ASCAP calls music ringtones "performances" and wants you to pay...

In a brief filed by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) against AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless, ASCAP argues that the music ringtones that you have on your cell phone should be considered "performances" and that they should be compensated each time your phone rings. See the first PDF below for the full text of the brief, courtesy of BetaNews.

So not only will these ringtones continue to annoy the hell out of those of us who have to hear them every time someone next to us on the train gets a phone call, but the fact that we are present to be annoyed in the first place might end up causing that person money because of the performance we were forced to endure against our will!!

The absurdity of the logic underlying this brief is hilarious on its face, but I cannot wait to read the ruling from the District Court judge on whether or not this is a legitimate claim. I mean, didn't a jury recently award a seven figure judgement against a single mother for downloaded a few dozens tracks years ago? I wouldn't put it past the screwed up legal system of this country to actually find in favor of ASCAP.

Fortunately, the ASCAP suit has no intention of shaking down normal folks who's only crime is their total lack of consideration for those around them. Rather, the suit seeks to force the wireless providers to pony up millions on their customer's behalf; costs which would simply be passed along to consumers in the form of higher monthly bills. That's right, even those of us who don't use obnoxious ringtones will be forced to subsidize our annoying family, friends and neighbors who do if this suit is successful.

The second brief embedded below was filed Wednesday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in response to the ASCAP suit. It dismisses the ASCAP suit as "outlandish", but the arguments made to support this dismissal are weak at best. It claims that under the logic of the claim, ASCAP could sue people for listening to their car stereos loudly with the windows open so a passersby could hear the music. However, in that case the music being played is sanctioned by ASCAP because either the radio station broadcasting the song is paying for its distribution. It would be accurate to argue that the music in the car might have been downloaded illegally and played without proper legal rights, but the offense in that scenario would be the illegal file sharing, which would supersede any violation of fair use that may be asserted by the publishers.

After brief consideration I am far from convinced that ASCAP does not have a case, but I am interested to hear what others have to say. Clearly the debate is still fresh so please share your thoughts!

ASCAP's Opposition to AT&T's MSJ Ringtones

Us v Ascap Eff Att Brief

Related articles by Zemanta

• Music industry now wants to be paid public performance royalties for ringtones (inquisitr.com)
• ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings (textually.org)
• Musical Ringtones In Public Are Copyrighted Violations? (lockergnome.com)
• Ringing up cash: ASCAP suing AT&T for ringtone "performance" (arstechnica.com)
• Group Sues AT&T Over Ringtones Heard In Public (paidcontent.org)

Exclusive Iraq oil deals go to Chinese and British...

It was very encouraging to see Iraq award exclusive oil deals to British Petroleum (BP) and China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) for the right to work in the Rumaila Field, the country's largest known oil field in Iraq with 17 Billion barrels in reserves. I say this not because I am happy the contracts were not awarded to American firms (ideally they would have been), but rather because it speaks volumes about the current stability of the war torn country's core infrastructure and its prospects for success moving forward independently in a global economic environment.

The Chinese are typically willing to brave dangerous conditions to access valuable natural resources and CNPC is perhaps among the most successful energy companies in the world when it comes to managing production in turbulent environments, evidenced by their unwavering commitment to facilities in much less stable regions like The Sudan. Critical to the CPNC strategy is employing as many locals as possible and supplying the communities surrounding its projects with large non-energy related aid and resources, such as medical supplies and support for education programs that go above and beyond the typical multi-national corporate agenda. 

I have long argued that the China model for growing economies in Africa and the Middle East is far  superior to the Western models. This is primarily because it relies on social/human capital and the ability to embed its culture and expertise on the ground in large numbers of human bodies, rather than the default Western strategy of distributing vast amounts of monetary aid according to complex economic formulas developed by elite Western academics totally removed from the reality of the conditions taken into consideration.  

