. But there is growing anger here. They want to address it at the next partners' meeting. So just think about it,” Liz responds.

I think Liz is totally fair and forthcoming in this scene and strikes pretty much the right tone for this initial conversation. She gives Diane a choice and is honest with her.  

“You’re a good person,” Liz adds. Diane does a double-take, understanding that Liz is actually telling her “You are a good person, so you know that you absolutely need to step aside.”  

“No, I’m not!” Diane responds. As I said: Diane already knows what she is going to do. She needs to do mental gymnastics to excuse her actions, but her mind was made up before the question was even raised. (She did warn Liz in 5x01 she was going to fight any attempt to push her out.)

“Yes, you are,” Liz says again. She may as well be saying, “No, don’t try this. Everyone will think you’re in the wrong if you push this.”

Later, at home, Diane is doing some stretches on the floor and groaning. I don’t know if this scene is meant to show her age, but it does remind me that Diane is nearly 70 and started off this show by planning to retire. Retirement doesn’t seem to be an option for her here. (That’s fine by me; she is a workaholic whose career is her life.)

Kurt asks Diane what she wants to do. She says she wants to keep her name on the letterhead and “keep what I fought for.” Heh, I was just re-reading something I wrote about Cary a while ago and I’d pointed out that when Alicia and Cary discuss merging with what’s left of LG, Cary is also concerned about his name on the letterhead because even though he wants to change the world, he also cares about having power. It’s almost like Diane and Cary are really similar characters! (They are! That’s why the Diane/Cary moment in Hitting the Fan is so good!)  

Diane calls her position as name partner a fight against “gender and then age discrimination.” She isn’t wrong, especially when you consider how meaningful it likely was when she and Stern went into business together. It’s very easy for me to forget that when Diane has such an attachment to fighting for white women’s rights, it’s not just because she’s out of touch and selfish: it’s because that was something she personally had to fight for. That doesn’t make it okay that she seems to forget the concept of intersectionality (which she’s definitely aware of) the second anything challenges her own power, but it does explain why a firm run by women is so important to her.

Diane is not wrong that she deserves name partnership and she’s not wrong to not want to step aside. Yet, starting a war to retain her position as name partner is a CHOICE. The best thing for Diane to do here (morally, I mean) would be for her to step aside and throw her resources behind the firm’s new leadership, using her experiences and stature to benefit the firm (this would also be a way for her to cement her legacy and mentor a new generation of leaders). The best compromise, I think, would be for someone to leave the current firm—either Diane or the dissenting partners, probably Diane since Liz seems to agree with Madeline—without any hard feelings. The worst possible choice is for Diane to insist that this firm is hers and force every single tension at the firm to come to a head, screwing over Liz in the process and potentially permanently ruining the firm’s status as a black firm. Sooo... yeah.  

(I say it could ruin the firm’s status as a black firm because if Diane’s a white partner who happens to be there and the firm is mostly black, that’s one thing. If Diane is a white partner who fought all of the black partners to assert her own dominance over their firm... that’s hard to come back from. She can’t really call herself an ally, can she?)  

“Diane, this is the first time I’ve ever heard you sound defeated,” Kurt says. “Because I can’t win this,” she says. She insists she can’t even after Kurt tries to cheer her on (of course he does, he probably thinks having an all black firm is just identity politics and therefore worthless).

“You just don’t want to,” Kurt says. He is not wrong. This is a winnable fight for Diane. Liz is smart but Diane has the experience, the clients, the power, and her own reputation to use in this fight. Liz has her dad’s name (and I don’t think it would come to this, but Diane knows how she can pretty easily destroy Liz’s dad’s reputation). (Liz is great, don’t get me wrong. Liz is also someone who happened into a name partnership because her dad was important.)  

“It’s bigger than that. To fight this would go against every fiber of my being,” Diane says. “Every fiber in your being is about winning,” Kurt counters. Oh, damn. That’s a succinct way of putting it. He is completely right. Diane would love to think that every fiber of her being is about her commitment to social justice and women’s rights. It is not. If that were the case, would she really be a lawyer with clients like ChumHum, Bishop, Sweeney, Rivi, and Wolfe-Colman? We all know the answer to this. We all know Diane likes social justice a lot but winning, wealth, and power far more.

When I first watched TGW, now nearly a decade ago, I was a high schooler and my media diet mostly consisted of Desperate Housewives and a bunch of procedurals like Bones and Castle. The thing that hooked me about TGW—more than Alicia’s journey, more than anything—was that TGW never had easy answers to anything. Will tells Diane in 1x07 that “nothing here is pure and nothing here is simple” and that basically blew my mind. TGW always made it obvious that Will was morally gray, which fascinated me. But I struggled with Diane. Here was this woman who looked like she should be someone so impressive and inspirational I could write a college admissions essay about her (I did not, but that was my frame of reference at the time)… but the decisions she made... never seemed all that great?? I couldn’t comprehend it.  

When Blue Ribbon Panel aired in March 2012, I wrote to a friend, “Diane confused me a little bit tonight. She didn’t approve of Alicia standing up to the panel, and yet, she’s supposed to care about people, the truth, morality, etc etc. I never understand Diane’s motivations– is her philosophy to help others whenever it wouldn’t hurt her, personally, to do so?”  

At that point, Diane compromising her values struck me as something confusing because I wanted to think of her as a powerful role model and icon, and I didn’t know what to do with someone who looked like and often was role model material who also sometimes betrayed her values for her own self-interest. I had my analysis of Diane down: she her motivations ARE to help others whenever it wouldn’t hurt her, personally, to do so. All I needed to do was remove my question mark from the end of that thought.  

I promise I’ll move on from quoting myself, but I also want to share a paragraph I wrote about Diane in March 2014 (during season five of Wife) because it says what I want to say now as well as anything I could write today:

Diane is driven and ambitious. Her initial actions can come as the result of intense emotions, but given enough time and space, Diane will always be strategic and pragmatic when it comes to business. She’s spent her entire life putting her career first, and she wouldn’t have it any other way. That she found love is just icing.  Kurt aside, the two most important things to Diane are advancing her own self-interest and doing good in the world. These objectives appear to be a contradiction, and often, they are. Nine times out of ten, when it comes down to it, she’ll choose herself. I mean no judgment here: another central aspect of Diane’s character is that she’s upfront about her choices and stands by them, and this sort of moral ambiguity makes for a great character.  

The reason I quote myself here is not to be like, ha ha, I was right. It's because I think this episode is even more powerful because I can copy/paste in stuff I wrote nine years ago or seven years ago (oh god, 2014 was seven years ago?) verbatim and it can hold up as analysis. Both Fight and Wife have always implied Diane’s selfish side and given more than enough evidence to make a convincing argument about it, but they’ve never really engaged with it directly (and if you ask the social media teams for either show, Diane is a #queen who can never do wrong). This episode interrogates something that’s always been an unpleasant part of Diane’s character, and I’m so fucking glad about it.  

(I don’t think anyone’s accusing Diane of not growing as a person but it crossed my mind that this could be seen as lack of growth. I don’t think it is. I wouldn’t expect Diane to change. Her life and career are so set that growth on this without a LOT of struggle on her part would feel like a cop out.)  

Another reason I quote myself is to highlight how friggin’ character driven this episode is. I’ve seen a lot of people saying this episode felt like old-school TGW—and it absolutely does; that’s also how I felt—and I think that’s because it’s so character focused and meaty.  

But back to this scene. Kurt tells Diane that if she doesn’t try to win she should just give up entirely. Seems like bad advice.  

“Kurt, I appreciate the pep talk, but I don’t think the way you think. I cannot put my interests above a whole group of people—black people—just so I can keep my position.” Sure you can, Diane. You just don’t like to believe that about yourself. You know how Diane says to Kurt earlier that she knows the NRA will offer him the job? That is how I feel about this scene. The writers go to great lengths to explain where Diane’s head is at when she decides to fight for her partnership, but they’d have needed to do ten times more to get me to believe Diane would step aside voluntarily.  

Kurt basically thinks that Diane should fight because if her competition is actually talented enough to deserve name partnership, they should fight her for it. He’s missing the point here.  

“But a black person’s talent has always been valued less than mine,” Diane counters. The fact she knows and understands this makes her decision even less forgivable.  

Kurt knows he’s going to lose this argument and tries the same strategy he did on 5x01: telling Diane she’s right and should just give up and leave the firm. Diane doesn’t like that answer either.  

Given how much I loathed Jay’s hallucinations, I was expecting that when Diane asks Kurt in the middle of the night if he believes the election was stolen and then sits down at her fireplace to have a chat with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I’d loathe what happened next. I did not! I actually really liked it!  

I think this is more effective than Jay’s hallucinations, at least for me, because it's less gimmicky. It isn’t played for humor or quirk, and it gets to the character-driven point a LOT faster. This feels more similar to Alicia imagining Gloria Steinem is telling her she’s good enough to be on the Supreme Court in 6x03 than it does to Jay’s hallucinations.  

I LOVE that Diane would dream that RBG would advise her on her work dilemma. Dream!RBG tells Diane that “any law firm would be insane to let you go.” (I don’t wanna spend too much time fighting dream logic, but I feel like the operative phrase here is ‘let you go’. Are the RL partners seeing this as letting Diane go? Or are they just trying to get at a different goal and Diane is in the way, and they don’t really care if Diane has top connections or billable hours? It’s almost like the other RL partners want a firm that stands for something and all Diane has stood for thus far at the firm is profit...)  

Diane pushes back on RBG and RBG shares her “real” thoughts. This is where this sequence clicks into place for me, because it’s working on a LOT of levels. Obviously, Diane is going to imagine that her hero tells her to do exactly what she wants to do (the aforementioned mental gymnastics). But without losing the level on which this is dream!RBG and filtered through Diane’s POV, the writers are also... criticizing RBG for not stepping down herself!? It’s fascinating and pointed and makes her the exact right choice to play Diane’s conscience.  

Dream!RBG shares her life story and notes how she was always asked to step aside, but she didn’t and that’s how she got to be RBG. “Don’t step aside because someone wants you to. Don’t step aside for politics. Men are always asking women to step aside so a man can go first,” RBG advises Diane. Even Diane knows that this isn’t exactly equal to her current situation-- “Even though I’m being asked to step aside so that a black person can take my place?” she counters.  

So RBG asks if Diane can still do something “for women” if she says. Diane says yes, and RBG says Diane should do that instead of stepping aside—she should do whatever it takes. That’s the wrong takeaway, Diane! If you want to do something for women then a) you could do something for the black women at your firm lol or b) you could politely remove yourself from the firm, encourage your most profitable clients to stay on if they are wanted by the other partners or and/or c) you could choose to bring your talent and your stature to a non-profit. But, of course, these options aren’t on the table. There’s a reason the options are leave and lose everything or stay and fight for name partnership, and it’s that Diane cares about maintaining control of what she sees as hers and winning more than she cares about anything else, including or even especially her desire to help women.

And also what women is she even helping at RL? Herself? She’s certainly not helping Wolfe-Coleman's rape victim. The closest she’s recently come to helping women is when she told off Weinstein’s lawyer and tried to start #MeToo... in a DREAM.  

The score for the next sequence sounds so familiar and I can’t place it. At first, I thought it was Hitting the Fan, but I’m not sure if that’s the right reference (also, damn, the Hitting the Fan score is REALLY GOOD!). I think it might be similar to 5x14 when Alicia’s pacing back and forth in the hotel room.  

Anyway, Diane starts meeting with her (white, male) clients to tell them about how she’s stepping aside. She hasn’t run this past any of the other partners, of course. She’s doing exactly what they want, in the most malicious and calculated way possible.

One of her clients is a fracking client who wants to win over democrats by being a RL client.  

Diane is so sneaky here! No one said that if Diane steps aside as partner she can’t handle the day to day on her cases... yet that’s what Diane tells this client since she knows it’ll make him mad!  

Diane makes a point of showing her fracking client that his new representation will be Madeline. He doesn’t know anything about Madeline, and, as Diane was likely counting on, he isn’t confident in having a black woman he’s less “comfortable” with on his cases. I don’t know if Diane was going for the racial element here, but... if you’re really concerned about continuity, you don’t have this meeting without having Madeline ready to jump in and show she’s read up on the client. I’m sure it’s possible that Diane meant nothing in giving this client only Madeline’s name, title, gender, and race to go off of, but is that likely?  

She hands another (white, male) client off to Julius, whom she describes as a “very competent lawyer.” What an introduction. She says she’s not retiring and the firm “just wants to let some other people step forward into a name partner position.” Diane knows how to sell clients on changes they won’t like. She knows this isn’t how you do it.  

