Seven Bucks for a Used Kenny Loggins Record?

From the movie Half Baked:

Brian: Lady, seven bucks for a used Kenny Loggins record? I'll give you five.
Record Store Customer: Ugh-huh, he autographed it himself.
Brian: All right, I'll give you four.


If you are trying to unload those used Kenny Loggins records you many soon have more to worry about than a record store clerk poking fun at your musical tastes. Some new laws -- specifically in Florida and Utah and coming soon to Wisconsin and Rhode Island -- are placing strict limits on retailers who buy used CDs.

The Florida legislation requires second-hand CD dealers to post a $10,000 bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and apply for a permit before they can resell CDs. They must also obtain a photocopy of state-approved ID and get a thumb-print from those selling the CDs. Additionally, stores could only offer sellers in-store credit and are required to hold any purchased second-hand merchandise for 90 days before reselling it.

These second-hand goods laws, also known as "pawn shop laws", would obviously make the buying and selling of used CDs unprofitable for stores and extremely inconvenient for consumers trying offload music they no longer want.

In Florida, used videos and video games are partially exempt from the law -- they don't need a permit and must wait only 15 days before reselling.

Most states already have pawn shop laws but until recently have not been enforced against outlets that sell CDs, videos and recordings. These second-hand goods laws seem to be spreading.

One aim of the laws is to combat counterfeiting. But, as Christopher Null of Yahoo Tech notes, who would go to all the trouble of making a fake CD:

With the relative ease of Internet piracy, I guess I'm just not understanding why it would make any sense at all to counterfeit CDs in America. Would someone actually go to the trouble of copying a disc, creating a label and liner notes for it, then driving to a record store in the hopes of selling it there for a dollar? I guess I just don't see the economics of how that would work. Fake DVDs seem like a more lucrative niche for crooks, but they aren't mentioned in the legislation... yet.

Theft prevention is another reason the measures. Ron of Gaming Today disagrees:

I'm sure someone in Florida feels this a good piece of legislation, but my question is why? Have thefts of CD's gone sky-high? Are victimized people filed suit to receive their lost CD's? Just what, if any, rationale exists behind this. Selling used CD's and games has always been a side endeavor for many specialty shops. With this new law, I bet many of them cease to offer this service, as $10,000 is a lot of money to lay down so you can continue to pick up used copies of Double Dribble for $3.

Some believe this new legislation even goes against previous laws. Frank Pasquale of Madisonian.net:

Anirvan of Bookfinder notes the new legislation “make[s] a mockery of the American right of first sale, which allows consumers to freely resell copies of copyrighted materials [they bought rather than licensed].” But don’t expect the Copyright Office to stand up for the first sale doctrine. . . .it hasn’t exactly been a friend in the past.

I leave you with these final thoughts from the blog Infinite Onion:

Treated like criminals for wanting to exchange your old, well-loved and listened music for a newer, eclectic collection? Or maybe you came into a bunch of music you just don’t care for, and want to turn some junk into some treasure. There seems to be something wrong with that to me. I guess the problem they’re trying to address is the problem of illegal copying.

You see, you can easily buy a CD (used or new), take it home and burn it, and return it to the store as used- Sometimes even getting cash for it. It is currently against federal law to refund a person’s money if they return a newly purchased CD- they can only be exchanged for an copy of the exact same CD. This is to prevent the theft of music from vendors and distributors.

And that I understand, for those CDs come directly from an inventory. But when a person brings in used CDs, they are adding to a store’s inventory, creating something that wasn’t there before. Something that’s already been sold, accounted for, and made profit. If a store decides to take in a used CD (as they DO have discretion, remember), they do so because they think they can make a turn-around on it. Sell it for cheaper, yes, but also for a second time.

It simply looks to me like the government wants a piece of this action. It already has it’s hands buried deep in the profits made the first time around the CD is sold, so why not the second? I wouldn’t be surprised if the RIAA was behind this somehow.

These laws aren’t about illegal music distribution at all, they’re about taxing what was not before taxed. For good reason. It’s pawn.

I’m not sure I fully understand it all, but I do know it’s a bit ridiculous.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Veteran Suicide

A recent internal report by the Veteran's Administration says members of the Armed Forces returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are at increased risk of suicide because not all VA health clinics have 24 hour mental health care.

