well today on our t.v. it looks like the stop online piracy act and it even sounds like the failed bill but this is not so but it's the all new intellectual property attache act quietly unveiled over the weekend so who is behind this and why is it being resurrected and have some answers. plus singer songwriter don mclean said of bass the day the music died but you'll never guess how never ending legal disputes are killing off innovation technological advances including music the aids heavy we'll talk to the professor who laid out this theory in a case study next the point. that we give to everything in the budget everything in the defense budget is classified the pentagon works hard to defend

american values and even harder to spend taxpayer money the problem we don't have a clue exactly what they're buying coming up why this may be a violation of your constitutional right. it's wednesday journal july eleventh four pm in washington d.c. i'm christine frizz out here watching our t.v. . let's begin this hour by taking a closer look at our internet freedoms in the u.s. and around the world and we all remember a few months ago when some members of congress tried to pass the stop online piracy act and the protect ip act sopa and pipa now thousands of websites including wicked p.d.'s staged blackouts and protests and soon enough people were paying so much attention that those two pieces of legislation were voted down well it turns out soap is evil twin brother is back and his name is the intellectual property act and

take a look at this it's hard to tell which is which both are talking about advancing intellectual property rights and preventing infringement but the new one calls for the creation of a class of political officers who will see to it that all u.s. trade negotiations and discussions advance sopel like provisions of broad to make it easier at a later date to simply get the u.s. to comply and this bill thanks to texas republican congressman lamar smith is simply so far to point to talk more about this i'm joined by aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress there let's talk about this bill just sort of brought about over the weekend hasn't formally been introduced but it is in the works and it is uncanny how similar it is to soap i mean why do you think there's so much time and energy being devoted to such a similar piece of legislation. because the reason you say it because virtually industry through you know this was a provision that was in the original sokol and so i think they realized they

couldn't do it because. we seem to be having some audio problems with air in there did we lose him ok i think we got him back aaron swartz can you hear me you're ok sorry about that so you said that you know they are very similar they're trying to be snuck in i guess explain to our viewers here what the biggest concerns are in terms of the heart of this legislation. well it's part of the larger process of what the u.s. does which is take the most extreme most maximalist interpretation of copyright law and if they can't get it past the united states don't try and get it passed in other countries so this would actually provide funding for more funding for this work where they go around other countries trying to get them to change their laws to be more extreme and then of course they come back home and say oh well we have to compete with these other countries we have to make our laws more extreme too so it's a way of policy laundering and getting other countries to pass laws that can't pass

you're at home so in terms of these days our these officials you say that would go to other countries and try to persuade leaders there i mean what what would be their actual job when they do travel to these other countries how would they convince them i mean they use the economic and military might of the united states so we've seen in some of the wiki leaks cables some details have come out about this where they say look you know we're going to cut you out of u.s. trade deals or cut you out of u.s. military support well you know they use all the pressure that the united states has to force these other countries to adopt policies that their own citizens don't want and you know we should mention this is not just going on this one of laundering as you say here in the u.s. we saw just last week the european parliament vote to reject act and they seem to be sort of trying this back door approach as well the european union plans to use the canada e.u. trade agreement to implement these active provisions that talk a little bit about what's going on with that. yeah i mean there's this interesting

thing you see in the u.s. constitution and you see you as well where treaties with other countries don't have to go through quite the same scrutiny as in the normal process of passing a law so if there's something that gets rejected by the congress in united states well they often try to do a sneak it into a treaty with another country and say oh well you know we're not voting on it anymore it was just part of a treaty and now we have to abide by it and so we're seeing the ears do the same thing we're acting a clear vote on this question was voted down voted down enormously you know no chance of coming back but now they're going to try and sneak it into a much larger trade agreement and say look to keep trading with these other countries we need to sign on to exactly the same provisions i guess i'm curious i mean one of these lawmakers that lamar smith of texas for example who with also involved in the original so what do they have to gain i mean why are they doing this well you know the fact is if you look at someone like lamar smith or hollywood provides an enormous amount of their funding you know to run political campaigns