That phrase, “comfortable with you” is doing a lot of work, no? Both clients so far have said it, and while it might not be racially coded... it’s racially coded.  

“Who should we call about it?” the clients ask. Diane can barely keep herself from smiling.

They call David Lee, immediately. He takes the call in the middle of a meeting, while someone else is talking—he is David Lee, after all.

The information on the screen in David’s meeting is quite interesting. It’s about STRL’s plans for RL. Here’s how the firm is described: “RL is a high-end mid-sized Chicago law firm that can consolidate its specialized brand within the American POC community and expand its national and global brand with STR Laure.” Soooo... yeah. For the corporate overloards, RL needs it to be just black enough that it appears like a black firm, but they care more about appearances and branding than anything of substance. (Notice how it says “POC” and not black? Notice how there’s this mention of national and global presence that doesn’t seem to be on the RL partners’ mind?)  

There’s an area called room for growth, listing top clients—entertainment law, fracking, the DNC, and civil cases against CPD. Interestingly, two of these are Liz’s clients (entertainment and DNC), one is Adrian’s (civil cases against CPD), and only fracking is Diane’s... so maybe I didn’t give Liz enough credit earlier.  

There’s also a plan of action that includes partners working with STRL and the 15-20% layoffs we already know about. I don’t think this text is meant to include any new info, but I assume one of the writers had a hand in writing it and it’s a good way of confirming things that had been subtext.

Wackner’s reality show looks... well, like his court, because his court always looked like a reality show. Cutting together the most out-there moments (audience reaction cards, Wackner singing “Come on defense!”, Wackner renaming himself Judge Shmuley for a day) makes Wackner look pretty bad.

Hey Liz, I thought you figured out how to silence your notifications for Dawnk permanently. (It’s not all high-stakes controversy over on the “R&L General” channel—the anon animals are now discussing a broken coffee maker.) (Though even this discussion is a bit political! Anon Owl says they bet STR’s coffee machine works, and Anon Dolphin wants to know why they don’t have more coffee maters at RL.)  

There’s also a dance party—which Marissa participates in—in the footage of Wackner.  

Hey, wouldn’t Marissa have reported the cameras to Diane and Liz? I feel like she’d know they’d want to know.  

Wackner ends up on the stand to offer context for the strange-looking clips. In a smart move, Liz offers to just let Judge Farley ask questions—she knows that’s what Farley is really after.

Unsurprisingly, Wackner’s context makes his outrageous practices seem much more reasonable. There’s a scoreboard to keep lawyers aware of where they’re standing so they can gauge instead of guess at Wackner’s thought process. Shmuley is to honor a recently deceased relative. The costumes are to prevent bias and cut down entitlement.  

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Wackner is biased and the case continues even though Wackner’s (mostly) won over Farley.  

The case next turns to something about copyright law that sounds downright silly—the point is to underline that Wackner’s court makes more sense than real court on some things. It makes more common sense and it’s less racist.  

Del gets called into court. It’s interesting how these scenes are blocked together rather than spread out. The same is true of Diane’s scenes—after credits, we have Diane and Liz at the bar, Diane at home, Diane talking to RBG, Diane making moves, and then David Lee becoming aware of the situation. Then we have several consecutive court scenes (all of which feel like they have natural break points) of Wackner stuff. If I had to guess, I would guess that it’s to keep the momentum going. The Diane stuff plays better when it feels like a continuous chain rather than a subplot.  

(The only thing that suffers is that I have no idea why there’s a court scene about copyright law right after the plaintiff argues they have evidence about Wackner’s bias? I probably wouldn’t have even noticed if the scenes had been spread out more.)  

Now Cord’s involvement with Wackner’s court becomes an issue. It’s funny they need a witness to bring up Cord when Cord is SITTING IN THE COURT ROOM.  

Apparently Cord is financing a company that would compete with the plaintiff’s company and this means Wackner is biased. As the next scene will explain, Cord wasn’t even aware of his investment in the rival company, and Wackner certainly wasn’t. But, regardless, it’s going to be challenging to prove that neither Wackner nor Cord knew about the investment, and the opposition is going to go after Cord’s financial records, which no one wants. Liz suggests a continuance, which would give Wackner about a year to keep working on his court before they have to come back to this issue.  

Wackner HATES the idea of delays and is all, THIS IS WHY I HAVE MY OWN COURT and again, he isn’t wrong.  

David Lee needs to see Liz, now. Liz and Diane meet in David Lee’s office and stare at their phones. Diane says she has no idea what the meeting is about, even though she basically set up the meeting herself.  

“What the fuck is going on?” David Lee says. Diane feigns surprise and asks for more specifics. David Lee reveals that four top clients have called with issues about their representation shifting.  

Liz knows what’s going on and aggressively says, “Diane, thoughts?” “Nothing from me. I met with my clients. I just told them of a restructuring that I was being told about,” Diane says like it’s no big deal. Liz and Diane both know that Diane forced this meeting.

“Is this a power play on your part?” Liz asks Diane. “No, it’s just updating my clients,” Diane says for David Lee’s benefit or commitment to the bit or something. It is definitely a power play, and a nearly unforgivable one done to an ally.  

“David, Diane was told about frustration at the partner level about a white woman being a name partner in a black firm. And apparently, this is her response,” Liz explains. “I just told our clients what was going on,” Diane defends. David Lee doesn’t really care about what happened: he cares about one thing, and that thing is money.  

“Diane’s a fucking name partner until STR Laurie says she’s not. No one decides until I decide. Now stick your race war back in its bottle,” David Lee says. I mean, basically, yeah, that’s what happens when you merge with a huge firm that only cares about profit.  

I like that this ends up coming back to STRL. You can’t really have a conversation about RL’s identity without also acknowledging that RL is not independently owned. Sure, STRL will care at some point if RL loses its clout with the black community—but like most companies, they care about guaranteed loss of profit and the short term more than long-term what-ifs. It may sound cynical, but if Madeline and all of the other partners quit, STRL would simply put all their effort into keeping Liz or even just the Reddick name and would then hire black lawyers who think more like Julius than Madeline to keep the reputation. STRL does not give a shit about helping anyone, and that’s what Diane counts on.  

I do not believe the version of RL that Madeline wants can exist when they’re under STRL’s control. I believe the version Diane wants (not really a black firm) can, and I believe the version Liz seems to want (one that’s mostly black and occasionally social justice focused) can, but this issue won’t go away until STRL does.  

Sure, Diane, keep telling yourself you’re fighting the good fight out here.  

(Perhaps “The Good Fight” is a more ironic and fraught title than it originally seemed.)  

“That was a mistake. I am on your side, and you don’t even realize it,” Liz tells Diane afterwards. Interesting that Liz says “I am” and not “I was.” I would love to know what Liz really thinks about this situation and hope we get more from her POV next week. I think Liz wants to run a black firm, but I also think she wants to run a successful firm and likes working with Diane. Liz is on Diane’s side about as much as she can be while still advocating for Diane to step down.  

Pissing off Liz is a very interesting move for Diane here, too. Diane wants to fight the one person who is on her side for control of a firm that doesn’t want her there, and she’s convinced herself this is the smart move! Kind of wild. What does Diane think the day to day will look like? I think I said this above, but in forcing this war, Diane is all but guaranteeing that if she wins, RL will only be a black firm in that STRL will say it’s one to make more money.

Julius and Diane chat next. Julius says he wants to start his own firm—with Diane. Her only reaction is laughter, but, like, this is probably happening. I’m not sure why she laughs. It’s not quite a case of unfortunate timing (Diane could’ve done this before she blew things up, and it’s not quite too late for Diane to commit to leaving and smooth things over with Liz), so maybe it’s just a “well, this sounds familiar!” laugh.  

(If you think of Previously On as 5x00 instead of 5x01, that would make this episode 5x05, which would make this a Hitting the Fan callback. I can also do mental gymnastics!)  

The episode could end there, but it doesn’t. We’ve still got a Wackner plot to resolve. Cord has some people beat up the plaintiff as a way of enforcing Wackner’s verdict and getting the real court case to go away. Marissa picks up on what’s happened faster than Wackner does, unless Wackner just doesn’t care.  

It’s subtle, but throughout this episode, there’s a little bit of a trend towards Marissa becoming more skeptical of Wackner. She tries to keep him under control in court, tries to reason with him about the continuance, and in this scene, she just looks entirely displeased and alarmed every time she’s on camera.  

We get another scene with RBG. “It’s different for me than it was for you,” Diane says. She notes that unlike RBG, she herself is up against another “dominated culture.” This other dominated culture is “black lawyers.” (I’m sorry, I just find the way she says “black lawyers” funny, partially because she says “lawyers” instead of people and partially because Diane seems insistent on only occasionally remembering that Liz is both black and female.)  

I can’t tell if this scene was originally intended to close the episode or not. The blocks of scenes, the way the episode seems like it should’ve ended with Julius’s laugh but instead has three more scenes (guy getting beat up, Wackner’s court, this one), and the fact the Kings said this episode had to be almost totally rethought because both Christine and Audra had concerns about the original script all suggest to me that maybe some of the scenes in this episode got shuffled around to keep momentum and hit the right notes at the right time.  

Diane acknowledges that RBG could’ve stepped down and we wouldn’t have a conservative majority on the court now if she had. RBG insists that she wouldn’t have stepped aside even if Obama had guaranteed that her replacement would be black. She says it’s because she only knows what she can do—not what others would do. And “what you know is always better than what might happen.”  

Even if this was originally supposed to happen earlier (Diane saying she doesn’t know what to do makes me feel like it way), I like that we get to see it’s still weighing on Diane after the fact.  

(Also, I have seen some comments about, for lack of a better phrase, the girl power energy of these Diane and RBG scenes. No! These scenes aren’t a tribute to RBG! She’s in these scenes because she didn’t step down and can thus help Diane excuse her own actions! These scenes aren’t exactly anti-RBG, but they are certainly critical of some of her choices!)  

The topic shifts to Diane and Kurt’s relationship (another reason to put this somewhere other than the main part of the episode; this would slow down the momentum of the middle part of the episode) and its similarity to RBG’s friendship with Scalia.  

Tbh, I don’t think a friendship and a marriage are all that similar on this front and I’d be curious to see Diane think about RBG/Scalia in the context of her potential partnership with Julius rather than her marriage.

RBG basically tells Diane to stay with Kurt. Diane thanks her, and then, back in reality, tells Kurt to take the NRA job so he’ll be happy—and then she’ll just sue him. Okay, that feels like an episode ending, so I am REALLY curious about all the re-writing and re-structuring that happened in this episode and what did/didn’t get touched. I can’t make up my mind about what feels out of place.

So we start out with Diane feeling like it might be the right thing to explore whether or not it still makes sense for her to be with Kurt, a suspected insurrectionist and future NRA employee, and Diane feeling like she wants to help her friends and partners at her mostly black firm do good in the world. And we end with Diane doubling down on her relationship with Kurt, giving her blessing for the NRA job, and fucking over her colleagues because she wants to keep her own power. Dark! I love it.  

This episode does this all without making Diane entirely unsympathetic, which is astounding. While I think Diane knowingly makes choices that further her self-interest over the values she (claims to?) hold and I am definitely NOT Team Diane on her decisions in this episode, this episode could easily have been less interesting and complex. It’s understandable that Diane would not want to step aside from a firm she’s helped build—who would? It’s understandable that Diane might not feel the passion for a black firm the way she does for a female firm. It’s understandable that Diane might not want to blow up her marriage, despite her political differences from Kurt. This episode allows Diane to be just sympathetic enough she never becomes a flat villain, but never sympathetic enough that someone could mistake this episode for one that shows Diane as a morally pure hero. Personally, I love that in a TV show. That’s the exact kind of writing that made me love Alicia Florrick enough that I still spend a considerable amount of time thinking about her character arc even though TGW ended half a decade ago. It’s what’s been missing from a lot of TGF episodes for me, and why I’ve said that TGF seems like a show more about theme than character. It’s why I’ve written—oh god, TEN THOUSAND words—about this episode.  

I have no clue what’s going to happen next, but I hope it includes more character-driven drama (ideally with a lot of good material for Liz) and not a lot of firm-jumping shenanigans.  

[olko71]

New Post has been published on All about business online

New Post has been published on http://yaroreviews.info/2021/04/supreme-court-sides-with-google-over-oracle-in-copyright-battle

Supreme Court Sides With Google Over Oracle in Copyright Battle

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled for Alphabet Inc.’s Google in a multibillion-dollar battle with Oracle Corp. over elements of Google’s Android smartphone-operating system, a decision that could weaken software copyright protections but allow developers more room to build on each other’s products.