The You Served Blog posts about the veteran suicide problem including information about a bill that would set up a national suicide prevention hotline for veterans.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Yet Another Political Website

Screenshot: Personal Democracy Forum website at http://www.personaldemocracy.com


The Personal Democracy Forum is a website and conference currently in its fourth year. This year's forum is being held at Pace University in New York City with the theme of "The Flattening of Politics" -- how technology and internet trends are reinventing politics. The basic idea is about bringing people together who are interested in technology and politics to debate and discuss how the internet can be used as a force for good in the political spectrum. And also about how the internet is empowering democracy participants.

RocketBoom has coverage with extended interviews from Andrew Rasiej, Craig Newmark and Thomas Friedman.

Jeffrey Keefer of SilenceAndVoice.com, also attending, expounds on two points from speaker Seth Godin:

Seth Godin spoke at Personal Democracy Forum on Friday, and I have been considering his message since then. I have read a number of his books, and this is the first time I heard / saw him.

Two of the things he said struck me:

1. "Ideas that spread, win."

Wow, he really got it right. I wonder how all the well-intentioned political folks who attended can best harness that message? While I agreed with a number of those who spoke in the "Is Cyberspace Color-Blind" panel, which focused on the issue of privilege and positionality, I wonder how best to use Seth's message to guide next steps? Any time I hear people refer to issues of race or sex or ethnicity, it seems a bit, well, old. I agree with those who feel they need to speak about it, and I as a white male have (in the last year) become very aware of this issue and how it manifests itself, I wonder how this message or question or issue can be spread in a new way for a new audience. I know I need to explore this more as well. If Seth is right, then how can the issue of privilege and all that comes with it be made alive so that it challenges without closing down the conversation as an "oh, that again." From my business communication work, which is one of my roles as an adjunct instructor, I return yet again to the WIIFM. "What's In It For Me? " How can we use Seth's advice to spread an idea when people need to hear it in a different way? How can issues of privilege and those around race and sex be communicated in a way that hits me in a way that I can hear--in the wallet? No, I am not thinking about lawsuits and such, but rather about how more just business practices can positively affect the bottom line.

2. [back in the days when there was] "no email, no voicemail, no web." I "do not know what we did all day."

I also thought technology was supposed to make us more efficient in less time. Why then do I always have technology issues and more to do within that less time. Somebody surely sold us a bill of goods, I am afraid.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Crack Sentencing Law and Policy

The U.S. Sentencing Commission said Tuesday that Congress should appeal a law that puts first-time offenders in prison for a minimum of five years for possessing a small amount of crack cocaine.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, enacted during the 1980s crack epidemic, sends distributors of five grams of crack -- the equivalent weight of five paper clips* -- to federal prison for a mandatory minimum of five years.

It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to result in the same sentence as the five grams of crack, the commission said. It urged Congress to deal with the 100:1 disparity by raising the amount of crack required to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence so focus can be shifted to major traffickers.

The Commission concluded that there is "almost universal criticism" concerning federal cocaine sentencing policy from community interest groups, the judiciary, criminal justice practitioners and academics.

The ACLU said in a press release that the "sentencing disparity has devastated African-American and low-income communities, targeting low-level offenders while failing to address the larger problem of the drug trade."

Bean at Feministe.us with the ACLU's summary of proposals in the Commission's report and disagrees with the third:

· Increase the amount of crack cocaine required to trigger the five-year mandatory minimum sentence, as current law subjects low-level drug offenders to the same or harsher sentences as major dealers.

· Repeal the mandatory minimum penalty for simple crack cocaine possession.

· Reject proposals to lower the amount of powder cocaine required to trigger the five- and ten-year mandatory minimums, as the Commission finds “no evidence to justify such an increase.”

Ok. I’m with them on the first two. Increasing the level of crack required to trigger a harsh five year minimum sentence is an important step to reducing the impact of the misguided “War on Drugs” on low level dealers and - worse — people who possess for their own use. Repealing the mandatory minimum for possession is clearly ancillary to that. But it’s that third recommendation that really stings, and that reduces the positive impact of the other two. In the third bullet point, the commission rejects the idea of getting rid of the 100-to-1 disparity by saying that there’s no need to bring the level of powder cocaine needed to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence down to be more in line with that of crack cocaine.

Now, in a vacuum I agree with that third recommendation. I don’t think we should be punishing cocaine use more harshly. We should be punishing crack and cocaine use less harshly. But U.S. drug policy does not exist in a vacuum. By refusing to address the disparity here, the commission condones its continuation.