especially in the states these days is extremely expensive and hollywood not only has a lot of money but they also have a lot of experience bankrolling political campaigns they're very good at throwing fundraisers they have all these pacs set up to funnel money they know how to get money into washington and so a lot of these members of congress and become dependent on it and when sopa died that was kind of a big blow hollywood was really upset they thought maybe you know we're not going to keep giving money to politicians i think more and so they've demanded more and more extreme things in order to try and get politicians to win hollywood's favor but yeah i mean hollywood the recording of recording industry all these organizations and what is it that they are most concerned about and why are they spending millions of dollars in lobbying money to try to get this legislation passed. well you know the fact is just from a long term perspective it's pretty clear what the internet does is it does interview that's right it takes these things that used to cost money like printing books or making copies of d.v.d.'s and makes them essentially you know it's just as

easy to download a book as it is to share any other kind of file there's no reason for a separate publishing company to be there to print copies of books and the same is true of the hollywood studio you know you can put a movie up on you tube now there's no reason to go through a studio on have this intermediary between you the creator of the movie and the people watching it and so that puts hollywood an incredible danger from the internet not because authors want to make movies anymore but because these middlemen won't be able to take cut and so what they're trying to do is they're trying to find a way to crack down on the internet to control it to get rid of these free flowing sites where anyone can post videos and make it more of a thing where you have to get approved where you have to give them their cut where they can continue to put themselves between the creators and the people watching the movie so that they can continue making the profits that they've made and let's break down this new intellectual property attache act act clearly you can't just sneak stuff and congress you can certainly try it's why we always try to say you know on top of especially these kinds of stories these kind of laws being put out

there how do you see this moving forward i mean how does congress you know congressman lamar smith how does he get people to sign on you know that voted against this last time. well that's what's so interesting about this particular bill is that after they learn the mistakes from so but they said look we're not going to try and sneak anything through again we'll have it all be part of a debate part of a larger discussion don't worry everybody relax we learn a lesson and so what is lamar smith do if he waits a reasonable period waits for everybody calms down to people are less afraid of sopa and then there's the whole the discussion of the bringing people together doesn't even what we say the bill now has even put the bill on a minute for people to read you know going to be of both scheduled on it before anyone has even gotten a chance to read the bill i mean it's you know that's what it that's what i mean by sneaking this bill through you know there's not even going to be a hearing about whether it's good idea or not they're going straight to the vote the same day that he's going to release the text of the bill and so you know basically he's just asking people to vote on this thing knowing that hollywood

likes it without knowing what's in it that's the kind of dangerous and irresponsible tactic that got congress rightly criticized under sopa and they think you know well if we change the name if we you know rush it faster this time if we just you know try a little bit harder maybe we can sneak it through and it's up to us to make sure they can but it's so interesting and i don't know if you know the final bill but i have a copy right here of you know at as it is now and it's so interesting because in the first line what it says is to create a level playing field for american innovators and american job creation it's just crazy to me how you know that the wording can fairly mislead what's going on here yeah i mean luckily some of our allies have been able to get out a draft copy of the bill because you know again it's hasn't been formally published yet it's not on the official congress' web site so luckily we've been able to sneak out a just and read the stuff you know again they play these games with the names like

you know. that they want to have one called the parasites act and so on we had all these different things first sopa to train confuse people to say how no no it's a different bill as a totally different name and it's not at all what we're worried about and again that's what they're doing he. you know they put these innocuous titles on it was a knock us to scripture and for the fact is that you know if you read the bill you see what it's trying to do there is nothing in this bill what one most fascinating things about it there's nothing about limits to copyright law the job of these people would be all about strengthening copyright law and increasing it and making it more powerful the fact is the american constitution requires there be limits to it the first amendment says you need to have their use and you have to touch and for parody and political speech. is would be forced to ignore that they would not be allowed to get let other countries have the same kind of exemptions we have here they would have to push for the most maximalist interpretation possible religious right aaron swartz founder and executive director of demand progress as always thanks for being on the show thanks for having me. all right so