The court, in a 6-2 opinion Monday by Justice Stephen Breyer, threw out a lower-court ruling for Oracle that said Android infringed its copyrights on the Java software platform. The high court said Google’s copying of some Java API code was fair use. APIs, or application programming interfaces, are prewritten packages of computer code that allow programs, websites or apps to talk to one another.

“Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Oracle, which acquired the Java technology when it bought Sun Microsystems Inc. in 2010, accused Google of illegally copying more than 11,000 lines of Java API code to develop Android, which runs more than two billion mobile devices world-wide.

Oracle previously sought as much as $9 billion in damages from Google, though the company might have faced challenges in collecting that much in penalty proceedings had it won in the high court.

Google v. Oracle

The ruling didn’t do away with copyright protections for APIs but dealt a blow to them nevertheless, a potential setback for companies that hold copyrights in software platforms that took considerable time and money to build.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent Monday, said the court’s generous fair-use analysis in Google’s favor “is wholly inconsistent with the substantial protection Congress gave to computer code.”

Some software and app developers, especially emerging ones, supported Google in the case, stressing the need for some fair use of software interfaces to promote follow-on technologies and interoperability among programs. Microsoft Corp. and a leading association of internet companies also supported Google.

Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer and senior vice president for global affairs, said the ruling provides legal certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products and services would benefit consumers.

“Innovation happens by standing on each other’s shoulders and that is what’s going on here,” Mr. Walker said in an interview. “These are tools we use every day, methods of operation in the everyday world. The idea of fair use is beneficial for everyone in the industry.”

Aside from the potential loss of billions in damages, the ruling is unlikely to have a major immediate impact on Oracle, which isn’t in the mobile phone business, though the chipping away of copyright protections could have longer-term ramifications.

“The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater. The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower,” Oracle said in a statement. “They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can. This behavior is exactly why regulatory authorities around the world and in the United States are examining Google’s business practices.”

Shares of Oracle and Google’s parent, Alphabet, rose more than 3% on the day, outperforming the broader market and the technology sector. The S&P 500 climbed 1.5% behind last week’s strong jobs report.

The decade-old case had been closely watched in tech circles and beyond. Businesses that rely heavily on copyright protections, including in the movie, music and publishing industries, filed legal briefs supporting Oracle that expressed concerns about Google’s claims to fair use of content created by others.

The Supreme Court in its ruling said it consciously chose not to decide the broadest legal issue in the case: whether API code was eligible for copyright protection at all.

“Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute,” Justice Breyer wrote for the court.

So while the court assumed Oracle’s Java API was eligible for copyright protection, it went on to say that Google had the better argument on the doctrine of fair use, a concept designed to prevent copyrights from stifling the development of new products and services.

Newsletter Sign-up

Technology

A weekly digest of tech reviews, headlines, columns and your questions answered by WSJ’s Personal Tech gurus.

“We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law,” Justice Breyer wrote.

Lower-court decisions for Oracle had sowed uncertainty about longstanding practices among software developers who have long relied on established software interfaces as a foundation for new innovations in computing, a practice the Supreme Court decision effectively reaffirmed, said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law and information at the University of California, Berkeley.

The ruling provides reassurance to developers who have made APIs central to the creation of the software driving the multibillion-dollar app economy, which could have been impaired by a ruling in favor of Oracle, said Ms. Samuelson, who has been writing about digital copyright rules since the 1980s and wrote an amicus brief in support of Google.

“This opinion recognizes the importance of being able to reuse some elements of computer programs to make them compatible with other programs,” she said. “In today’s interoperable world, you need to be able to use the building blocks.”

But Karsten Weide, a digital-media analyst with International Data Corp., a market research firm, said the Supreme Court decision could encourage more software-related lawsuits in the future—and more code copying.

Because the court didn’t rule on whether APIs are eligible for copyright protection, software developers could begin to use a peer’s code without licensing it or securing permission, he said.

“Startups will say, ‘I spent a lot of time developing this code and Google or someone else can just come along and steal it,’” Mr. Weide said.

The court said Google’s copying for the Android system amounted to just 0.4% of the 2.86 million lines of Java API computer code. Justice Breyer compared the code at issue to “a gas pedal in a car that tells the car to move faster or the QWERTY keyboard on a typewriter that calls up a certain letter when you press a particular key.”

Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

In dissent, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, said Google’s copying was unfair and contrasted it, for example, with Apple Inc., which wrote its own code for similar purposes.

The dissenters said Oracle spent years developing a programming library that attracted software developers and noted that Google’s copying came after the two sides couldn’t agree on licensing terms. Google’s move also eventually upended the value of deals Oracle had struck with Amazon.com Inc. and others, the dissenters said.

“Google decimated Oracle’s market and created a mobile operating system now in over 2.5 billion actively used devices, earning tens of billions of dollars every year,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t participate in the case, which was argued before she joined the court.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com and Tripp Mickle at Tripp.Mickle@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

[beindiymusic]

5 Ways Working with Indiy Can Further Your Music Career

With the acceleration of technology, it's no surprise that independent musicians are on the rise. At Indiy, we believe artists should have complete ownership of their content.  Becoming an independent music artist is a process where you make and distribute your own music independently without the help of traditional record labels or music publishers.

With the many online resources available nowadays to learn and perfect the recording and mixing process, more and more people are able to enter the music business. The music industry is vast, and with the top 1% of artists earning 77% of recorded music income, it can be intimidating if you're looking to enter and take it on alone. Wondering if you could really major in the music industry can make you ask yourself questions like... . With so many different avenues to take how do I know which is the right one? . Can I record songs from my own home music production studio or should I find a recording studio? . When it comes to distribution for my music should I pay to get it promoted online or should I just let it happen naturally? . These are questions that many have asked when starting their careers in music, but the answer is not always the same. You see, making music as a career is unique to every individual just as everyone has a different fingerprint. While it's great to find inspiration from artists who have made it or are up and coming, developing a blueprint for success in the music business should be approached from an angle that's cohesive with your backstory. There are a few principles that we believe anyone can apply to make a living in from their love of the making music: .

#1. Take Lessons

. Yep that's right! Among the five ways to make music your career, the first is to get the guidance and feedback you need from a professional. Not only will this provide you with pointers on how to improve, but you also gain insight from someone with musical experience who can help you find or improve your sound based on your niche. Taking music lessons whether in a group or one-on-one is an excellent way to network and meet other musicians getting their names out there. .

#2. Network More

. Alongside taking lessons, where you will be growing as a music artist... To gain the most benefit and make your name known in the music world, you need to start networking more. With music being more about "who you know," and less about "what you know," it's crucial to have your name out there. Aside from collaborating on an EP and performing live shows with other musicians to network and gain more exposure, a less traditional option might be applying to work or intern for a music company. Taking this step will give you the ability to learn more about the business side of the industry and connect with those who can help excel your career. .

#3. Seize Opportunity

. Due to the music industry's massive growth over the years with new technologies and platforms constantly emerging, more opportunities are available than ever before. Your chances of success are the highest they've ever been for you to make a career out of music. Especially in the earlier stages; it's vital to take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. Did you know the average musician only earns 6% from sound recordings!? Knowing this hard fact can make you realise that there's no way around the actuality that you have to work extremely hard and pay your dues. If that means performing for elders at a care home facility, inmates at a prison, or even your local bar, do your best to accept it. Gain that invaluable experience doing what you love whilst also getting your name and music shared by more people. Eventually, you'll be able to pick and choose which gigs you want to accept but starting out, be humble, don't block yourself from the possibility of receiving more blessings by turning down offers. In the early ’90s when The Fugees first started out and were trying to make it big in the music industry, they basically had to sit with and go through “7,000 A&R’s”Wyclef Jean - How to Make it in the Music Industry

#4. Leverage Technology

. The cat is out of the bag, it's no secret that automation is replacing traditional jobs. It's pretty scary to think that automation could eliminate 73 million jobs by 2030, but you know what robots and drones are going to have a hard time replacing? Creativity - it's creativity that will allow careers in the music industry to thrive. On the other hand, technology is offering us new benefits as well. Programs that can automatically scan your music for possible copyright infringements can reduce the costs of hiring someone to do that for you. Automatically syndicating your music on platforms that have audiences waiting to listen and hear something new, takes away months' worth of meetings, calls, writing, or sending emails into radio stations just to get your sound heard on their station. Not only is the music industry here to stay, it is here to thrive which is why there's never been a better time to join the online music business. .

#5. Be Adaptable

Steps every indie artist should take to lay a solid career foundation! . Last but certainly not least, what kills more music careers than ever is the inability to be versatile. Independent DIY artists make up only 2.7% of the music market. You have a sound that's unique, you have a name for yourself or your band and that's great but what you will also need to do is to keep in mind it's alos about your audience. Adjust to your fans and their tastes - cater to those who are more likely to listen to your music. It might mean changing a few aspects here and there. You can stay true to who you are whilst also recognizing that music is a business and in order to make money you have to provide what people want; it's about branding and being flexible. Think of it like this... A restaurant with only one item on the menu won't be as successful as one that takes custom orders and has a variety of different options right? If a country bar intends to pay you to play country music over the weekend, even if your style is R&B don't turn down an opportunity to gain experience and be versatile. Throughout your career, every experience is going to add to your resume of success and provide you with an even more unique story. .

The Bottom Line

. Just to remind you we're gonna say it again..not every path will be the same. Some people might find overnight success, while it may take others decades. One thing, however, is always clear... Everyone who successfully creates a career in music does so through a sustained level of consistency and dedication. Furthermore, those who truly manage to remain successful are the ones who have maintained their love for making music. So no matter which path you choose, stay persistent, and keep doing it for the right reasons. And we'll be here to provide you with the right tools to help and support you all the way. . At Indiy, we are an online marketplace for musicians, the place to buy and sell your music services. . Get your music heard and build your audience with us, head to our home page to take a look at some of the amazing services being offered to help you progress on your music career journey. Read the full article

[btsxlami]

📢LISTEN 📢 UP📢 ARMYS📢 HERE ARE 23 UNDERRATED ¿!MORE!¿ RAP MONSTER TRACKS THAT YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY POSITIVELY SHOULD CHECK OUT by @btsxlami

Hey guys its your favourite Namjoon promoter here again a.k.a LAMI! My last post got a lot of notes so whoop whoop and included my personal favourite 23 Namjoon tracks which you can find here

Part 2 of my underrated Namjoon series.

Here are 23 more bc damn Namjoon has a lot of fcking songs!

Disclaimers: (HOLD UP IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME SEEING THIS I SUGGEST YOU SEE PART ONE)

1. i will include tracks that Namjoon covered

2. I will include tracks that Namjoon featured in

3. I will include tracks that I personally feel the need to be well known *so no I won’t put expensive girl even tho thats my shit*

4. This list will be a bit more laid back since I covered a lot of the most important songs in the last list sooo

5. since i covered his best and most “important” tracks in the last list theres not many left but ill probably include his REALLY early like pre debut fetus tracks with his underground rapper friends, tbh I personally don’t think they are the best but you can definitely see how he grew and where he started from

6. enjoY! and reblog kekeke

7. THIS IS A LONG ASS LIST AND I FUCKING ANALYZED EACH SONG SO I EXPECT YALL TO READ AND APPRECIATE NAMJOON GODDAMIT

8. you can always go to BTS’s official soundcloud for unofficial official tracks yeet

9. titles with stars are ones i recommend ( i should of done this for part one yikes)

1. Voices by Rap Monster ⭐

from his first 2015 mixtape RM > Check out the full album here >>  X  *you can refer to more mixtape songs in my previous list

I feel as if this song is the closest a fan can get with Kim Namjoon. Just listening to it you feel a bit relaxed and almost a bit sad when you start listening to the first half of the song. This song reflects a person’s tender emotions and voices that run inside of someone’s head when they are confused. I remember listening to this 2 years ago and towards the end Namjoon starts screaming out all his pain and I started crying. C R Y I N G

Namjoon had a really smooth life up until he started pursuing hip hop. He was a beyond smart student and had a happy family so why the hell would he be depressed? He had his whole life ahead of him right?

But this lyrics totally breaks that facade down

 “ I didn’t have any dreams just like my lyrics, every day in that way the functions and equations that couldn’t give me an answer in the end those things became uncountable injuries “

Despite having such amazing grades Namjoon did not know what the hell he wanted to do with his life, he didnt want to go into something academic despite being good at it, he was lost in life and his academics could not make him happy but instead hurt him even more.