In fairness, not nearly all of the blame can be placed at the feet of the sentencing commission. This is the fourth time in twenty years that the commission has urged Congress to act to change drug sentencing laws. But Congress has remained inactive. Unsurprisingly. There’s some hope though: Recently, a bipartisan coalition has been pushing the Drug Sentencing Reform Act, which would reduce – but not equalize — the disparity. And there is a general push toward more humane prison policy from some conservative senators.

But by ignoring the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity — or at the very least, refusing to recognize its impact in its recommendations — the sentencing commission has enabled Congress’s inaction and allowed a racist policy to continue.

-Dippold

*Here is a Frequently Asked Questions List about crack, including the typical dosage.

Political Online Reputation

Fort Dix Six

Six foreign born Muslims were accused Tuesday of planning to attack Fort Dix, a US Army installation in New Jersey, with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

One of the men arrested came from Jordan, one from Turkey and the other four were from the former Yugoslavia. Two had green cards allowing them to stay in the US permanently, three were here illegally and one is a US citizen.

Five of the suspects were charged with conspiracy to kill military personnel while the other was charged with aiding and abetting illegal immigrants to obtain weapons.

Authorities said there is currently no evidence linking the six to any international terror groups, but prosecutors noted in court papers that the six were ready to kill and die "in the name of Allah."

The Washington D.C. satire site Wonkette points out the stupidity of the plot:

Ok. So, the plot was: six dudes from New Jersey buy some guns and storm Fort Dix. The Fort Dix that is full of lots and lots of Army reservists with way, way more guns. And, like, extensive military training and s**t. Yes, thank god these terrorists have been caught and locked up before they could be killed within minutes of deciding to carry out the dumbest f**king terrorist plot we’ve ever heard of.

Lawhawk of A Blog For All isn't as quick to shrug off the situation:

Those who downplay this terror bust ought to keep in mind that it is far better to thwart these plots before they come to fruition than to deal with the repercussions of an actual attack. Even if this attack went off and didn't manage to kill anyone at Fort Dix, the fact that terrorists even considered attacking a US military installation inside the US would have been a propaganda coup of epic proportions for the jihadis around the world. Al Qaeda would likely try to take credit for the attacks, knowing that the media would play up that angle and show that the global war on terror was a failure because we couldn't even prevent a terrorist attack inside the US against a military installation.

So with the two quotes above, you basically have the two sides of the story. Take your pick, or leave a comment with a different take.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation

Look at me! I've got the number!

Last night the social news site digg.com underwent a user revolt. Digg ended some user accounts, removed certain posts and reset "diggs" because of a 16-digit hexadecimal number used to lock HD-DVD movies. This number, known as a "processing key", is said to be discovered months ago by muslix64.

Digg supposedly received a legal take-down notice from the AACS Licensing Authority, a body which controls the underlying HD-DVD anti-copying technology. So Digg began taking down stories that included the number. Digg users did not like this and every story on the front page became about and/or included this number. Users "dugg" the hell out of these stories. Digg admins then reset some of the digg counts, maybe because they were getting to high. Users came back with more and more "number" related "stories".

At about 9 pm, Kevin Rose, the founder of Digg, caved to the pressure:

. . . after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

This statement seems to have quieted the protest, but it may come at the expense of the entire site. BoingBoing.net offers this possible workaround to save the site:

I think another way of doing this would be to take down each user post on receipt of a takedown notice, then post PDFs of each takedown notice that he received in their place, which PDFs will contain the magic number. That way, the information stays alive and Digg doesn't get sued. I'm not a lawyer, but this has been the strategy I've pursued with my class blog, which received a takedown for the same number.

Suppressing the number has proved fruitless so far. A google search currently lists over 30,000 instances of the number.

This is primarily a tech issue but Christopher Mercer blogs about it in a more political light:

This is a perfect example of both DRM and the DMCA at its worst. It is a tenant of copyright law that words and numbers cannot be copyrighted, they could be trademarked, but not copyrighted. It is exactly these kinds of draconian laws that the US is pressuring on other countries, and exactly the kinds of laws the current government is considering introducing as part of its copyright reform. If you reverse engineer, find a security hole, or discover a way to break encryption that is applied to copyrighted material you can be prevented form sharing that information with laws like the DMCA. This is exactly what has happened with the HD-DVD processing key and many other products such as the DeCSS code that allows DVD playback. It leaves a chilling effect on those who wish to build a better lock by understanding how to break the current one, a process often pursued in academics.

-Dippold

Political Online Reputation