Daily Caller:

In August the Department of Justice raided Gibson Guitar facilities in Memphis and Nashville, alleging a violation of the so-called Lacey Act, a law which bans the importation of certain kinds of wildlife, plants and wood.

And although two months have passed, Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz has taken an unusually aggressive posture against the DOJ. On Wednesday, he told The Daily Caller there could be casualties from the DOJ’s actions, first of which he said may be higher guitar prices.

“It’s a zero-sum game,” he said. “You don’t create money out of thin air. So a dollar goes to lawyers in Washington, D.C. is a dollar that comes out of our consumers’ pockets, period.”

But he also cautioned that American jobs could be lost and sent overseas.

“You know, there’s a very real possibility we will have to move at least some processing [jobs] overseas,” Juszkiewicz said. “I’m trying to avoid that. But you know, I have to do what the business requires, and that’s a very realistic possibility.”

More here.

Our industry doesn’t get it at all. And I am talking about top executives down to secretaries.  I am talking about directors to craft service people.  Unfortunately, this is our (DGA) No 1 priority…But within our own members, they just don’t quite understand how serious this is…Hollywood is filled with very famous and successful people…And, we are really famous for our causes.  We care about things.  We step out, and we have our pet causes…The point is when we care about things, we back it with our money and we speak out.  The problem is nobody in this community speaks out about the threat that is actually happening in our community.  And, if we let this threat continue, they will not have the money to contribute to these causes.

The remainder of the article is mostly dedicated to the proposition that the problem stems mostly from the internet.  Mr. Johnson states that government should control the internet to protect the business models of the content providers.  He feels that the bill passed in the Judiciary Committee giving the Justice Department new powers to shut down “rogue” web sites is a good thing.

I beg to differ.  Controlling the internet is not the answer.  The internet should be used for the free expression of ideas and for the free sale of goods and services.  It should not be used for the illegal spread of copyrighted material.  Everyone agrees with this.  But, shutting down sites without due process of law is a bad thing.  It is one more step towards government control of the media and the creating of a de facto communist state.

What should actually be done is what was done to turn Napster into a legal entity.  The court system should be used in the manner for which it was created.  Criminal actions should be brought against illegal web sites.  Civil actions should be brought against those that sell and those that buy copyrighted material illegally.  It worked against Napster in the past and it has worked against numerous other web sites as well.

Under no circumstances should anyone’s property be taken whether it be a web site or more traditional forms of property upon the whims of the Justice Department; especially one under the control of the leftist Eric Holder.  (I wouldn’t even want someone on the right to have that power either.)  The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees everyone due process of the law.  This is not archaic law.  This is law that makes sense.  Let’s not chip away at our Constitutional right just because a problem exists.

And, to emphasize piracy is definitely a problem.  According to the International Motion Picture Association, $6.1 billion was lost by the major motion picture companies to piracy in 2005.  If you include the worldwide motion picture industry which includes independents, the number rises to $18.2 billion.  Mr. Hackford is correct about one thing: if this is not stopped, there will be no motion picture industry left and no more rich Hollywood elites to support their various causes.

However, according to the same study, only 38 percent of that piracy, although a big number, is from Internet sales.  The remainder is from the sale of hard items such as DVDs.  The biggest offenders are:  China where 90%, Russia where 79%, and Thailand where 79% of all estimated sales are lost because of piracy.  I can confirm this about Thailand personally as any movie can be bought on Thanon Sukhumvit, a main street in Bangkok, usually one week or more before it is theatrically released in the United States.  And, to make matters worse, the quality of these pirated DVDs, is not bad.  In some cases, it is as good as commercially available legal DVDs.

But, that’s not the whole problem.  It is not limited to developing nations.  Twenty percent of all piracy according to the above study was directly from the United States.  Again, it is not difficult to find pirated DVDs in downtown Los Angeles or on Canal Street in Manhattan.  And, again, the quality is usually pretty good.  The days of the video being captured by some pirate in a movie theatre with a handheld camera appear to be gone.  The piracy is going on in the labs.  And, I’m sure, for the most part, it is the labs in the United States and probably Los Angeles; the same labs that we entrust with our intellectual property.

And, let’s even take it one step further; here are some additional facts according to the same study:

• $5.5 billion in lost annual earnings among U.S workers
• 141,030 jobs lost
• $837 million in lost annual tax revenue
• $20.5 billion in lost annual output to all U.S. industries

And, this was all in 2005 when Facebook was merely a year old and most of us had not even heard of it.  If Facebook now has over 500 million members, imagine how these numbers may have grown in five years.  Please note that I am not stating that Facebook has anything to do with piracy.  I am only stating that if Facebook has grown by the numbers it has, imagine how much the potential reach of piracy, both internet and otherwise has grown during the same period.

I can state for a fact that it has affected the way we do business in the independent world.  Watermarking delivery items to specific buyers is now common place.  Screeners are not sent out to the media without careful protections in place.  Day and date releases worldwide are now commonplace not only for the major studios but for the independents as well.  This alone increases costs geometrically as you can no longer ship used prints overseas when the American release is finished.  You must now make prints for delivery all over the world even to the smallest countries.  In return, licensing fees have gone down in smaller countries because more of the capital expenditures must go to the cost of making prints than to the copyright holder.