Dambisa Moyo (@dambisamoyo) has recently made serious waves among elite Ivy thinkers with a new paradigm for Western aid to Africa which is founded on her personal experiences as a child of Africa and as a student of the finest Western institutions and as a distinguished economist at the most powerful/respected investment bank in the world - a truly unique perspective that must not be diminished.  She too has recognized the value proposition of a highly engaged Chinese presence in developing nations in Africa and I suspect would extend this recognition to a similar role for the Chinese in Iraq and other struggling (but promising) Middle Eastern economies. I commend Ms. Moyo for her courage and hope she will continue to fight against the intellectual mainstream, because in the end she (and I) will be vindicated by the results of powerful ideas.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Iraq Begins Major Oil and Gas Auction (nytimes.com)
• Iraqi Oil Licensing Round Runs Into Trouble (abcnews.go.com)
• BP wins biggest Iraq oil contract (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Success of Development (blogs.reuters.com)
• Iraq Oil a Big Draw for Chinese (nytimes.com)
• BP And China's CNPC Win Iraq Oil Contract (huffingtonpost.com)

Readthebill.org: Sunlight Foundation Project Pushes for Mandatory 72-hour Period for Congress to Read Bills Before Voting

Readthebill.org is a Sunlight Foundation Project lobbying for a mandatory 72-hour period between the close of debate on a particular piece of legislation and the and the final vote on passage. The project was born out of the frustration felt by nearly all Americans when it became blatantly apparent that none of the members in either the House or Senate have read the legislation they have so confidently and indignantly voted up or down. 

 

The most recent example of this came just last week when the House passed a pathetic Climate Change Bill which had a 300+ page amendment attached at 3am on the morning of the final vote, which clearly none of the members (with the exception of Minority Leader John Boehner, who stood in filibuster on the house floor before the ultimate vote and read aloud the most ridiculous additions) had actually taken the time to read.

I say READ THE DAMN BILL, its your job!!! Hopefully these idiots in Washington don't f@#$ up the system too bad before the next generation of leaders have their say, though I am not too optimistic, as our problems seem to only get worse every time our "leaders" in Washington do anything to address them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Breaking: House Passes Waxman-Markey Energy Legislation (firedoglake.com)
• Cap and trade liveblog, part 3: (Mini)-Filibuster; Vote time; Final vote - passes 219-212 (michellemalkin.com)
• No excuses. Time for Congress to ReadTheBill.org (cnewmark.com)

Final draft of proposed financial regulatory reforms released today...

Below I have embedded the final 89 page report, found at FinancialStability.gov, which outlines the scope of reforms sought by the the Obama Administration to the financial system. The highly respected appeals court judge Richard Posner just slammed the report as dripping with "Roosevelt envy" on CNBC, but having clearly not read it yet I will reserve my personal opinion for a later date. Comments welcome and encouraged. 

Financial Regulatory Reform

Obama speech endorsing indefinite detentions for "preventive" purposes...

Rachel Maddow is a very liberal political commentator on MSNBC who typically gives Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on everything he says/does. However, in her reporting of President Obama's speech at the National Archives in late May regarding President Bush's "ad hoc legal framework" for indefinite detentions of POWs at Guantanamo Bay she does her fellow liberals, and all Americans for that matter, a great service by reading through Obama's B.S.  

In his speech, after artfully chastising the Bush Administration's alledgedly unconstitutional policies, the president argues for establishing what amounts to an ad hoc legal framework for PREVENTIVE INDEFINITE DETENTIONS!! The only real distinction between Bush's policy and Obama's would be that Bush detained indefinitely for crimes committed, while Obama would indefinitely detain for crimes to be committed one day. Watch this video and hear it from straight from Maddow herself...

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rachel Maddow Calls Out Obama On "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• "The Rachel Maddow Show" Only Cable News Program Nominated For TV Critics' Award (huffingtonpost.com)

Draft of Obama's Regulatory Revamp

Today was a truly historic day for the financial industry as President Obama released his long anticipated plan for overhauling the financial regulatory system. Embedded below is a draft of this plan. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Obama's Financial Sector Reform Proposal

Kennedy-Dodd Health Reform Bill: Mandates and Subsidies

Below I have shared a terrific outline of the Democratic health care reform package, which has been dubbed the Kennedy-Dodd Health Care Reform Bill, as it currently reads. The outline was written by Keith Hennessey and makes several very excellent points about the truly disruptive nature of this legislation, which is supported by the president, were it to pass in its current form. I have also embedded the full text of the bill as it exists today for those of you who are interested.

KeithHennessey.com » Understanding the Kennedy health care bill

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill.