“ thought I could catch the mirage known as happiness but the me in front of my desk wasn’t happy even for a moment without my mom knowing, I put a sheet of white paper between the pages of my workbook “

This verse totally broke me apart. He wanted to be happy while being in school but school sure as hell did not make him happy. His parents looked up to him as some smartass freak but without them knowing he started writing his own lyrics to cope with his hardships.

“my identity that I wrote down matched to the drum and bass a different, relaxed feeling compared to when I got my report card even when I was #1 my heart couldn’t relax”

The music brought out his true inner feelings, music brought out his true personality rather than when he was almost robot like studying with no self-identity. Despite being number one in class he still felt an emptiness that only music could fill.

“even as 7 years passed... still making my mixtape by myself in one corner of my room some say I’m fake, okay, I admit it, my dark past I can justify it, but I won’t, so that kind of problem won’t happen again the pedal that I stepped on for 7 years has finally been oiled “

Namjoon has been writing music and tried to get recognition for 7 years, despite Bangtan getting fame he is still lonely writing his own mixtape in a dark corner, kind of pathetic ehh idk, in his mixtape interview his dark past was his problematic sayings and actions. He felt the need to appropriate culture in order to rap. He then figured out that music and culture had nothing to do with eachother, music is for everyone. *I’m fake*

And finally after all the hardships after 7 years he is finally started to receive praise and attention!

2. WE ARE BULLETPROOF PT.1 by: Rap Monster, Supreme Boi, and Iron ⭐

Composed 6-7 years ago when Namjoonie was about 15 or 16 THIS SONG IS FUCKING BOP. 

2 of Bangtans were also first members are featured here: Supreme boi (yall probably familiar with him) and Iron! (i hope iron never affiliates with Bangtan ever again tho we dont need a criminal around them yikes)

3. Hook by Supreme Boi, Iron, and Namjoon (also the track used in Yoongi’s all i do is win)

Extremely old and pre debut, but old is gold

Probably one of Namjoon’s only ‘diss’ song, he usually doesnt diss others while he raps tbvh

4. Seventeen by Rap monster

I FEEL LIKE I SHOULDNT MAKE FUN OF HIM BC 15 YEAR OLD NAMJOON AT THE TIME WAS PROBABLY REALLY PROUD BACK THEN BUT HE LOOKED SO FUCKING FUNNY BC DAMN THAT HAIR AND HIS VOICE SOUNDS LIKE A CHIPMUNK BUTHUSDHUFUFSUD

5. SKOOL OF TEARS By: Rap Monster, Suga, and Jin ⭐

Absoloute MASTERPIECE! FIRST OF ALL THE ORIGINAL TRACK IS FROM SWIMMING POOLS BY KENDRICK LAMAR AND I LOVE KENDRICK! SECOND, THE RAP FLOW SOUNDS AMAZING NAMJOON IS GOING SO HARD AND DAMN YOONGI BACK AT IT AGAIN! ALSO CREDS FOR BABY BOY JIN FOR SOUNDING SO BADASS HERE BUT HERE IS WHY I LOVE THIS SONG!

I think its absolutely amazing how Namjoon especially writes song towards youth suffering in school, it takes a lot of guts to write against a society that has been around for decades. 

“  This is a ring called a classroom This is a stadium with no referee only an audience You know there will never be a victor everyone will lose There will be no victor everyone will lose”

“ That’s right, in the end school is like another mini society A jungle made carelessly by adults They made the weaklings weak, they made the strong powerful Of course since they were strong they made the weak suffer A society built on the teachings that friends are only for pretend The morals of adults made us step on the weak to rise to the top “

Its clear to see that Namjoon has suffered in school but also isnt afraid to address the truth.

6. Expensive girl by Rap Monster 

( I FUCKING DISCOVERED THIS SONG WHEN I WAS LIKE 11-12 AND I NEVER WANTED TO PUT THIS HEAR BUT YALL LIKE FOUGHT ME TO ADD THIS TO THE LIST GODDAMIT I HATE YALL I GOT LIKE HATE MAN OKAY)

“Take it off now girl just take it off (I’m a master, baby with your bra)Take it off now girl just take it off (I can help you slide those panties off)(..I’m a beat that pussy like you never ever felt before)x2″

7. Converse High (original version SUNG by Rap Monster)⭐

Yall probably heard Bangtan’s Converse High but here was the original version written by Namjoon that was rejected bc of the swearing omg damn joonie, BUT HE SINGS SO BEAUTIFUL IN THIS YESS

(funny story in seventh grade when this came out it was the last day of school and i requested my teacher to stay after school late so i could finish listening to the whole thing)

8. Suicide by Rap Monster

Rapmon wrote this mixtape in the point of view of a baby in his mother’s tummy. The baby’s parents are high school kids who are forced to go through abortion.

*this song was deleted bc of copyright and also the source of it is unknown but hey ITS IN ENGLISH AND DAMN NAMJOON RIGHTS DEEP SHIT*

(tf is namjoon doing u good)

9. What am I to you by Rap Monster from the 2014 Dark & wILD ⭐

if you DONT KNOW THIS SONG I SUGGEST YOU RETHINK YOUR LIFE DECISIONS BC LOWKEY HANDS DOWN ONE OF THE BEST INTRO’S TO A OFFICIAL BTS ALBUM (gif is from the live ver of this song and he started crying ok)

So Namjoon used to have a girlfriend who “mistreated” him. Tbvh we really don’t know what happened but on problematic men he said it wasnt anything serious it was just she would neglect him and not spend enough time but also hang out with other men.

(gif aint mine so gif blogs dont come at me)

But clearly the lyrics of this song are very emotional but the real reason why this song is a masterpiece is because of the rise of  emotions.

It starts off slow and cute, Namjoon mentions how he loves the girl and how their love is pure and innocent, throwing cute love phrases and the song sounds so soft, hopeful, and romantic. But in the middle the music starts to get more serious and Namjoon starts to question the relationship. He feels as if the girl thinks of this relationship as more of a task and a job, and slowly as the song comes to an end NAMJOON STARTS FUCKING SCREAMING AND BELTING! ALL THE EMOTIONS BUILD UP AND HE STARTS SCREAMING “WHAT AM I TO YOU GIRL WHAT AM I TO YOU I DO LOVE YOU CRAZY UH DO YOU” LIKE IT WAS SCARY I WAS CRYING IM LIKE NAMJOON WHO TF HURT YOU

10. Always by Rap Monster ⭐

This song is more recent and farely well known but I still felt the need to put this masterpiece here. Namjoon said not to worry about him as the lyrics are really sad and almost ???SUICIDAL??? but he said he wrote this when he was stressed last year. Its kind of a self questioning song about life and your purpose. I cried when it came out. well i always cry when i listen to namjoon is it a surprise.

I'm honestly in tears because this song goes to show how hurt Namjoon still is even after all these years. Even after all these awards, fans, and accomplishments. Depression still hurts after a long time. I can tell that this song was talking about his past. This song literally made me realize Namjoon was questioning his existence and I wanna hold him so badly. Guys...we could of lost Kim Namjoon. My absolute favourite human being in the entire world who saved my life. He is a human being who does not deserve such pain but I am so proud he endured it so well and look how far he came. One of my favourite verses "I live for the sake of understanding this world, but why hasnt the world tried to understand me atleast once" Its a really vague phrase which is why I like it. WORLD could mean destiny, fate, life, even parents.  He tries so hard to accept his life, to understand his parents wishes, sacrificing his own happiness yet fate decides to only give him the worst. "Dad please listen to me" "dead dad, your dead to me," Talking about how his dad wouldn't let him rap. I remember him mentioning that his dad once told him all that education he worked hard for was for nothing and I can’t imagine how sad Namjoon felt in that moment. "I would tell god if I ever meet him, i would hold him by the collar and tell him this life is like a coffee I never ordered" A pretty sad and a bit confusing verse, maybe leading to why Namjoon eventually became an atheist. Namjoon was in so much pain he didnt want to be born. "I wished I was dead...... I wished “Someone would kill me" No Namjoon never utter such words. My joonie mini I hope you are better and hopeful now, look at how far you came, your so successful and loved, and you made your family proud. Dont ever doubt yourself and even think about death, just keep living happily and moving forward. He honestly felt lost in this point of his life and still continues to feel lost. Namjoon you have such in important role and your existence was destined. You were born for a reason. You were born to change lives. 

11.  J-Lim ft. Rap Monster & Iron - Ashes

12. TIPSY BY RAP MONSTER & SUPREME BOI

Namjoon wrote this in the beginning of his rap career when he was still trying to find where he stood as a rapper. He mentions how he isnt doing this for the fame or money and he isnt the next Nas or Tupac he just wants to rap for the love of it.

13.  Rap Monster of 방탄소년단 (BANGTAN),Supreme Boi,i11evn,Marvel.J - You can't do that

*i suggest you skip ahead to 1:30 for namjoon fire verse, shade intended*

14.  RAP MONSTER of 방탄소년단,Suprema,Marvel.J,Kyum2 - Rollin

I also recommend you to skip ahead to 2:40 BC DAMN BOY GOES HARD

But tbvh pre debut namjoon squad (supreme boi , young jeezy, iron are hella problematic and say the n word in this and still do so im like yikes im happy nam left you) “ They pissed, now rape me" bitch whet

yeah im just here for namjoons verse bye

imma mufukin balla on this mufuckin beat spit mufuckin rap on this mufuckin shit got mufuckin skill so im mufuckin phat its mufuckin trick and a mufuckin track i i bet you betta stop stopin da chatter im a rapper man, and i represent BPB im juss so greater than hoes

15. FUCK COCKROACHES BY RAP MONSTER AND ZICO *THIS IS SO FUNNY*

Zico was 15 and RapMon was 13 when they rapped this, Namjoon sounds like a chipmunk BUT ZICO SOUNDS LIKE JIMIN I STG!

16. Rap Monster- Thinking Bout you

Joonie Mini Representing Biggie smalls eyyy!

17. Glory By Rap Monster

"I'm a dick? Yeah, when you disturb me, I grow bigger" SO FUCKING DONE

*there was lowkey lowkey controversy bc he said he tore 4 hymens BUT DETECTIVE LAMI FIXED IT*

 In the beginning Namjoon says that people looked at him pitifully because he joined BTS,  the Underground rappers were disappointed with him which led the Underground rappers to leave him, which has ripped his hymen. Not 4 hymen of random girls. 4 and "I" sound the same in Korean

it's a bit weird but in this case he is talking about himself all the hate people showed has ripped his hymen symbolizing his innocence for music.

18. NAA BY RAP MONSTER

tHE ORIGINAL BEAT WAS DEUCES BY CHRIS BROWN I WAS DYING

19. REGULAR VOICE BY RAP MONSTER ⭐

A really sweet and open-minded song about Namjoon wanting a “regular girl” “Height? I don’t care. Age? I don’t mind it. When you say, “I’ll only look at you” then I’m okay. Whether your skin is light or dark it doesn’t really matter, our love is deeper than that. “

I feel as if idols are pressured to have certain ideal types and say them out in the open, Namjoon had bad influences around him *underground rappers* which also influenced his negative sayings towards certain things but he wrote this song all alone at a young age which shows that his intentions are pure, and ever since he apologized for his wrong doings you go joon.

his voice sounds like sex

20. DREAMING BY RAP MONSTER

FETUS CHUBBY WTF HAIR NAMJOON IS BACK

okay but seriously you can see that despite being young he put a lot of effort and thought into this song!

21.  RAP MONSTER of 방탄소년단 feat.김거덕 - RAP

22.  130305??  THIS TRACK IS UNTITLED BUT IT SOUNDS SO EPIC TF

23. Trouble by Rap Monster 🔞 🔞

OKAY IM BARELY AROUSED BUT THIS SHIT ACTUALLY HAD ME SOAKED IM SORRY GOD LIKE ITS SO SUGGESTIVE I STG 

HIS SEXUAL FANTASIES I STG

[shirlleycoyle]

It’s Too Hard to Put Artwork Into the Public Domain

Dave Fagundes is a professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, where he studies tangible and intangible property. Aaron Perzanowski is the author of The End of Ownership and Creativity Without Law. He is also a professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, where he specializes in copyright, trademark, and property law.

Earlier this month, the Smithsonian Institution released nearly 3 million images with the stated goal of abandoning its copyrights and dedicating those works to the public domain. The Smithsonian joins the Metropolitan Museum of Art, acclaimed photographer Carol Highsmith, and thousands of software developers, artists, musicians, authors, and photographers around the world in the effort to part with unwanted copyrights. But it turns out that it's not so simple to just give something away. Abandoning copyright is surprisingly complex.

