China's totally trustworthy official news agent reported on their glorious, successful space launch. Unfortunately the launch hadn't happened yet.

Knowing a good idea when they see it, McCain's election team started running ad declaring "McCain won the debate-- hands down." several hours before the debate.

I was originally just going to post the China story, but the coincidence is too excellent.

Reason #438 to hate Ticketmaster: they sell your email address to spammers. I created a special email address just to use for Ticketmaster. I've never given that email address to anyone else. So when spam arrived from spammer "Live Nation" to the Ticketmaster special address, I knew who to blame. Ticketmaster is a stunning example of what goes wrong when a business holds a monopoly.

Mechanical royalties are a weird special case where you can essentially record any song you like. You don't need the songwriter's permission, you don't need to negotiate a fee to do so. You can just pay a price set by Congress.

Now that RIAA is asking that these mechanical royalties be lowered. The RIAA is asking for the law to change so they can pay songwriter's less. Assuming the RIAA members are on good terms with the songwriters this is unnecessary; it's standard practice to arrange a better rate through negotiations. Apparently these negotiations are too much work and the RIAA wants the government to dictate a maximum rate price songwriters can charge for their music.

Keep that in mind when the RIAA whines about needing more powerful copyright or no more music will be created. They are lying. It if was true, why are try trying to reduce copyright's power for the people who actually write the music? This isn't about music, this is about simple greed: the RIAA wants more copyright when it makes them money, but they'd prefer less if it costs them money.

Mechanical copyright is actually a good idea; it means that a songwriter can't "horde" his music. However, the mechanical rates should be carefully set relatively high to encourage people to negotiate with the songwriter. This is outright asking the government for a handout of someone else's work. The RIAA acts in bad faith and cannot be trusted.

Paul McCartney and a bunch of other musicians are begging the UK government for a handout. They want copyright on works they recorded almost 50 years ago to be extended. This is nothing more than greedy whining. Copyright is a two-way agreement, a temporary government granted monopoly as incentive to create new creative works. Apparently McCartney felt the agreement was acceptable in 1960s. By releasing his music then, he agreed: 50 years of copyright in the UK, no more. Now 50 years later he wants to renegotiate the agreement. He wants the UK to offer him 45 more years of a government granted monopoly. In exchange he promises to do absolutely nothing. Those artists seeking retroactive copyright extensions are nothing more than whiners who want to renege on agreements they've already made. In exchange for getting more they offer nothing.

(Bonus fun: Apparently artists are so in favor of copyright extensions that some rose from the grave to give their support.)

(Via Lawrence Lessig, who also has an excellent summary of why extending copyright is a idea in the Financial Times.)

(2009-03-02: Changed "rose from the grave" link to an archived location. It was broken.)

Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy -- but not without purpose.

Learning is fun!

Meanwhile, I was kinda hoping that "terrorists are evil" and "terrorists have goals" were things you already knew.

We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

Yeah. They reject tolerance. They'd probably do intolerant things like enshrining intolerance of homosexuality in their constitutions. Just like Bush did. They despise all dissent. They'd probably have press secretaries describe speech they disagree with as "reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." They might have their defense secretary smear those who disagree, claiming they believe "...vicious extremists could be appeased...". Their secretary of state might suggest that critics would have supported slavery. Their vice-president might even suggest that those who dissent are actively helping their enemies.

So, after all these great lessons, what's next?

The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation.

...

But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.

So we're in the middle of the major struggle of the 21st century, a war that will not be over until we defeat extremists. How hard could that be? Let's see, how's Israel's war with extremists going? Oh, really? So, war without end, huh?

On September the 11th, we resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor or support them.

Unless it's our dear friend Pakistan. Just look at that country, can you stay mad at it? Oh, and how's Darfur doing these days? Oh, isn't genocide terrorism? Well, go on with your killing of hundreds of thousands.

I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

Only in bizzaro-world. To the extent he was a "clear threat," he was a heavily monitored threat kept in check by inspections. If we're interested in clear threats, how about North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which is much less monitored and is pretty overtly trying to make nuclear weapons.

And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

Just to check, you realize that many of the Iraqis killing each other voted in that election, right? Their dreams might include things like "Kill all Sunnis" or "Kill all the Shiites." And many of the Kurds in the north have dreams like, "Break away from Iraq to form Kurdistan." Not all democracies end happily. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, and I get the impression you're no so keen on his dreams.

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

...

Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" -- and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever." If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement.

Iraq was a petty dictatorship that was under control. Its dictator was a terrible man who committed many crimes, but he kept the violence under control and kept al-Queda from establishing bases in the country. Iraq's government wasn't wasn't bound by Islamic law as it is today.

We've replaced it with a country filled with violence and terrorists, a land that acts as a training ground for future terrorists, and as you say, could become a safe haven for terrorists. And we're safer as a result?

And we can be confident in victory because of the skill and resolve of America's Armed Forces. Every one of our troops is a volunteer...

Indeed. And they should have known what they were volunteering for. However, if you're sure of our troops resolve, let's try an experiment: allow any serviceman who has fulfilled their initial commitment to be honorably discharged immediately if they wish; terminate the stop-loss orders. Of course, that's not going to happen. Soldiers are suing to escape the stop loss orders. How's that for resolve?