a lot of the talk of copyrights and wrongs stem from the case of napster remember now the first file sharing peer to peer system it was pretty much easy for the majority of the population to understand they were the biggest and most popular and therefore they were an easy target so when napster was sued it was help responsible for all of the material that its users shared making it pretty impossible for them to continue doing business we have course now have i tunes but there's been some pretty major results in other realms and this is the subject of a paper called copyright an innovation the untold story by records law professor michael carrier he writes the napster experience embolden everyone to go to litigation even though some record label officials thought they would only obtain pyrrhic victories these victories were very profitable for a few years and it was a lot easier to sue someone and collect money than it was to sell downloads but even the labels pursued litigation because innovation was being thrust at the

incumbents this is never a good business plan. and the author of that paper professor michael carrier joins us now from camden new jersey professor carrier thanks for being on the show really an interesting report and essentially you seem to be arguing here that because of these lawsuits the result has been an extreme lack of innovation and i guess connect the dots for me here sure so this is one of the difficulties whenever we talk about innovation we don't know what we're missing and so what i try to do here is to connect the dots by interviewing more than thirty c.e.o.'s d.p.s. and other high level officials to ask them the question what happened to innovation after the napster decision after all the top rightly to give a shit what happened to innovation and the response that i got was consistent across the board that innovation was stifled. so i mean like you said you you spoke to a lot of people i think you had to speak to most of them off the record because of their positions. but was it able was a very clear for you to see you know the pre napster decision and the post napster

decision in terms of innovation and creative things happening so basically what i asked was what happened after the decision and some folks talk about there being a chilling effect on innovation some innovators from particular technology companies said we just left this space we refused to innovate there so venture capitalist said we are not going to invest in this field anymore it's just too complicated and so when i pieced together all of those little pieces i reached my ultimate conclusion which is that innovation was for. so i we were just talking earlier in the show about sopa and i'm wondering what you think professor i mean is it fair to say that some of these accusations being made in pushing for legislation like this is a little overboard in terms of the effects of copyright infringement. i do think that it is overboard it's a little overboard and the reason is that even though there is always discussion of

piracy and death row websites and things like that there isn't any discussion on the other side of the bad effects that this legislation could have and so i talked to a whole bunch of innovators even some folks from the record labels who said when you get broad legislation like this and sopa and pipa were very broad when they said that we can punish anyone that in evils or facilitates infringement is equally the entire internet itself can enable or facilitate infringement once you have a broad standard like that then you can go after any technology company and these technology companies these innovators that i talked to tried to play it straight by the books tried to follow the law tried to come up with a legal alternative to napster and the market labels still struck them down and said we refuse to deal with you we want you dead and so that's why i don't have a lot of gold for what sopa and pipa would do in similar legislation for innovation yet is really interesting when you look at the connections that happen on the

internet i mean in the case of napster to be responsible for every single thing that its users did was just impossible i'm going to something else he wrote it hasn't been long very adamant too long but i think a lot of people might not remember the days when we all bought c.d.'s i know that you say consumers were just tired of overpaying and spending twenty dollars when they only wanted one song now blew open the doors to let users decide the record labels in contrast were in no rush to offer consumers this all a carte option as it showed that the emperor had no clothes talk about i guess where we are today certainly i don't know the last time i bought a cd but do you think that we have. moved forward since that napster decision in any way. we certainly have moved forward and that's the difficulty with doing the type of research that i've done a lot of folks say look there is innovation we're not buying c.d.'s anymore and so therefore napster never heard anything but the feedback that i got was that this