Many of us have abandoned property. Prompted by a move across town or the sudden urge to redecorate, you decide to get rid of an old couch or a stack of used paperbacks that were taking up precious space. The most responsible among us list those items for free on Craigslist or arrange for a local charity to pick them up. Property law would call that a gift. But those of us less concerned with the orderly distribution of unwanted property simply carry the couch and the paperbacks to the nearest sidewalk and leave them there, perhaps with a hastily scribbled sign reading “Free.” That’s abandonment. When it comes to personal property, like couches and paperbacks, the law allows abandonment, within limits. You can’t just dump your unwanted junk anywhere, like a public park or someone else’s front lawn. But you’re generally free to leave your unwanted property free for the first taker.

"Just to prove that our commitment to copyright abandonment isn’t merely academic, we hereby abandon all copyright interests in this article, fully and irrevocably"

But far fewer of us have felt the urge to abandon a copyright. First off, you might not even think of yourself as a copyright holder. But we promise, you are. Musicians, filmmakers, authors, and their publishers own copyrights. But so do everyday people. Every photo you take on your phone, every email you send, every doodle you draw on the back of a cocktail napkin is eligible for copyright protection. And since 1978, copyright in the United States has been automatic. There’s no formal process necessary to secure a copyright. If it’s saved in some durable form—“fixed in a tangible medium,” in copyright parlance—and minimally creative, any work of expression you make is automatically protected by copyright until the day you die, and for 70 years after, when it enters the public domain and becomes free for all to use.

But even if you recognize yourself as a copyright owner, the incentives to abandon unwanted copyrights are minimal. Unlike your old couch, the copyright in that photo you took of last week’s poke bowl or the shaky concert footage you bothered to record a month ago impose no ongoing costs of ownership. Copyrights are intangible legal rights; they don’t take up space. Unlike patents or trademark registrations, there are no fees associated with maintaining copyright ownership. And who knows, maybe that concert footage will turn out to be worth some money someday. So why bother abandoning it?

For some, like the Smithsonian, the answer is rooted in the broad public benefits of abandonment. By contributing works to the public domain, copyright holders make them available for anyone to use at no charge and without seeking permission. That means abandoned works can be shared freely, adapted into new creative works, and incorporated into databases, search tools, and even AI training data.

These upsides of copyright abandonment are in sharp contrast to the effects of personal property abandonment. When you abandon a couch, you rid yourself of a nuisance but run the risk of inflicting harms on the rest of society. Maybe someone happily snaps up your ratty old couch. If so, it’s a win-win. But maybe it sits there, blighting the neighborhood for days or weeks, until it’s finally disposed of by sanitation workers at public expense.

The copyright system depends on the availability of unowned works to serve as a basis for future generations of creativity. Given the relative trickle of works entering the public domain as a result of the Copyright Term Extension Act, which starved the public domain for two decades, a voluntary mechanism for abandoning copyright is particularly important. Not surprisingly, we’ve seen the emergence of the copyleft movement give rise to private efforts like the Creative Commons 0 designation or the Unlicense designed to give copyright holders a simple way to abandon unwanted works. But those tools depend on legal recognition of copyright abandonment. The Copyright Act doesn’t mention abandonment. The Copyright Office takes no position on whether these efforts to abandon are effective. And no court has yet determined that they get the job done. So while many owners believe they’ve abandoned their works, whether they’ve actually managed to do so remains an open question.

So we set out to uncover whether and how a copyright could be fully and irrevocably abandoned under U.S. law. As it turns out, the answer is complicated. We began by tracking down every published court decision that discussed copyright abandonment. We identified 131 cases, stretching back to 1834, that squarely addressed this question. Only 17 of them found that a work had actually been abandoned.

On the whole, courts are quite clear on what owners have to do to abandon a copyright. And it’s the same thing owners of physical property have to do: form an intent to abandon and engage in some act that clearly communicates this intent to outside observers. But how courts apply this straightforward test in practice is unpredictable. In one case, a court held that an architect who entered a contest to design the new World Trade Center abandoned his copyright, preventing him from successfully suing when that design was used to construct a Trump property instead. In another, the court found that the creator of a meditation video did not abandon his copyright despite public statements that he “let the video go out to the world unrestrained” and “never cared about the copyrights.”

Part of the problem is that the abandonment test makes a lot more sense in the context of physical property than intellectual property. Unlike your unwanted couch, which you can put on the sidewalk to indicate your intent, then there’s no physical object you can discard that communicates your desire to abandon an intangible asset like a copyright.

That’s not to say the law gives owners no options to abandon their copyrights. The cases suggest that a clear, unambiguous written statement, like the CC0 designation, that permanently relinquishes all rights to a work should do the trick. The problem is that there’s no officially-recognized pathway to abandon a work under U.S. law. Instead, we have to rely on courts making case-by-case determinations.

Here’s what we think should happen instead. The Copyright Act should be revised to recognize abandonment, and the Copyright Office should offer a clear, standardized, and legally enforceable method for doing so. Copyright owners should be able to file a simple form to publicly declare their intention to abandon a work. And filing that form should be free, as opposed to the Office’s usual $105 fee. In addition, the Office should create a searchable registry of abandoned works, so the public can actually find and use them. Ideally, this process would recognize the validity of the millions of works already abandoned under the CC0 designation as well.

Aside from recognizing abandonment, it’s worth considering whether the law should encourage it. Dedicating a work benefits the public but requires the owner to give up control and potential revenue. So policymakers should consider tools that create incentives, like tax breaks or small cash payments, for authors to abandon unwanted copyrights.

We don’t think anyone should be forced to abandon a copyright. So if you want to hang onto your rights in that photo of your lunch, then by all means keep them. But since we are all granted copyrights whether we want them or not, the law needs to provide an opt-out mechanism. And since abandonment entails both effort and risk, the law ought to provide enough encouragement to overcome the inertia of automatic copyright protection. By making abandonment available and attractive, copyright law could enrich the public domain and better fulfill its goals of encouraging the production of and promoting access to creative works.

And just to prove that our commitment to copyright abandonment isn’t merely academic, we hereby abandon all copyright interests in this article, fully and irrevocably, effective March 18, 2020.

It’s Too Hard to Put Artwork Into the Public Domain syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[designmeblogss]

The Seven Different Types of Written Music

As a bassist, bandleader, teacher, and music copyist, I've worked with hundreds of singers throughout the years. Though working musicians know hundreds of tunes, singers need to have good charts in order to have their music played the way they want music promotion. I define a "good chart" as a piece of written music that effectively tells the musicians what they should play.

Written music comes in seven basic forms: chord charts, sheet music, songbooks, lead sheets, fake books, master rhythm charts and fully notated parts.

As a musician has a responsibility to play the chart before him correctly, the supplier of the chart has the responsibility of providing the right kind of chart. Knowing what type of chart to use for what kind of tune or gig is very important.

This article explains what the different types of charts are, and under what circumstances to use them. I hope you find it useful.

TYPES OF CHARTS

Charts can be simple or elaborate according to the style of music and type of gig. Cover tunes are traditionally learned from recordings; classical and choral music can be found in sheet music stores as well as in various music catalogs; numerous tunes will be found in music books of all kinds; and many public libraries carry recordings and written music for your use.

The word "chart" refers to any piece of written music or any arrangement (music that has been adapted in a unique manner) of a tune. Decades ago it was strictly a "cool" slang term for a tune, but any piece of music could be called a chart these days, though a classical buff might not refer to a Mozart work as a "chart."

Knowing what type of chart to use for what kind of tune is very important. When you're playing a gig and someone hands you a chart -- it is what it is and you either read it well or not. But, if you buy charts, have them made for you or provide them yourself, you need to know which kinds to use for which situations. Years back, while doing singer showcases, singers brought in all kinds of charts: good ones, bad ones, incorrect ones, inappropriate ones, and it was a real pain. The singers who provided the right kinds of charts got their music played the way they wanted. The singers who had the wrong kinds of charts didn't, and weren't very happy about it. Unless a musician already knows the specific parts, he can only play according to what's on the chart before him. Though a good musician can improvise a good part in any style, if a specific musical line needs to be played, it needs to be written out.

As a musician has a responsibility to correctly play the chart before him, the supplier of the chart has the responsibility of providing an appropriate one.

Without getting into too many music notation specifics, here are the different kinds of charts and when they are used:

1. CHORD CHARTS

A chord chart contains the chords, meter (how the song is counted, e.g., in 4 or in 3 (like a waltz), and the form of the song (the exact order of the sections). This type of chart is primarily used when: 1. the specific musical parts are improvised or already known, but the form and chords need to be referred to, 2. to provide chords to improvise over, or 3. when a last-minute chart needs to be written, and there isn't time for anything more elaborate.

A chord chart does not contain the melody or any specific instrumental parts to be played. To play from simple chord charts a musician basically needs to have steady time, know the chords, and improvise his part in whatever style the tune is in.

2. SHEET MUSIC

Sheet music is a store-bought version of a song printed by a publisher, which contains the instrumental part, chords, lyrics, melody and form. An instrumental piece will, of course, have just the music. Sheet music is written for both piano and guitar. Guitar sheet music is in standard notation (often classical), as well as in TAB. A good piece of sheet music will always say whether it's for piano or guitar. Most sheet music is not meant to be completely representative of the actual recording, and the actual arrangement that you've heard on a recording is seldom present.

Many people have experienced the frustration of getting the sheet music to a song they like, playing it, and discovering that the chords are different from the recording, and sometimes the form is too. Unfortunately that's the way it is a lot, and it could be for a number of different reasons. To get the exact arrangement and chords, you need to do a "takedown" of the song: learn it by ear. A takedown is when you listen to a piece of music and write it down. Takedowns can range from simple chord charts to elaborate orchestral parts or anything in between. In order to do good takedowns, you need to have good ears, understand and be fluid with music notation to the complexity of the type of music you're working with, and preferably understand music (the more the better). Having "good ears" consists of recognizing and understanding the music, whether heard on the radio, played by another musician, or heard in your head.

3. SONGBOOKS

Songbooks are compilations of many tunes and often contain the same information that sheet music does, along with the chords and arrangement being different from the recording most of the time. Sheet music commonly has full introductions and endings, whereas songbook tunes are generally shortened to create space in the book for more tunes. Sheet music is generally written to be played on a keyboard, but songbooks come in different styles and for different instruments. They are compiled by artist, style, decade, and in various collections including movie themes, Broadway hits, etc.

Songbooks are a good reference source when other, more exact charts are unavailable. For example: I needed two movie themes for a gig once (client request). Instead of spending $8 for two tunes of sheet music, I bought a book of movie themes for $16 that contained over a hundred tunes. Sheet music and songbooks are pretty unusable at gigs because of cumbersome page turns and bulkiness; but in an emergency you use them and do what you can. If having to use sheet music or songbooks for live performance, either: 1. recopy the tune onto 1-3 pages or 2. photocopy it and tape the pages together (although, strictly speaking, this may be considered copyright infringement). Make sure to always provide a copy for each musician.

To play from songbooks and sheet music, a musician needs to be able to read the music notation, or at least improvise a part from the chord symbols, i.e., a guitar strum, bass groove, piano groove, etc., or better yet, both. A vocalist can sing the words if they know the melody, or be able to read the notated melody if they don't know it.

4. LEAD SHEETS

Lead sheets contain the chords, lyrics and melody line of the song and are mainly used by singers, accompanists and arrangers, though they appear on the bandstand now and again. Songwriters use lead sheets to copyright their songs, and very often sheet music includes a lead sheet of the tune as a condensed version to use. Instead of having three to six pages of sheet music to turn, a lead sheet is usually one or two pages long. Lead sheets do not contain any music notation except the melody and chords, so a musician needs to know how to improvise when reading from one music pr. A lead sheet is generally written out by a music copyist, who is someone who specializes in preparing written music. Playing from lead sheets minimally requires playing an accompaniment from the chords and understanding the form directions and symbols (the markings telling you to go to the verse or the chorus or the end, etc.) and maximally having excellent accompaniment skills and reading notation fluidly.

5. FAKE BOOKS

A fake book is a large book of tunes that contain only the melody line, lyrics and chords. There's no piano part, guitar part or bass part. That's why they call it a fake book. You have to already know your parts, or improvise them in the style of the tune. Some people call that "faking it." Faking it means to be musically adept enough to be able to follow along by ear and figure it out as you go: that's one of the reasons for ear training. When a person's ears "get trained", they learn to recognize and understand the relationship of pitches and musical elements. With this understanding you can "hear" your way through tunes, even if you haven't heard them before, you fake it. However, when you don't hear so well, you're really faking it!