1. The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring
   
   you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the
   
   government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given
   
   month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and
   
   structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries
   
   of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is
   
   “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the
   
   goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so
   defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could
   exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you
   would have to report your health insurance information for each month
   of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other
   information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
2. The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would
   have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to
   pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a
   certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new
   tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the
   discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers
   (TBD) would be exempt.
3. In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
   
   
   
   1. All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and
      renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing
      conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family
      policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
   2. A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of
      standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and
      bronze.” Details TBD.
   3. Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
   4. A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC),
      appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would
      determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC
      would have to include items and services in at least the following
      categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services,
      hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical,
      mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services,
      preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the
      MAC thought appropriate.
   5. The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage”
      is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if
      they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect
      unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process)
      to turn them off.

   
   
4. Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky
   behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors,
   … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers,
   drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all
   have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
5. Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community
   rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming
   majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New
   Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In
   the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to
   cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
6. The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of
   poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no
   State share). This means adding childless adults with income below
   150% of the poverty line.
7. People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health
   insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in
   2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small
   subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance
   these subsidies.
8. People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South
   Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than
   those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country,
   especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a
   percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the
   cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area
9. There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered
   by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the
   federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates +
   10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative
   support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they
   think that differential would last.
10. Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
11. States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges)
    to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the
    Feds will set up a gateway for them.
12. Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have
    to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated
    system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of
    rules when you change jobs.
13. The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes
    will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably
    for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
14. The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national
    of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States
    for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United
    States.”
15. The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay
    “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute
    information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators
    receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

• The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
• Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
• A government-appointed board would determine what items and
  services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
  
• You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs,
  because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and
  would therefore be significantly more expensive.
• Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
• Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
• The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion
  to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with
  the new mandates.
• The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”

Kennedy-Dodd Health Care Reform Bill (First Draft)

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law kennedydodd health c christopher dodd

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Health Care Takeover On the Way? (powerlineblog.com)
• Sweeping Health Plan Is Drafted by Kennedy (nytimes.com)
• Do the Dems Have the Money to Pay for Reform? (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Obama Backs Health Care Coverage for Everyone (nytimes.com)
• Obama to Congress: Insurance Requirement Okay with Public Health Plan Option and Cost Regulation (oxdown.firedoglake.com)
• Healthcare Critics And The Brooks Strategy (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Health Care Information Technology Must Come First

President Obama has made no secret of his desire to forge ahead with ambitious health care reform legislation despite the economic crisis and soaring current account deficits with no end in sight. Obama wear's his philosophy on his sleeve: health care reform will be a central and unavoidable precursor to tightening federal spending over the long-term. I believe the president is absolutely correct, but I think he is putting the cart before the horse if he tries to overhaul the marketplace for health care providers before fully investing in and committing to the development of a nationwide health information technology foundation.

Information technology has transformed the fabric of civilization and industry in the US and around the world in ways unimaginable even 10 years ago. For the first time in history information is truly ubiquitous and free flowing. However, the largest US industry, Health Care, has largely failed to adopt IT in any meaningful way to enhance the quality of care received by patients. Despite this fundamental fallacy amongst health care providers, little more than token recognition has been paid to the matter by federal policymakers until very recently.

The recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was the first major federal injection of long-term capital ($48B+ over five years) into developing health IT infrastructure that is likely to have a real impact on patient outcomes. Physicians are offered real (though inadequate) incentives to adopt electronic health records and states are provided a true capital foundation upon which the technologies needed to expand coverage and value penetration. The stimulus funds are to be administered primarily by the newly formed Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for Health Information Technology in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, it seems unlikely that this communications technology will be quickly adopted by providers and physicians, both of whom still lack any meaningful incentive to change.

I believe strongly that the marketplace for health insurance cannot experience fundamental reform until the broader health care industry has adopted the most basic value-added information technologies into the care delivery cycle and the true impact of this information flow on the quality of care can be quantified. To attempt radical health reform before this has been accomplished would be like prescribing treatment for a disease before assessing the patient's symptoms and issuing a diagnosis.

President Obama has a mandate to make sweeping changes to the way America is governed, this cannot be denied, and he appears to be intently focused on doing just that during the first two year of his presidency. It would be unfortunate if his party's legislative supramajority and his own impatience for gradual reform lead him to lose touch with realities of his capabilities as a mere mortal. Don't forget Mr President, "All glory is fleeting".

Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Real Health Care Reform

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Health Care Reform 2009: More Required Reading (alankatz.wordpress.com)
• Obama Lays Down Health-Care Deadline (abcnews.go.com)
• NCVHS to examine 'meaningful use' (clinicalit.blogspot.com)
• The Administration's Health Care Plan--Posner (becker-posner-blog.com)