While their FAQ page does have a lot of useful and correct information on copyright, there are two FAQs that are completely wrong. First:

The purchase of counterfeit designs and software is a violation of federal laws. Specifically, the U.S. Copyright Act. 17 USC 501

Flat out lie. (Or, if you're feeling generous, their legal advisor is grossly incompetant.) Check out the legal code itself. Not much to see there. Ultimately the crime is making the copy and selling or otherwise distributing it, not purchasing it, especially if you don't realize what you're purchasing was illegally copied. By that reasoning you could buy something from a flea market, only to get sued later because you didn't realize it was stolen property. There is a reason the RIAA only sues people for sharing music, not downloading it.

How about this gem?

What if I am innocent and did not know the designs or software were counterfeit when I purchased the designs?

It is your responsibility to investigate any designs or software that you purchased over the Internet or from online auctions. You must take steps to insure that they are legitimate original embroidery designs or software, not pirated copies.

They're seriusly claiming that whenever you purchase something protected by copyright, be it a movie on DVD, a video game, a book, a newpaper, software, or embroidery designs, the burden is on you to ensure that it's a legal copy. Wrong! The law is not designed to turn consumers into police. It's not even practical. How do check that something you bought online is legit? Look really close at the picture on the web site? I think not. Yeah, if something looks sketchy, you should probably avoid it, but demanding that people turn into police is bogus.

We cannot let these falsehoods stand. Corporations are all too eager to convince the public that copyright is nearly infinitely powerful. As they convince people that copyright is more and more powerful, they convince Congress to pass laws to match that perception. We've lost too many rights in the last 10 years. Copyright was extended to ensure Disney can make more money. You can legally use a short clip of a movie in a review, but you're forbidden from getting technology that will let you pull that clip from a DVD. The next generation TVs will have additional hardware that costs more money, but is designed to make your television harder to use. Now making a bad judgement in who to trust can cost you $300, or you face a powerful corporation suing you for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Complete bullshit. The copyright expansion needs to stop here.

2006-09-10: Newer article at the Language Log with longer listings of relevant posts. Scroll to the bottom.

2006-09-17: Even newer article with a longer listing. Scroll to the bottom.

So today Connecticut Democrats told him that they'd rather be represented by Lamont. So what's he doing? Running as an independent. In doing so Lieberman proves that he has zero sense of duty to his party. While I respect a politician willing to buck his party when he believes it to be wrong, to try and have it both ways, to be a Democrat until they say no, then independent, that's just weasely. Furthermore Lieberman has to know that he is going to split the Democratic vote, perhaps enough to allow Lamont's Republican challenger to win. Lieberman apparently feels that the Republicans are just as good as the Democrats. He's free to believe that, but as an ex-Democrat it reinforces how fickle his allegiance is; a Democrat until it's inconvient.

Lieberman can suck it.

All that said, as I predicted the results were razor thin: 52 to 48. Any pundit claiming that this represents a major sea change remains an idiot.

Tom DeLay, 1997: "When one of my closest and dearest friends, Jack Abramoff, your most able representative in Washington, D.C., invited me to the islands, I wanted to see firsthand the free-market success and the progress and reform you have made."

Tom DeLay, 2006: "The reality is, Jack Abramoff and I were not close personal friends."

(Source: Think Progress via Salon.)

This pretty much summarizes why I hate Joe Liberman: "'We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril,' Mr. Lieberman said." ("Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party," New York Times)

Quick clue, Joe: "we" aren't undermining the president's credibility. Bush and his cronies are doing a fine job of undermining his credibility all by themselves. He doesn't need our help.

Let's say you're a Christian. You firmly believe in turning the other cheek, in avoiding violence, and reaching out to your fellow man. You believe in these things even if it means putting your life on the line. So you form a group that does exactly that. You enter danger zones like Iraq, the West Bank, and Columbia. You reach out to innocents harmed by violence. You help families reconnect. You help people handle the bureacracy and language barriers of an occupying power. You document the violence to show it to the world. And sadly, sometimes you get kidnapped and likely murdered. Even in that case, they believe so strong in turning the other cheek and loving their enemy that before heading out, they prepared a statement, "We reject the use of violent force to save our lives, should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us ... We forgive those who consider us their enemies... ."

I don't know about you, but I have so much respect for these people. They're trying to do God's work as they best understand it. They're not doing it for money, or out of patriotism, but because they believe it to be Right. To me, this is the absolute best of Christianity. I'm deeply saddened that they have been kidnapped and are likely doomed.

So what does Rush Limbaugh think of these brave people who are willing to sacrifice their lives to serve God as best they can?

Well, here's why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality.

I suppose one should not be surprised that Rush Limbaugh is an asshole; he's made a career out of it. But to mock Christians trying to help their fellow man? To suggest that they had it coming? Most of us have the decency to feel a guilty about schadenfreude. Rush parades it in public. Any Christians who believe Rush is a good man needs to keep this in mind: he mocks those who try to live by Jesus's teachings and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to do so. Rush Limbaugh is no Christian, he's not a good person. He's an asshole.