Before there was an abundance of legal fake books on the market, there was an abundance of illegal fake books on the streets. (As of this writing, I've only seen a few at gigs.) Since a working musician needs to have access to a large number of tunes at gigs, musicians compiled books of hundreds of useful tunes containing only melody lines and chords. A working player doesn't need all the notes written out, because he can improvise, so large books were made with choice tunes. Some fake books are hand copied, either by a pro copyist or casually done with pen or pencil, while others consist of cut up sheet music where all the piano parts are removed, leaving the melody and chords, all for the purpose of condensing space.

Rather than take stacks of songbooks to gigs, you pop a fake book of hundreds of choice tunes into your gig bag and off you go. A tune taking up five or six pages in songbook/sheet music form can take up a page or less when rewritten by hand or cut up, leaving only the chords and melody. Fake books are often used and I've seldom been at a casual where someone hasn't had at least one.

The reason the illegal books are illegal is copyright laws. With the homemade books, nothing goes through the publishing houses that own the rights to the tunes, so neither the publishers nor the composers get paid for their use. The Catch-22 over the years has been the fact that there weren't any good legal fake books that pro musicians could use at a gig. In a songbook of 200 tunes, maybe ten were usable. So, the players made their own, and gigging musicians lived happily ever after. But since making these books is illegal, some decades ago a few nationwide distributors were arrested and fined for copyright infringement. But you still see the illegal books on the bandstands, nonetheless.

Over the years many legal fake books have been published and are very good. There are music books for: pop, jazz, rock, country, specific artists and movie themes, and there are special wedding books with all the key music that brides like. Big sheet music stores should have them all. And recently, some of the most popular illegal fake books have been made legal. (Hooray!) The 5th Edition Real Book is an example. Filled largely with jazz tunes, the book is in the original format, but published legally as the 6th Edition Real Book.

Legal fake books are plentiful at sheet music stores, and illegal books... well, you're on your own. Trade magazines and music union papers often advertise a wide variety of music books as well as joke books, ethnic music and other related entertainment materials. Sometimes instrument stores carry fake books as well.

Fake books are good to have, but the more tunes a musician knows, the better.

6. MASTER RHYTHM CHARTS

Master rhythm charts are charts designed for the rhythm section (piano, bass, guitar and drums). It is one chart that contains the general idea for everybody to play from: a sketch of the tune, a master copy of it all for each player. These charts are like elaborate chord charts with just enough specifics on them to make the music either feel and sound more like the original recording, or to provide just enough specifics to make it interesting and recognizable, leaving the rest to improvising.

Unless a tune is composed or arranged in this style to begin with, which many are, these charts are written by someone doing a takedown from a recording, or created from lead sheets or songbooks. Whereas lead sheets are primarily for the singer, master rhythm charts are primarily for the musicians. When a singer provides charts to the musicians in the band, these are the usual ones to use.

A master rhythm chart contains:

• All the chords

• Key rhythms (the main rhythms)

• Key melodic parts for the instruments

• Key lyrics for reference if desired

• Key background vocals if present

• Dynamics-how loud, how soft, etc.

• Any form, clarifying instructions and symbols needed to ensure a good performance of the tune.

All styles of popular music use master rhythm charts, and it's common to have one along with a lead sheet for each tune when a singer is involved. Master rhythm chart reading, and writing, entails improvising fluidly in the style of the tune, and requires fluid notation reading abilities.

7. NOTATED PARTS

When the music needs to be extremely specific it will be fully notated. Everything that needs to be played is written on the page. What to play, when to play it and how to play it: the notes, rhythms, dynamics, and any and all notational expressions, such as tempos (how fast or slow), who cues what, etc. Most professional recording sessions and shows require fluid note reading and provide individual parts for each instrument.

LYRIC SHEETS WITH CHORDS

Though they are not written music, lyric sheets with chords deserve a mention.

Singers who play an instrument often use lyric sheets with chord symbols written above the words. For a singer/musician these are very useful, and are often used. I've used them myself.

Musicians reading these charts, however, can do well if they are familiar with the song, but this leaves a very large margin for error. Very often the chords are over the wrong words, or the chords are wrong or incomplete: very dicey business. Musicians like specifics.

My students use these all the time, and there are a number of Internet sites with thousands of lyric sheets you can download. For certain situations they are very handy!

TECHNOLOGY!

With the presence of smartphones, tablets, and similar devices, it's common to see a musician with all of their music scanned into a device! Though this will never replace paper, it certainly is convenient! A solo pianist can leave the suitcase of music at home, a jazz player can load the 6th Edition Real Book on his or her smartphone, and a singer can get last-minute lyrics via the Internet while on the bandstand.

[oldguardaudio]

PowerLine -> The hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center – Antifa “grows as left-wing faction”

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

powerline at HoaxAndChange.com

Hey Libertards spend you time doing what you talk about, Feed some homeless or something. at HoaxAndCahnge.com

Daily Digest

Statue of Limitations (2)

How to Watch an Eclipse—Or CNN

Report: Bannon to be ousted

Antifa “grows as left-wing faction”

Restatement on comments

Statue of Limitations (2)

Posted: 18 Aug 2017 11:50 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

Further to my comments the other day about the issues emerging from Charlottesville, a few more observations, and interrogatories:

It is understandable that Democrats would be agitating to remove Confederate-honoring statues. After all, it is their history that they need to make go away. You know, things like this:

I won’t vouch for the accuracy of the histogram below (after all, it was produced by a hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) of when Confederate monuments went up, but the reading given that they went up during the ratcheting up of Jim Crow in the Progressive Era, and then again during the Civil Rights Era, misses that those two eras correspond to the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War, which puts a slightly different cast on things. On the other hand, the Progressives—especially Woodrow Wilson—were deeply racist. (How about this one from Wilson: “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation—until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.” So when is Princeton going to get around to dumping Wilson’s name from its graduate school?)

(Click to embiggen.)

While it is sensible to object to the mindless eradication of history, especially at the instigation of a braying mob, I’m not sure conservatives should be standing in the breach against a set of monuments erected by Democrats. To the contrary, it is tempting to say exactly this: “The time has long been past when we should have removed these Democrat monuments.” In this regard, see David Goldman’s excellent cri de coeur from a couple days ago:

I can accept the idea that Robert E. Lee was a decent man. Decent men fought for causes even more wicked than the Confederacy. Would the Germans erect a monument to Field Marshal Rommel, a professional soldier murdered by Hitler? Of course not. They are left to mourn their dead in private. America had a different sort of dilemma. We fought the Civil War to preserve the Union, including a South that was only sorry that it lost. In the interests of unity we tolerated (and even promoted) the myth of Southern gallantry, the Lost Cause, and all the other baloney that went into D.W. Griffiths’ “The Birth of a Nation” and “Gone With The Wind.” We allowed the defeated South to console itself with the myth that it fought for “states’ rights” or whatever rather than to preserve a vile system of economic (and sometimes sexual) exploitation. Meanwhile the freed slaves had a very bad century between Appomattox and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Don’t expect them to look with understanding on the supposed symbols of “Southern heritage.”

I thought one of Trump’s better moments in the campaign was when he said to black voters in Detroit, “What have you got to lose?” Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, etc., have been governed by Democrats for decades. How’s that working out for you? Taking down statues is the epitome of cheap grace. (Aside: I see Nancy Pelosi now wants Confederate statues taken down in the U.S. Capitol. Wasn’t she the Speaker of the House for four years? Why didn’t she do it then?

Abe Lincoln on dems and slaves at HoaxAndChange.com

Will anyone in the media ask her this question?)

On the other hand, polls show a majority of American oppose taking down the statues, perhaps out of ignorance about the Confederacy. I’d have preferred to add monuments, starting with Frederick Douglas, rather than removing monuments

But it is easy to see why Steve Bannon is sitting back smiling about all of this. Let the liberals wallow in their identity politics, and let the left revive the violence of the Weather Underground. The Spencerites are a problem that the right needs to deal with, but the agitated left can be relied upon to produce much more public violence than neo-Nazis. Somewhere Richard Nixon is smiling. Antifa helps Republicans. No less a leftist icon than Noam Chomsky agrees:

“As for Antifa, it’s a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were,” Noam Chomsky told the Washington Examiner. “It’s a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant.”

   How to Watch an Eclipse—Or CNN

Posted: 18 Aug 2017 10:45 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)

Power Line’s mobile news production crew is hitting the road today for eastern Oregon to take in the total eclipse Monday morning, and you can look forward to complete coverage here on Monday. (I’ve packed one video camera, two GoPros, two still cameras, and Power Line’s Drone Force One, though I am unclear just how I’ll be able to get the drone to circle the sun during the eclipse.) In the meantime, Remy Munasifi offers a handy guide to watching the eclipse—or CNN:

   Report: Bannon to be ousted

Posted: 18 Aug 2017 10:28 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reports:

President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.

Bannon has been twisting in the wind for some time. News of his ouster will surprise no one.

Bannon didn’t help matters when he granted an interview to left-wing journalist Robert Kuttner of “The American Prospect” in which he seemed to ridicule the idea that the U.S. has a viable military option against North Korea. Bannon stated:

Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

File this one under Michael Kinsley’s definition of a gaffe.

Though my view of Bannon is mixed, I’m sorry to see him go. I think he provided an important counterweight to those with whom he clashed — Gary Cohn, a Democrat, Dina Powell, H.R. McMaster, and Jared Kushner. All of them, in various ways, seek to moderate President Trump on policy matters. Who now will speak up for substantive hard-line conservative and nationalistic positions?

NOTE: Haberman’s article also includes this passage:

A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

   Antifa “grows as left-wing faction”

Posted: 18 Aug 2017 09:44 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Are the violent Antifa thugs a fringe movement or an increasingly important part of an emerging left-wing coalition? I want to say “fringe movement.”

However, the New York Times reports that Antifa is growing as a left-wing faction. And Mark Lance, a professor of (I kid you not) justice and peace at Georgetown University, says “I’m seeing more concrete productive discussion between anti-fascists and others on the Left these days than ever before in my life.” Lance predicts that Antifa “will become integrated into an emerging coalition that includes Sanders supporters, democratic socialists, dreamers, the Movement for Black Lives, environmentalists, [and] Native American organizers.”

I can’t tell you that the professor of justice and peace is wrong. I think he’s right when it comes to Black Lives Matter.

The New York Times mostly indulges the fiction that the Antifa thugs are merely engaged in protecting cities, towns, and college campuses from hordes of fascists, though it admits that in some cases they have taken on “ordinary supporters of President Trump.” The antifas, of course, see no distinction between fascist hordes and ordinary Trump supporters.

Nor do they see a distinction between someone attending a speech by an extreme right-winger and someone engaged in violence against the left. As one prominent Antifa thug said of those on the other side of the political spectrum, “their existence itself is violent and dangerous, so I don’t think using force or violence to oppose them is unethical.”

Stalin couldn’t have put it better.

We can only hope that the New York Times and the professor of peace and justice are wrong. We can only hope that Stalinists will not be integrated into the emerging left-wing coalition of Sanders supporters, democratic socialists, environmentalists, etc.

   Restatement on comments

Posted: 18 Aug 2017 05:42 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

As I have mentioned a time or two before, we seek to maintain a tone appropriate to civil discourse on this site. It is a tone that comes naturally to most of our readers and commenters. I set forth our guidelines for comments, most recently, here.

Posting comments on Power Line is a privilege, not a right. I review comments for abuse and vulgarity. Most of our commenters have no problem speaking in polite company. However, every day I now moderate comments by commenters who are routinely vulgar. Some commenters appear to be incapable of expressing themselves without recourse to words such as “ass” or “asshole” or “dumbass” or “bastard” or “shit” or “bullshit” or “fuck” or “balls” (of the anatomical variety) or the like and their many colorful variants. “Libtard” is not acceptable here. Inserting asterisks or dashes to mask obvious vulgarities doesn’t cut it.

Our departures from the gospel according to President Trump are not to be deemed an occasion on which to abuse the contributors to this site or the site itself, for that matter. Disagreement is welcome. Abuse is not. Commenters who disparage us in personal terms — for example, “Paul, you are an idiot” — will be banned. Commenters who assert that we are “shilling” for some line or other will be banned. If you seek to disparage John or Paul or Steve or me personally, you are free to do so on a site of your own.