So, in conclusion, the problem is very prevalent.  It may eventually lead to the end of the motion picture industry as we know it.  Mr. Hackford, the director of many great films, may have become a soothsayer.  But, regardless, more government control is not the answer.  Due process and the Constitution must not be ignored.  Let the court system handle the problem.  Keep our freedoms as the Founders intended.

Instead, the Wikileaks revelations and the pathetic aftermath demonstrate that far from being the omnipotent cadre of high-tech avengers, our leaders have apparently been reduced to hoping that the Swedes’ bizarre sex crime laws will do the dirty work for us.  Capping this twerp might be a bit harsh, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that we be able to come up with some better options for dealing with Wikileaks than cancelling his credit cards and leaving the rest up to Sven and Inga.

For decades, Hollywood has depicted the US intelligence establishment as some sort of all-seeing, all-powerful collection of high-tech killers in expensive suits hunting down those who interfere with America’s imperialist designs.  Hollywood has pushed the notion that our government officials are able to implement conspiracies of such ridiculous scope and audacity that they would embarrass a Truther – well, maybe not Hollywood Truther Charlie Sheen, who apparently doesn’t possess a shame gene.  And the lefties seem to buy that image –a preeminent lefty sight has revealed that the Swedish sex charges were trumped up by a Uppsula University feminist gender equity officer in cahoots with Cuban freedom fighters and the CIA.  The role of the Trilateral Commission is left unclear.

We wish we could pull that off!  In reality, instead of weaving exquisite tapestries of deception or launching waves of vicious kill-bots, we have an Attorney General whose Plan A was offering a searing condemnation of Wikileaks as “arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful.”  Wikileaks is “unhelpful” – shockingly, this harsh language somehow failed to deter Julian and Co.  After that smashing success, the AG has initiated Plan B and is promising to possibly consider perhaps contemplating maybe reviewing a number of options designed to somehow do something of some sort.  That is, if he’s not still preoccupied springing some New Black Panthers or failing to convince FIFA not to hold its 2022 shindigg in Qatar.  Figuring out how to lose sponsoring a soccer tournament expecting thousands of Brit, German, French and Italian fans/hooligans to a part of the world that frowns on alcohol probably took all of his attention. 

Where was the ruthlessly effective CIA the movies have been showing us since the 70’s when Assange was tossing around SECRET cables like confetti on New Years?  It’s odd that instead of having his butt get Three Days of the Condor’ed, homeboy was off savoring the acclaim of every commie, lefty and pinko with an ISP until he got jammed up by the bobbies for violating Stockholm sex ordinances that sound like they were formulated by the Feminist Womym’s Collective of Antioch College. 

Where the heck are the hard-bitten hit men of the Bourne flicks?  How about the steely-eyed De Niro of Ronin?  Instead, we’ve unleashed the awesome power of SpongeBob SquarePants.

Now, the Wikileak’d stuff is embarrassing, but we’ll live.  It’s no real revelation that the potentates of the Middle East are soiling their thobes over the notion of a Persian Bomb, and the insight that North Korea is making mischief is about as newsworthy as a Lindsay Lohan relapse.  The guy who stole the stuff while pretending to listen to Lady Gaga – you would think that a soldier cranking such unambitious, derivative crap would have drawn some attention by security officers and/or people with musical taste – will spend about the next half century sitting in Leavenworth reminiscing about his 15 minutes of fame back in ’10, assuming he’s found guilty.  The flaws that led to him getting access to all those documents will be fixed.

—–

Moreover, the documents tend to show that American diplomats are actually doing their job, gathering information, analyzing current events in their areas of responsibility, and reporting them up the chain.  These are good things.  The Wikileakers and their moronic supporters are “stunned” by the “hypocrisy” of our emissaries saying one thing in public and other things privately.  What a shock – our diplomats are actually diplomatic.  If there is anything positive about this mess, it’s that it puts the spotlight on Americans who do the tough job handling our foreign relations, and who often do it without any recognition. 

Oh, wait, our diplomats and our intelligence folks do get recognized by one bunch – the Hollywood crowd that paints them as cowards, connivers, murderers or worse (unless they are Valerie Plame, of course).  The only thing that Hollywood enjoys vilifying more than a Christian or an employer is an American government official who actually tries to defend and protect our country.  While Hollywood’s vision of America’s activities around the world are orders of magnitude more exciting than the mundane reality of the Wikileaks disclosures, at heart Hollywood and Assange share the same contempt for our country and those who serve it.

The fact that Julian Assange can sleep soundly in his cell knowing to a certainty that he’ll see the next dawn is a tribute both to the fact that he didn’t choose to screw with the Israelis – who don’t take his kind of crap – and to the fact that America’s defenders are nothing like the brutal clowns Hollywood loves to portray.  If they were, Julian Assange wouldn’t be headed back to Sweden but to a shallow grave somewhere – in little pieces.

