The Freedom Bulletin

There’s an interesting trial going on that could have big implications for the recording industry’s copyright enforcement policies. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is suing a Boston University student named Joel Tenenbaum for downloading 7 copyrighted songs. Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson, who is representing Tenenbaum, filed a counterclaim accusing the RIAA of violating the Constitution through its use of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act, which allows penalties of up to a whopping $150,000 per song illegally downloaded.

Right now, both sides are arguing over whether to broadcast hearings over the web. Nesson wants to do this, while the RIAA argues that it would bias the public for the trial to be streamed on sites such as that of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, which Nesson founded.

The professor and the recording industry are also battling about a motion by Nesson to subpoena a former RIAA vice-president, whom he accuses of masterminding the RIAA’s policy of aggressively suing individuals who download music. The RIAA is trying to sanction Nesson for his request.

I hope that Tenenbaum and Nesson win this case. In the age of the Internet, copyright laws are too restrictive, and the RIAA’s prosecution (or maybe persecution?) of file-sharers is too aggressive. Basically, the RIAA monitors activity on file-sharing sites or file-sharing programs, keeps track of illegal downloads, and forces Internet service providers (like Comcast and AOL) to disclose the identities of the copyright violators. Then the RIAA sends them letters asking them to settle by paying thousands of dollars, or else they will be sued for even more money. There are even hotlines and websites dedicated entirely to enabling people to pay off the RIAA so they won’t get sued!

You could argue that the RIAA’s methods border on extortion. I mean, they are threatening people with lawsuits in order to get them to pay money!

Either way, I disagree with the RIAA’s philosophy about copyright. People have the right to take credit for their creative works and to try to make money off of them. However, just because someone has a right to offer something for sale doesn’t mean that people have an obligation to buy it. Record companies have a right to sell CDs, but they aren’t entitled to force people to buy them. Should the government ban cameras because they put portrait-painters out of work? What about cars, which made horse-drawn carriages obsolete?

Personally, I buy CDs and don’t use any file-sharing programs, but if other people find file-sharing a good alternative to CDs, what’s wrong with that? Obviously, the RIAA thinks there’s something wrong with it, because they don’t make as much money that way!

For a good summary of the case, see this article at The Crimson.

The economic stimulus package is nearing $900 billion, about a third of the most recent federal budget. Although it is scary that the government is adding almost a trillion dollars to the $10 trillion national debt, some parts of the bill are more objectionable than others.

• The worst part was billions of dollars to expand Medicaid coverage of contraceptives. If you want condoms, you should have to pay for them yourself! Thankfully, Obama said he was willing to drop this.
• Obama also says he will agree to getting rid of the alternative minimum tax for tens of millions of people, one of the few good parts of the stimulus bill.
• $180 billion will go toward increased Medicaid funding and unemployment benefits. This is unfair to people who work and/or have too much money to qualify for Medicaid.
• There will be a $500 payroll tax holiday for all workers. Tax breaks are always better than increased spending, I guess.
• $365.6 billion will go toward roads, highways, bridges, and other brick-and-mortar projects. This is better than giving people money for nothing, a la Medicaid and Welfare, but it doesn’t seem like America really needs all those new roads…

It’s good that Obama is at least trying to compromise with Republicans, but if I was in Congress, I still probably wouldn’t vote for it. It’s just a mind-boggling amount of money, and with the national debt at such a ridiculous level, we can’t add to it any more.

I’m going to miss George W. Bush. 

Our 43rd president wasn’t perfect by any means, but out of the three presidents I can remember, he is my favorite. When I was little, it seemed like Bill Clinton had been president forever. I don’t have any memory of Bush 41, and until Bush 43 was elected, it seemed like the name Clinton was basically synonymous with the word president. In the 2000 election (the first election when I was actually into politics) I rooted for Bush, and I was happy when he won. Same with 2004. In this election, let’s just say I wasn’t overly thrilled with the result.

Although I am trying to give Obama a chance, I liked Bush better and am sad to see him leave. He had a few policies I didn’t agree with, such as increasing AIDS funding for Africa, spending so much money on the Iraq War, and increasing airport security, but overall I think he was one of our better presidents.

Ever since Election Day, I have been bombarded by unquestioning reverence for Obama everywhere I look. I constantly see people wearing Obama buttons, Obama stickers, and Obama t-shirts and speaking adoringly about everything from Obama’s policies to how cute his daughters are. They gush at everyone they talk to (including me) about how election night was “the most exciting experience in my life” or how they’re “still walking on air” and are “proud of America for the first time.”

How inconsiderate to assume that everyone else worships Obama as much as you do! Numerous times I have found myself in the awkward position of either keeping my mouth shut and nodding or making people’s jaws drop by telling them that, believe it or not, I actually don’t really like Obama. Has it ever occurred to you that conservatives exist in the world, and you might be talking to one?

Liberals are known for their tolerance of all different races, religions, and sexual orientations. Apparently, though, liberals require people to be identical to them in ideology in order to be accepted. Would you ever bash gay people if there was a possibility you were talking to a gay person? I don’t think so. Then why do you bash conservatives when you have no idea whether the person you are talking to is conservative or liberal?

Guess what, liberals? Remember how you unanimously and mercilessly bashed the president for the past eight years and called anyone who disagreed with you stupid? Remember how you complained about how horrible America was and how all the other countries are better than us?

Well, now it’s our turn. I did not vote for Obama, and I do not support him. I hope he doesn’t mess up the country too badly, but if he does, it’s the job of us conservatives to give him just as much grief as the liberals gave poor Bush during the past eight years. And if you support Obama, it’s okay to be excited about having a black president for the first time, and even to be excited about Obama’s political views, but remember that he’s just a person, not a god. It’s not good to worship a politician as infallible and perfect, whether they are liberal or conservative.

The Supreme Court is going to hear the case of a 13-year-old girl who was strip searched by her school because of a false accusation that she had aspirin. Savana Redding and her parents sued the school and the assistant principal for ordering her to be strip searched after another student accused her of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen. She and her parents called the search humiliating and unconstitutional, and who can blame them?

The school’s actions are wrong on so many levels.

• First, it is wrong for a school to ban students from possessing or taking medication. People of all ages have a right to decide what medicines they want to take and to take those medicines whenever and wherever they want. A teenager is plenty old enough to make her own decisions about medicine.
• Second, the school had no warrant for the search. The Fourth Amendment forbids all searches for which there is no warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that this protection applies to students, even though such a thing shouldn’t be necessary, since there is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that students are exempt from the Bill of Rights.
• Third, I really don’t think strip searches should ever be legal, even if there is a warrant. Nothing can justify that kind of humiliation.
• Fourth, Savana didn’t even have the pills that the school had unjustly banned! I think that if you cause another person any kind of pain, inconvenience, or humiliation in order to search for something, and it turns out the person didn’t have the thing you were searching for, you should have to pay restitution to the victim. A strip search is humiliating; therefore it is punishment. Therefore, the school punished Savana even though she did nothing wrong. This is clearly unjust, and the school should have to undo the punishment by paying her a large sum of money.

All in all, the assistant principal and school committed a grievous wrong and flouted the Constitution. They should be punished severely.

Last year the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Savana’s favor, but the school appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that the ruling “would create enormous confusion for school officials in trying to determine when and how searches may now properly be conducted.” Um, how about no warrant, no search? What’s confusing about that?

The Supreme Court will hear the case in April.