Those of you who employ vulgarity or abuse us personally are cordially invited to take your business elsewhere. If you don’t, we will resort to the expedient of banning you from the comments without notice.

   PowerLine -> The hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center – Antifa “grows as left-wing faction” PowerLine -> The hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center - Antifa “grows as left-wing faction”

[neptunecreek]

Net Neutrality Won't Save Us if DRM is Baked Into the Web

Yesterday's record-smashing Net Neutrality day of action showed that the Internet's users care about an open playing field and don't want a handful of companies to decide what we can and can't do online.

Today, we should also think about other ways in which small numbers of companies, including net neutrality's biggest foes, are trying to gain the same kinds of control, with the same grave consequences for the open web. Exhibit A is baking digital rights management (DRM) into the web's standards.

ISPs that oppose effective net neutrality protections say that they've got the right to earn as much money as they can from their networks, and if people don't like it, they can just get their internet somewhere else. But of course, the lack of competition in network service means that most people can't do this.

Big entertainment companies -- some of whom are owned by big ISPs! -- say that because they can make more money if they can control your computer and get it to disobey you, they should be able to team up with browser vendors and standards bodies to make that a reality. If you don't like it, you can watch someone else's movies.

Like ISPs, entertainment companies think they can get away with this because they too have a kind of monopoly --copyright, which gives rightsholders the power to control many uses of their creative works. But just like the current FCC Title II rules that stop ISPs from flexing their muscle to the detriment of web users, copyright law places limits on the powers of copyright holders.

Copyright can stop you from starting a business to sell unlicensed copies of the studios' movies, but it couldn't stop Netflix from starting a business that mailed DVDs around for money; it couldn't stop Apple from selling you a computer that would "Rip, Mix, Burn" your copyrighted music, and it couldn't stop cable companies from starting businesses that retransmitted broadcasters' signals.

That competitive balance makes an important distinction between "breaking the law" (not allowed) and "rocking the boat" (totally allowed). Companies that want to rock the boat are allowed to enter the market with new, competitive offerings that go places the existing industry fears to tread, and so they discover new, unmapped and fertile territory for services and products that we come to love and depend on.

But overbroad and badly written laws like Section 1201 of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) upset this balance. DMCA 1201 bans tampering with DRM, even if you're only doing so to exercise the rights that Congress gave you as a user of copyrighted works. This means that media companies that bake DRM into the standards of the web get to decide what kinds of new products and services are allowed to enter the market, effectively banning others from adding new features to our media, even when those features have been declared legal by Congress.

ISPs are only profitable because there was an open Internet where new services could pop up, transforming the Internet from a technological curiosity into a necessity of life that hundreds of millions of Americans pay for. Now that the ISPs get steady revenue from our use of the net, they want network discrimination, which, like the discrimination used by DRM advocates, is an attempt to change "don't break the law" into "don't rock the boat" -- to force would-be competitors to play by the rules set by the cozy old guard.

For decades, activists struggled to get people to care about net neutrality, and their opponents from big telecom companies said, "people don't care, all they want is to get online, and that's what we give them." The once-quiet voices of net neutrality wonks have swelled into a chorus of people who realize that an open web was important to their future. As we saw yesterday, the public broadly demands protection for the open Internet.

Today, advocates for DRM say that "People don't care, all they want is to watch movies, and that's what we deliver." But there is an increasing realization that letting major movie studios tilt the playing field toward them and their preferred partners also endangers the web's future.

Don't take our word for it: last April, Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term "net neutrality" and is one of the world's foremost advocates for a neutral web, published an open letter to Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the web and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), where there is an ongoing effort to standardize DRM for the web.

In that letter, Wu wrote:

I think more thinking need be done about EME’s potential consequences for competition, both as between browsers, the major applications, and in ways unexpected. Control of chokepoints has always and will always be a fundamental challenge facing the Internet as we both know. That’s the principal concern of net neutrality, and has been a concern when it comes to browsers and their associated standards. It is not hard to recall how close Microsoft came, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, to gaining de facto control over the future of the web (and, frankly, the future) in its effort to gain an unsupervised monopoly over the browser market.

EME, of course, brings the anti-circumvention laws into play, and as you may know anti-circumvention laws have a history of being used for purposes different than the original intent (i.e., protecting content). For example, soon after it was released, the U.S. anti-circumvention law was quickly by manufacturers of inkjet printers and garage-door openers to try and block out aftermarket competitors (generic ink, and generic remote controls). The question is whether the W3C standard with an embedded DRM standard, EME, becomes a tool for suppressing competition in ways not expected.

This week, Berners-Lee made important and stirring contributions to the net neutrality debate, appearing in this outstanding Web Foundation video and explaining how anti-competitive actions by ISPs endanger the things that made the web so precious and transformative.

Last week, Berners-Lee disappointed activists who'd asked for a modest compromise on DRM at the W3C, one that would protect competition and use standards to promote the same level playing field we seek in our Net Neutrality campaigns. Yesterday, EFF announced that it would formally appeal Berners-Lee's decision to standardize DRM for the web without any protection for its neutrality. In the decades of the W3C's existence, there has never been a successful appeal to one of Berners-Lee's decisions.

The odds are long here -- the same massive corporations that oppose effective net neutrality protections also oppose protections against monopolization of the web through DRM, and they can outspend us by orders of magnitude. But we're doing it, and we're fighting to win. That's because, like Tim Berners-Lee, we love the web and believe it can only continue as a force for good if giant corporations don't get to decide what we can and can't do with it.

from Deeplinks http://ift.tt/2sUShXo

[mirceakitsune]

A sad day for civilization

Usually I try to keep my quota of political journals to a minimum. However the unfortunate events of today prompt what is perhaps one of the harshest journals I've written in this regard. I imagine I'll face quite a bit of criticism for it... both because many will see it as an exaggeration, and because I'm reacting strongly to something happening in the UK despite not being British myself. I will explain both of those things below.

On 08-June-2017 (yesterday as of the date of this posting), a once important member of the modern world (Britain) has left our ranks, by legitimating the war against modern society. An act committed by allowing an enemy of the civilized world to return to power, after its unprecedented attacks against every good achievement mankind has ever had within the last decades. That enemy is the UK's prime minister, Theresa May, the leader of the Conservative party.

For those not familiar with this monstrous woman, and why in my view she embodies the end of modern times, I will refresh everyone on who this bitch is and what she has done thus far:

- Theresa May promised the outright destruction of the internet as we know it, and its replacement with a national intranet under strict ideological control by the UK government (even more tightly than China). Her plans go to the point where every citizen must ask for exclusive permission to post anything online (even journals like this one) and no kind of content may be hosted on any server without the government's explicit approval, meaning literally every website we know today would have to be banned.

- Her battle against technology has already begun with the war on encryption; The UK plans to force companies like Facebook to remove security from messaging apps, so that her cult may spy on everyone and see who is an enemy of its ideology. She asked for encryption to be entirely outlawed if possible, despite attempts to explain to her that this is plain mathematics and simply cannot be stopped. Such would mean banning every secure piece of software on the planet and making it a crime for developers to program such (including open-source programmers like me and places like Sourceforge / Github), plus as criminalizing the https:// protocol and more.

- She is the author of a piece of medieval ideology, recently revived and distorted to match the 21th century, called the war on porn; Her purist sect believes that indecent content on the internet is responsible for terrorism, while of course promoting the despicable myth of children under the age of 18 needing protection from pixels on a screen to avoid being scarred for life. Needless to say, any website containing any kind of porn is to be banned under her theocracy and illegal to possess within her modern inquisition (same as in North Korea). Already the Digital Economy Bill was passed into law, and it's rumored that people might need to sign up at their local post office for permission to access any NSFW website at home... I am god damn serious.

- Under her caricature of a dictatorship, the UK is set to become a surveillance state with a harsher authoritarian regime than many 3rd world nations. Not only should every single online communication be actively monitored by the government, but even public services workers (such as ambulances and firefighters) must have access to everyone's browsing history and private lives. The UK also maintains a list of potential enemies of the state using unknown criteria, which was recently revealed to contain broad categories of people including goth teenagers who suffer from depression. Along with this they also plan on creating computer programs (perversely dubbed Artificial Intelligence) which use patterns to automatically decide if and when someone should be arrested and give the order to the police!

- She has blatantly manipulated the recent terror attacks (the Manchester bombing and the London stabbings) for her sick political agenda. In less than a few hours since those attacks, she outright stepped out and used the lives of those killed to leverage her own schemes, saying it was all the internet's fault and even implying that online pornography is why those people lost their lives!

- She has publicly and explicitly stated that human rights are an issue that is getting in her way, and need to be dealt with so that her plans may be accomplished.

I believe this should be enough to explain why I oppose this devil with my entire being... which seems to spread more panic than ISIS, who it's ironically vowed so hard to fight (by firing the London police or sending them after Julian Assange apparently). Since I'm aware the next predominant question will be "but you're not even British, why do you care", I will also explain why the things that happened in the UK are so personal to me:

- At this point, what's happening is not just a win or loss for the nation Britain; It is a win or a loss for modern society worldwide. The fact that this psychopath was allowed to be prime minister again, instead of being sent to seek treatment at the nearest mental ward for patients with serious psychiatric issues, is a legitimization for this kind of madness here in the free world! The message is literally "in 1st world nations in the year 2017, it might be okay for a president or prime minister to actively work on banning the internet or reviving medieval bans on porn or shamelessly distorting terrorist attacks to push any legislation". Authoritarianism spreads like a disease among the circles of power, and even in Europe or America this sort of thing is like the taste of blood in the water for a shark.

- She is actively trying to spread many of her demented ideas beyond Britain, and has a certain degree of power to do so. Since the UK would remain close to the EU even after brexit, they will be pushing Europe to adapt to her clique's skewed ideologies. The insane copyright proposals already circulating here (censorship machine, link tax, hate speech fines for social media) are said to be the doing of Theresa May and Angela Merkel (another authoritarian piece of shit). During the last attack she has also instigated other nations governments to "stop social media".

- The internet is a global entity, and many of the companies that offer services (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) also activate there. Most of their evil plans (such as backdoors in encryption) cannot be done "only for UK citizens"... if they're implemented they will exist for all users worldwide and put everyone at risk! Such companies might have to choose between leaving the UK entirely or giving in to those demands, whereas sites hosting NSFW content might have to decide between being banned at ISP level across Britain or implementing disgusting and unacceptable age verification systems (online identity theft). Worse than that, in an act of total delusion, Theresa May or Amber Rudd already expressed hopes that the worldwide internet will itself conform to their model and "let the UK be the gatekeeper of the internet", meaning they hoped we would all just bow down and embrace their new "internet" as a replacement. We do not want this cancer spreading here, keep it in your Orwellian hellhole far away from the rest of us!

- I have friends in Britain... and even if I didn't, I know that the people living there are citizens of a (once) modern society who wish to live their lives in peace. It's unacceptable that they they are being terrorized by a mad person that's out of control and has lost touch with reality! And yes... I know: Far worse happens in places like Syria or China, where people are killed on a daily basis or starve to death or what not. The difference is that there, it's been this way for ages, whereas here it's new: Most 3rd world countries are places that are evolving slowly, but Britain is a modern nation that's devolving into them instead! People living in those areas are also used to it, they never had human rights or internet so they don't actually lose anything... people in Britain are being raped of fundamental rights they've had for a lifetime, which are granted and unquestionable in any civilized society!

So there you have it. The worst thing about this all is that, I wish I could say it's the fault of some sort of coup; Yesterday's elections got hacked, people with AK47's broke in and put Theresa back in power, so on. Unfortunately it was not: More than half of the British population deliberately voted for this abomination, after she has openly made it clear that she will destroy the modern world as we know it. This... is what people in what's considered a top democracy wanted. I'm struggling not to generalize and discriminate against all elderly people right now... granted that old farts are supposedly at fault for all this, whereas youngsters are the ones who struggled to avoid the disaster. Part of me wants to say "they're fucking 90 already, why can't they just hit the bucket and take their 1940 ideologies with them to the grave"... which is sad because my own grandparents died in the recent years, yet what happened is so wrong that it gets you places you wouldn't want to be.

After this alongside other events, my view of humanity as a whole has been altered beyond repair once more, and I wish I could never see an ape again in my existence. I expect no more safety nor the hope of a decent life even where I live, because I realize no freedom or right is ever basic enough to not be put into discussion decades after everyone has had it. Any breed of fanatic can just rise to power at any moment, and attempt to do whatever the hell they want. I wish the error known as humanity could be wiped out by some natural event already, though its own stupidity will probably do the job for it. I'm sorry that I had to be born here and witness the easily avoidable history of this species. If there's anything close to a god or gatekeeper of conscious minds out there, I will not forgive them for having been forced to live this miserable experience... that I can promise.