No, those strong words are not about my new mesh thong ( I’m only giving the people what they want). And they aren’t reactions to the mosque built near Ground Zero. They are responses to the putrid pastor’s plans to burn the Quran this Saturday, Sept 11th.

And I agree with all of them. The dude, Rev. Terry Jones, is an attention seeking sack of poop who’s accomplished everything he wanted: He put his morbidly mustachioed face all over the map – and embarrassed everyone from Gainesville, Florida. I’ve been trying to do that for years.

But in a weird way, this handle-barred hooligan has taught us a few lessons:

1. That mostly everyone agrees the pastor can burn the book, but he’s a big weenie if he does it. This was exactly my argument over the construction of the mosque. So in a weird way, this guy may have clued in others who missed that subtle point: The mosque can be built, but a compromise (or a conversation about it) might have been nice. Don’t get me wrong: the Koran burning is pure provocation, and I’m not sure that’s entirely the case with the mosque. But both issues deal with poor judgment. The key distinction: the pastor is a total barfpuck.

2. America’s reaction to this idiot should be a blueprint for all Muslims, when one of their religious jackasses act up. There was no delay in smacking this fuzz-faced freak around, and frankly I’d like to see more of that from Muslims, whenever one of their extremists rears its ugly head.

3. I’d also like to see that from our own government. I mean, it doesn’t take much bravery to take down a stereotypical wackjob like Jones. However, going after PC-protected knuckleheads takes more stones. But that may be asking too much.

And if you disagree with me, lets party, you racist homophobe.

Tonight,

Steven Kruiser

Immogen Lloyd Webber

Joe De Rosa

Jack Nicholson* 

*not really

Fact is, he’s hooked on something far worse than coke or speed. It’s lawyers who defend terrorists.

This addiction – rooted in his bedrock belief that America is to blame for everything, including his mustache – would be fairly harmless if it were held by a nobody – like say, a Daily Kos blogger. I mean, that’s just a harmless sap stuck in the attic taking turns trying on grandma’s underwear. Nope, this junkie is in the White House, and by the looks of it, someone better call Dr. Drew because Holder’s using on the job.

You wanna know how bad it’s gotten? The New York Times, of all places, reported that Rahm Emanuel even proposed “hiring a minder” for Holder – much in the way a band manager might do for a heroin-addicted lead singer. Minders generally keep you from missing a gig; in this case the minder was meant to keep Holder out.

But still, the addiction is in full force. If you look at his department, it’s full of lawyers who defend our enemies.

As the New York Post reports, last November, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley demanded to know how many Justice Department lawyers previously defended terrorist-detainees. Finally, Holder confessed. Among the nine (!), there was Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who defended Osama bin Laden’s driver, and Jennifer Daskal, the “detainee point-person for Human Rights Watch.” If you don’t know what HRW is, it’s no wonder. They only care about the rights of creeps who want to take your rights away.

Anyway, Holder won’t ID the other seven. Which is natural for an addict. You gotta hide your stash to the very end. Even if it ultimately leads to your own ruin.

And if you disagree with me, you’re worse than a racist Nazi who wears fur to a cockfight.

Tonight we’ve got the great Andrew W.K., the delightful S.E. Cupp, Ron Geraci, and a special massive interview with Ozzy Osbourne! (no need to write intro’s for Ozzy, the interview was taped last night!).

Today my point is the LAW. I touched on it briefly in the article but no one seems to be discussing the LAW. Many on the left and maybe even some on the right are applauding the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to name a special prosecutor. I only have one question: What crimes were committed? Those supporting the decision to name a prosecutor say, “torture.” 

 The federal statute can be found in Title 18 chapter 113C of the Federal Criminal Code and Rules. Section 2340 defines torture. Section 2340A says:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or life.

According to John Helgerson, who prepared the 2004 inspector general report for the CIA, the most egregious case was that of Abdul Wali, an Afghan suspected of rocket attacks on military bases. Wali died after four days in custody. A CIA contractor, David Passaro, was convicted in federal court of assault for the techniques he employed in June, 2003 during the interrogation. 

Federal career prosecutors have already reviewed the 2004 report and concur only one criminal case warranted prosecution. I can only assume there were no other situations warranting the death penalty. Every pundit seems more concerned with the water-boarding and “threats” to Abu Zubayda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM), and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, none of whom died from the interrogations. 

The Statue of Limitations for federal offenses is spelled out in Title 18 Section 3282:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed. 

In other words, unless someone was killed all prosecutions must be brought within five years. Math was never my strongest subject but the report came out in 2004. Obviously the incidents occurred earlier and it’s now 2009. To prosecute anyone the offense must have taken place after August, 2004 otherwise the Statute of Limitations has run. KSM was captured on March 1, 2003; Abu Zubayda in March 2002; and Abd a-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002. Even assuming some interrogator violated the law prior to that date, he can’t be prosecuted. So why the need for a “special prosecutor” to review what career federal prosecutors have already studied? 

Maybe I’m missing something but this sure looks like a political move designed to distract the masses, embarrass the prior administration, and destroy morale at the CIA.

Prove me wrong.