revolution things like spotify and or would have happened a decade ago and we'd see a lot more rather than the i tunes monopoly if not for napster and decisions like it so yes we have gotten a lot closer to what consumers want but we could be closer still if not for a lot of this operate litigation it's so interesting you know a here in d.c. there's you know tons of lobbying influence and you know we talk about big oil big gas you know but in your paper i was really struck at the big music talk a little bit about where these big music companies are today i mean have they won so with the i don't think they've won but they certainly have won the lobbying war up until very recent times and so if you look at the history of copyright legislation in the past generation or so there have been lot of instances for example back in the late ninety's when twenty years was added to the car for a term even though we didn't really need it for purposes of incentives for

innovation so the big music in big entertainment has really called the shots in terms of congress what is interesting is that in the sopa and pipa fight starting with the wikipedia and everyone else blacky out for the first time the technology community rose up against that and there's a big technology community they just haven't flexed their lobbying muscle and so now it'll be an interesting ballgame because for the first time you have someone on the other side that's pushing back against the breakdown of the findings in your report in terms of winners and losers i mean who based on the napster decision based on some of the legislation that we're seeing introducing reintroduce who wins and who loses. the lawyers win and that there is lots of operate litigation lawyers get paid by the hour and they do very well there are many many reasons the consumer is the loser because they're not getting what they want in the form that they wanted innovators are the losers venture capitalists are the losers that wish

to invest in the music space and now i would argue even the record labels are the losers that's one of the things that i figured out that after the napster decision the labels thought that they had this thing like that if they could just sue napster and the next person or the next entity that came to the top of their chart then they could go about their business but if napster had come out the other way and the label suit realized that they needed to negotiate and move into the twenty first century a while ago and not in two thousand and twelve then the labels would have benefited as well so i think we have a lot of losers based on litigation today and a lot of that was decided you know years ago let's look ahead now i mean how do we change the course here in terms of making sure that innovation can stop being stifled. the first thing we do is we do no harm we don't make things worse by passing legislation like sopa and pipa by enacting trade agreements like act and

the transfer partnership agreement because those sorts of agreements those sorts of legislation make it a lot harder to innovate if you're going to have a really big standard innovators and b c's are going to run away so the first thing to do is not to make matters worse i would say we should actually go back there was a case called sony back in the one nine hundred eighty s. that actually helped innovation a lot in saying that we have a clear rule as long as a technology has a single non infringing use then you can't stifle and so i would say let's go back that's really protect innovation but at a minimum let's not do any harm now i will certainly an interesting report interesting subjects one that we care a lot about here at r.t. we appreciate having you on the show michael carey a professor at the rucker school of law in canton thanks for having all right we're living in a world folks where so often science fiction is becoming science fact where remote

controlled warfare weapons are used more and more to kill enemies and to spy check out these cyborg insects and drones called quad writers developed by k.k. male robotics and the university of pennsylvania. check this out i mean devices like this can be controlled from far away distances and they may look teeny tiny but these little things the little guys they're equipped with a camera a microphone experts say technology is advanced enough that these guys these little mosquito type things could actually land on you use the needle and take a d.n.a. sample or could inject a micro tracking device under your skin what would you feel well you might feel the prick like a mosquito bite i'm not trying to fear monger just saying this is some of the technology out there available for use by our talk top tech teams and perhaps to by our government i want to show you some more things fifty gigapixel camera this is

called the aware two camera system kind of looks like another insect with hairs those are actually wires and ports part of multiple cameras to take multiple pictures. nearly one hundred at a really amazing zoom and then there's the d.o.d.'s advance hypersonic weapons program right here we have a glider vehicle which quote provides the president secretary of defense and combatant command with the ability to quickly destroy delay or disrupt key enemy targets within a few hours. so in this era of drones it's important to stay on top of some of these developments if nothing else to realize we ain't seen nothing yet. so speaking of this amazing technology in the development of new weapons systems a lot of this actually happens on our dime taxpayers fun infrastructure projects to keep our roads paved sometimes we fund public education in this country that our children might learn to read and write and we fund the large department of defense