Oh, and one more thing: You are free to redistribute the contents of this journal as you please. It would bring some comfort if people could better spread the word about what's happening, so we can all be ready to defend ourselves from the emerging threats against the modern way of life... threats not created by terrorist groups elsewhere, but our own governments copying their tactics and behaviors.

[beindiymusic]

5 Ways Working with Indiy Can Further Your Music Career

With the acceleration of technology, it's no surprise that independent musicians are on the rise. At Indiy, we believe artists should have complete ownership of their content.  Becoming an independent music artist is a process where you make and distribute your own music independently without the help of traditional record labels or music publishers.

With the many online resources available nowadays to learn and perfect the recording and mixing process, more and more people are able to enter the music business. The music industry is vast, and with the top 1% of artists earning 77% of recorded music income, it can be intimidating if you're looking to enter and take it on alone. Wondering if you could really major in the music industry can make you ask yourself questions like... . With so many different avenues to take how do I know which is the right one? . Can I record songs from my own home music production studio or should I find a recording studio? . When it comes to distribution for my music should I pay to get it promoted online or should I just let it happen naturally? . These are questions that many have asked when starting their careers in music, but the answer is not always the same. You see, making music as a career is unique to every individual just as everyone has a different fingerprint. While it's great to find inspiration from artists who have made it or are up and coming, developing a blueprint for success in the music business should be approached from an angle that's cohesive with your backstory. There are a few principles that we believe anyone can apply to make a living in from their love of the making music: .

#1. Take Lessons

. Yep that's right! Among the five ways to make music your career, the first is to get the guidance and feedback you need from a professional. Not only will this provide you with pointers on how to improve, but you also gain insight from someone with musical experience who can help you find or improve your sound based on your niche. Taking music lessons whether in a group or one-on-one is an excellent way to network and meet other musicians getting their names out there. .

#2. Network More

. Alongside taking lessons, where you will be growing as a music artist... To gain the most benefit and make your name known in the music world, you need to start networking more. With music being more about "who you know," and less about "what you know," it's crucial to have your name out there. Aside from collaborating on an EP and performing live shows with other musicians to network and gain more exposure, a less traditional option might be applying to work or intern for a music company. Taking this step will give you the ability to learn more about the business side of the industry and connect with those who can help excel your career. .

#3. Seize Opportunity

. Due to the music industry's massive growth over the years with new technologies and platforms constantly emerging, more opportunities are available than ever before. Your chances of success are the highest they've ever been for you to make a career out of music. Especially in the earlier stages; it's vital to take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. Did you know the average musician only earns 6% from sound recordings!? Knowing this hard fact can make you realise that there's no way around the actuality that you have to work extremely hard and pay your dues. If that means performing for elders at a care home facility, inmates at a prison, or even your local bar, do your best to accept it. Gain that invaluable experience doing what you love whilst also getting your name and music shared by more people. Eventually, you'll be able to pick and choose which gigs you want to accept but starting out, be humble, don't block yourself from the possibility of receiving more blessings by turning down offers. In the early ’90s when The Fugees first started out and were trying to make it big in the music industry, they basically had to sit with and go through “7,000 A&R’s”Wyclef Jean - How to Make it in the Music Industry

#4. Leverage Technology

. The cat is out of the bag, it's no secret that automation is replacing traditional jobs. It's pretty scary to think that automation could eliminate 73 million jobs by 2030, but you know what robots and drones are going to have a hard time replacing? Creativity - it's creativity that will allow careers in the music industry to thrive. On the other hand, technology is offering us new benefits as well. Programs that can automatically scan your music for possible copyright infringements can reduce the costs of hiring someone to do that for you. Automatically syndicating your music on platforms that have audiences waiting to listen and hear something new, takes away months' worth of meetings, calls, writing, or sending emails into radio stations just to get your sound heard on their station. Not only is the music industry here to stay, it is here to thrive which is why there's never been a better time to join the online music business. .

#5. Be Adaptable

Steps every indie artist should take to lay a solid career foundation! . Last but certainly not least, what kills more music careers than ever is the inability to be versatile. Independent DIY artists make up only 2.7% of the music market. You have a sound that's unique, you have a name for yourself or your band and that's great but what you will also need to do is to keep in mind it's alos about your audience. Adjust to your fans and their tastes - cater to those who are more likely to listen to your music. It might mean changing a few aspects here and there. You can stay true to who you are whilst also recognizing that music is a business and in order to make money you have to provide what people want; it's about branding and being flexible. Think of it like this... A restaurant with only one item on the menu won't be as successful as one that takes custom orders and has a variety of different options right? If a country bar intends to pay you to play country music over the weekend, even if your style is R&B don't turn down an opportunity to gain experience and be versatile. Throughout your career, every experience is going to add to your resume of success and provide you with an even more unique story. .

The Bottom Line

. Just to remind you we're gonna say it again..not every path will be the same. Some people might find overnight success, while it may take others decades. One thing, however, is always clear... Everyone who successfully creates a career in music does so through a sustained level of consistency and dedication. Furthermore, those who truly manage to remain successful are the ones who have maintained their love for making music. So no matter which path you choose, stay persistent, and keep doing it for the right reasons. And we'll be here to provide you with the right tools to help and support you all the way. . At Indiy, we are an online marketplace for musicians, the place to buy and sell your music services. . Get your music heard and build your audience with us, head to our home page to take a look at some of the amazing services being offered to help you progress on your music career journey. Read the full article

[mirceakitsune]

Biggest internet censorship scheme ever attempted (Digital Economy Bill)

I believe at this very hour, I'm finally able to gather my thoughts on certain matters enough to write a coherent journal about them. Something I wouldn't have been able to do during the rest of the day, after having come across the shit I was about to witness. As usual I will be cross-posting this on all of my profiles, in hopes that people will be able to offer some insight that might snap me back to sanity.

So as my watchers know, I frequently make journals discussing emerging threats against online freedom, namely when big censorship initiatives are launched by governments and corporations. I broadly discussed SOPA around 5 years ago when it almost happened, I talked about issues like art being criminalized as a means of gun safety, and more. What I want to discuss today however, makes the famous SOPA / ACTA look like an absolute joke, as they were nothing compared to something that's happening right in our days.

http://theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/lords_slam_untrammelled_data_sharing_powers_in_digital_economy_bill http://independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/porn-digital-economy-bill-age-verification-law-house-of-commons-parliament-a7445086.html http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/01/digital-economy-bill-govt-seeks-to-bypass-eu-law-with-porn-blocking-filters/ http://edri.org/the-uk-digital-economy-bill-threat-to-free-speech-and-privacy/

Meet the only legal initiative in a democracy capable of rivaling China's internet censorship system: The UK's Digital Economy Bill. This piece of dystopian science fiction brought to life, which literally feels like reading a news terminal in a game of DeusEx, is a plan to censor the internet unlike anything we've seen here in Europe and America. I'm not even sure where I can begin with it, but I guess the starting point would be as follows:

The UK government wants complete control over what kinds of websites its citizens may visit. ISP's will be forced to block any website in the world that's deemed bad by the regime, including all overseas websites that don't obey to its new program (Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc). Now I know what you might be thinking: "Yeah, we know... copyright and all that". Nope... this is not about copyright at all! Hold on to your computer chairs, because here comes the real reason behind this entire madness: Porn. Yep... the biggest censorship scheme ever seen in the occident is about to unfold for the purpose of blocking god damn internet porn! There will be two categories: Porn deemed indecent by the state, which is to be blocked for all citizens... as well as any kind of porn, which is to be blocked exclusively to the mentally apartheid (also known as "everyone under the age of 18"). An institution that handles ratings for DVD's will be given the responsibility of being the 21th century's religious police, deciding what kind of media is moral and who should be arrested for watching heretic content... similarly to China which has an institution tasked with video game and film censorship, in case something might be bothering the CCP and spreading occidental values.

Before I continue with this trainwreck, there are a few things I want to clarify regarding my stance: First I know that certain people out there want to say "Aaaahaha you're pissed that the government might be banning the sick porn you watch, serves you right". If by any chance someone reading this journal is one of those idiots, though even I doubt it, I'm complaining about the idea the approach and the precedent being created. I couldn't care less whether it's about porn or anything else... and by the way the law also contains much of SOPA, such as criminalizing websites that even talk about copyright infringement in a manner deemed as "aiding the enemy" (such as speaking about links or IP addresses). What's happening is a variety of abuses:

1. A gruesome attack on people's freedoms and liberties in general.

2. An unprecedented attempt at internet control and censorship over the last two decades, as far as any country considered the 1st world goes.

3. A call for going back to the medieval age, relatable to when people were arrested and chained for allegedly promoting ideas deemed ungodly by the religious police.

4. Bone-chilling ignorance and lack of understanding of how the internet works, and what side effects this initiative might have worldwide.

5. Shocking ignorance about the importance of privacy and data security on the internet, granted they want some sort of internet-wide age verification system.

6. What strongly looks like the imposition of a fanatical purist ideology. I'll take the liberty of comparing this to the Chinese cultural revolution, when books promoting undesired ideas were burnt and artists dragged away in chains. Once again, using porn as an excuse makes absolutely zero difference in this regard, grow out of your bubble if this is how dense you are!

7. All of the above is for an absolutely ridiculous reason, which makes it all the more hallucinating: Banning god damn porn on the internet... in year 2017 when no sane person gives a shit about this sort of thing! If a parent still cares about this crap, they can easily install censorship software on their kids device or request the service from their ISP... what the hell? It's as if a bunch of people were teleported from the victorian age, seized control of the state, and are about to bring back the papal government and the guillotine because no one's yet told them that times have changed and that would be stupid.

Now no, I'm not from the UK myself. If I was British, granted multiple things that are happening there right now... either I'd have fled the country and would be sleeping on the streets of a civilized EU city where I'd feel safe, either I'd be floating in a river with a note attached to my neck, either I'd be on the 6 o'clock news for opening fire on the government building and the Tories infesting it (the least likely of options). I will never the less offer condolences to everyone who lives there... because the fascism taking place back there is worthy of such, and I'm legitimately sorry for everyone there who has to deal with these psychopaths. Never the less, I too have reasons to be concerned about some things, as do all of us:

1. This is all happening in a place that was (and technically still is) part of the European Union, which is supposedly the 2nd beacon of democracy alongside America. This madness hasn't started in Africa or South Korea or the Philippines or some other developing country, where the news would be less of shock: The UK is considered a developed country and a world leader, like France or Germany or the US! If a world leading country threatens to take down a whole portion of the internet and endorse identity theft, literally over a fit of medieval rage... who's to say other governments won't lose their minds and start doing god knows what? This is a fail for humanity and progress as a whole, which in and of itself is despicable.

2. What they're doing may affect websites worldwide, not just those in the UK! Any site that has NSFW material can be demanded to adhere to their moral code and steal people's ID, otherwise it may be banned in the UK altogether. Places like Furaffinity for instance will either have to censor new types of art deemed immoral by the Tory cult, or the website will be blocked by the Great Firewall of the UK... in which case I hope it's the later, as much as I feel horrible for any UK furs who will wake up to find it and other art websites gone one morning.

3. Several groups I'm part of are targeted and affected. And no I don't feel that this applies just to things that may be considered of sexual nature: It can at face value, but in the long run it extends to more. Ideology filtering comes to mind, in terms of what might follow next... just thinking about the people who must have proposed such a thing makes the "A Brick in the Wall" music video pop to mind.

There was more I felt like going into, but I figure this is enough for one journal. Ironically I found out about the whole thing while searching for something comparatively less bad: I was looking at how US authorities now want to demand passwords for phones and social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, etc) for non-citizens entering the country... another hallucinating violation of people's privacy, which I didn't even believe could be real until recently. I was actually going to complain about that instead, but after what I heard about the UK I realized that's nothing in comparison.

All I can add is that, I'm extremely worried about the future in general: A world just like the dark scifi movies is coming... where armed troop sit at every corner and point a rifle to your head as you walk by, cameras are on every pole and you're just waiting for a system error to cause a turret to shoot at you, whereas the internet is centralized through one institution and you need a pass from the government to even use it. The city we see in the beginning of Half-Life 2 (less for the aliens roaming the place) will probably be a reality soon... and if it will, it will likely start in the UK. Oh... and if I had the power to register extremist groups responsible for spreading terror among people, believe me the Tories would be officially on it right now.