Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: The Realignment of America ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default The Realignment of America ...

    "The Realignment of America
    The native-born are leaving "hip" cities for the heartland.

    BY MICHAEL BARONE
    Tuesday, May 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

    In 1950, when I was in kindergarten in Detroit, the city had a population of (rounded off) 1,850,000. Today the latest census estimate for Detroit is 886,000, less than half as many. In 1950, the population of the U.S. was 150 million. Today the latest census estimate for the nation is 301 million, more than twice as many. People in America move around. But not just randomly.

    It has become a commonplace to say that population has been flowing from the Snow Belt to the Sun Belt, from an industrially ailing East and Midwest to an economically vibrant West and South. But the actual picture of recent growth, as measured by the 2000 Census and the census estimates for 2006, is more complicated. Recently I looked at the census estimates for 50 metropolitan areas with more than one million people in 2006, where 54% of Americans live. (I cheated a bit on definitions, adding Durham to Raleigh and combining San Francisco and San Jose.) What I found is that you can separate them into four different categories, with different degrees and different sources of population growth or decline. And I found some interesting surprises.

    Start with the Coastal Megalopolises: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.

    There are some variations. New York had a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%; San Francisco a whopping domestic outflow of 10% (the bursting of the tech bubble hurt) and an immigrant inflow of 7%. Miami and Washington had domestic outflows of only 2%, overshadowed by immigrant inflows of 8% and 5%, respectively.

    This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations--these are driving many Americans elsewhere.

    The result is that these Coastal Megalopolises are increasingly a two-tiered society, with large affluent populations happily contemplating (at least until recently) their rapidly rising housing values, and a large, mostly immigrant working class working at low wages and struggling to move up the economic ladder. The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo.

    Democratic politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money.

    The bad news for them is that the Coastal Megalopolises grew only 4% in 2000-06, while the nation grew 6%. Coastal Megalopolitan states--New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois--are projected to lose five House seats in the 2010 Census, while California, which has gained seats in every census since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, is projected to pick up none.

    You see an entirely different picture in the 16 metro areas I call the Interior Boomtowns (none touches the Atlantic or Pacific coasts). Their population has grown 18% in six years. They've had considerable immigrant inflow, 4%, but with the exceptions of Dallas and Houston, this immigrant inflow has been dwarfed by a much larger domestic inflow--three million to 1.5 million overall.

    Domestic inflow has been a whopping 19% in Las Vegas, 15% in the Inland Empire (California's Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where much of the outflow from Los Angeles has gone), 13% in Orlando and Charlotte, 12% in Phoenix, 10% in Tampa, 9% in Jacksonville. Domestic inflow was over 200,000 in the Inland Empire, Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Orlando. These are economic dynamos that are driving much of America's growth. There's much less economic polarization here than in the Coastal Megalopolises, and a higher percentage of traditional families: Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) in the Interior Boomtowns is 6%, well above the 4% in the Coastal Megalopolises.

    The nation's center of gravity is shifting: Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Houston is now larger than Detroit, Atlanta is now larger than Boston, Charlotte is now larger than Milwaukee. State capitals that were just medium-sized cities dominated by government employees in the 1950s--Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville, Richmond--are now booming centers of high-tech and other growing private-sector businesses. San Antonio has more domestic than immigrant inflow even though the border is only three hours' drive away. The Interior Boomtowns generated 38% of the nation's population growth in 2000-06.

    This is another political world from the Coastal Megalopolises: the Interior Boomtowns voted 56% for George W. Bush in 2004. Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Nevada--states dominated by Interior Boomtowns--are projected to pick up 10 House seats in the 2010 Census.

    What about the old Rust Belt, which suffered so in the 1980s? The six metro areas here--Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester--have lost population since 2000. Their domestic outflow of 4% has been only partially offset by an immigrant inflow of 1%. If the outflow seems smaller than in the 1980s, it's because so many young people have already left. Natural increase is only 2%, lower than in Orlando or Jacksonville in supposedly elderly Florida. Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation. They're not the source of dynamism they were 80 or 100 years ago. They continue to vote Democratic, but their 54% for John Kerry was much lower than the Coastal Megalopolis's 61%. Their states are projected to lose six House seats in the 2010 Census.