budget to fund our troops our wars our development of new weapons and technology to keep this country safe but on that six hundred fifty billion dollars budget only sixty billion or ten percent of that goes to the pentagon's black programs and most of these are totally classified so we do want to look a little further into just what this is and how this works here's what i found. it's all the things you don't see but pay for anyway it's secret intelligence programs and weapons research. the point budget. time we give to everything in the budget everything in the defense budget was classified green. one. it all started here with the manhattan project the program to build an atomic bomb when the u.s. government spent more than two billion dollars in secret today it's estimated

between eight and ten percent of the entire budget is unknown it may not seem like a line but the cost of the secret stuff is on par with the entire military budgets for france and the u.k. and more than germany's. you can't keep spending money like this and maintain an empire this is how empires fall but military officials argue the empire need security and that covert operations and classified weapons research need to be conducted without congressional oversight on ground oversight we compromised secrecy tim wiener wrote the book a blank check the pentagon's black budget and says what they're doing is illegal our constitution commands a public budget so when we spend money in secret were violating our own constitution other critics wonder how much of the things budgeted for are actually produced or are produced but never used as william sweetman says. q

question to which i think anybody has an issue with for example keeping. we call tactics techniques and procedures under wraps. but it becomes a pretty big deal when you concealing its existence. not to mention that despite drawing down one warrant plans to draw down the other. the black budget has skyrocketed over the last few decades perhaps the post nine eleven mentality will be permanently etched in future budgets but we're going to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. a lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly without any discussion so it's going to be vital force to use any means at our disposal the disposal basically to achieve our objective but with those objectives starting to change at least publicly it will be interesting to see if the numbers change as well especially once the drawdown from afghanistan begins skeptics they know that with concerns about countries like iran and north korea and

other threats that there will be plenty to keep black budget business booming at the pentagon christine present r.t. . well it's been sixteen months now since the violence in syria began his talks have been more than slow and we wanted to take a closer look at what these talks have brought about as well as the importance of international consensus in terms of fixing the problems there and a little bit of a look at russia's role r.t. correspondent salaam most affairs spoke to prominent syrian opposition activist michel kilo and here's part of that interview. the immediate come of the talks was pre-determined by the fact that you have on the one hand a delegation from a country where food borne war is raging and a great power on the other you can hardly expect a specific outcome at the essentially we wanted russia to hear us aid because we represent the oppressed people of syria we want to serve the people of syria we protect their interests and we presented our position but i think we were frank and convincing we told russian officials will be needed to hear from various opposition

groups in syria for the syrian crisis to be resolved russian assume a well balanced out of russia plays a major role but it should not be part of the problem russia has a long history of friendship with the syrian people the people of syria expect russia to help them gain freedom and overcome the current deadlock the syrians want russia to take a fear approach to be as fair as possible russia should not side with the forces that will surely lose in the struggle that is the current regime foreign minister lavrov said russia was not committed to the current regime in syria but had alternative solutions leveled made a few remarks about the lack of harmony among opposition groups and mentioned arms deliveries and other military issues we responded very openly and frankly to all these concerns our delegation said that the opposition has decided to present a common front of the keitel conference and all opposition groups in syria have signed the papers on a transition period and on the future of syria as regards the arms deliveries we have pointed out that the procrastination of the city a crisis makes it difficult to resolve the problems of arms the sooner that is

a fair solution to the crisis that would meet the demands of the city and people the sooner it will be possible to cut the supply routes for arms deliveries by standing in the way of resolving this crisis those who are concerned about the arms made in the interest of those using those arms. that was michelle kealoha of the syrian democratic foreign delegation and that's going to do it for us here for now but for more on the stories we covered go to youtube dot com slash r.t. america or check out our web site r c dot com slash usa and you can always follow me on twitter you can find me at christine.

welcome to the capital account i'm laura mr. culture is that so much about the taxpayers' money magazine street because a lot of people that carry it on during the future or the climate treaty organization is in alliance in search of a mission does it project peace and stability as it claims. a mission of free accreditation free zones for charges free arrangement free. free studio time free. download free blog as well in video for your media projects a free media dog r t v dot com. old

started. for going to local. law again. please take your stuff. to. make your statement.