    The fourth category is what I call the Static Cities. These are 18 metropolitan areas with immigrant inflow between zero and 4%, with domestic inflow up to 3% and domestic outflow no higher than 1%. They seem to be holding their own economically, but are not surging ahead and some are in danger of falling back. Philadelphia makes the list, and so do Baltimore, Hartford and Providence in the East.

    Surprisingly, some Western cities that boomed in the 1990s are in this category too: Seattle (the tech bust again), Denver, Portland. In the Midwest, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus and Indianapolis are doing better than their Rust Belt neighbors and make the list. In the South, Norfolk, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Birmingham are lagging enough behind the Interior Boomtowns to do so. Overall the Static Cities had a domestic inflow of just 18,000 people (.048%) and an immigrant inflow of 2%. Politically, they're a mixed bag, a bit more Democratic than the nation as a whole: 52% for Kerry, 47% for Bush.

    I have left two atypical metro areas out, because they stand alone. One is New Orleans, with a 25% domestic outflow; it was already losing population and attracting almost no immigrants before Katrina. The other is Salt Lake City, which demographically looks a lot like the America of the 1950s. In 2000-2006 its population grew a robust 10%. But it had a domestic outflow of 4% (young Mormons going off on their missions?), balanced by an immigrant inflow of 4%. The chief driver of population growth there is kids: Salt Lake City's natural increase was 9%, the largest of any of our metro areas, hugely greater than San Francisco's 3% or Pittsburgh's minus 1%. Politically, New Orleans was split down the middle in 2004, with Bush leading 50% to 49%, while Salt Lake City, the least Republican part of Utah, was still 60% for Bush.

    What of the rest of the nation? You can find a few smaller metro areas that look like the Coastal Megalopolises (Santa Barbara, university towns like Iowa City), many that resemble the Interior Boomtowns (Fort Myers, Tucson) and the Rust Belt (Canton, Muncie). You can find rural counties that are losing population (as are most counties in North Dakota) and, even amid them, towns that have solid growth (Fargo, Bismarck).

    But overall the nation beyond these 49 metro areas looks like the Static Cities: 1% domestic inflow, 1% immigrant inflow, 4% population growth. But politically it is more Republican, taking in as it does large swathes of the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and in line with the historical record of non-metropolitan areas being less Democratic than metro areas: 56% for Bush, 42% for Kerry.

    Twenty years ago political analysts grasped the implications of the vast movement from Rust Belt to Sun Belt, a tilting of the table on balance toward Republicans; but with California leaning heavily to Democrats, that paradigm seems obsolete. What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

    Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation's fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That's the kind of political change demographics makes over the years."


    of course, many of these trends would be changed significantly if 12 to 20 million illegal aliens were suddenly converted into registered voters !

  2. #2
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    I will vouch for the plantation economy that exists here in Los Angeles. We have an extremely wealthy class, an enormous poverty class, and virtually no middle class. And the disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor is getting wider every day. Everyone who can't join the wealthy is joining the poor or leaving. I've gotten to the point where I like it here and this is my home, but I'm realizing I probably can't stay much longer. Within the next two years I would like to move somewhere else and buy a home where I can afford one, maybe in Memphis or Vermont.

  3. #3
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    that's an interesting read. Although I'd be curious to see how the last year has affected those numbers. I know with the housing boom from two years ago and all the sub-prime mortgages that have gone up a lot of the economics of who's middle class and who's working class has changed. I know the influx of people here to Phoenix has made myself and several other people that have lived here for most, if not all our lives, consider moving out of the metropolis and into smaller towns

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    It's also fairly easy to see these changes where I live in upstate NY. The vast majority of industry has gone. High school and college graduates looking for a real future are leaving, since there is very little to be found here in the way of 'career building' jobs. The only growth sectors are all public sector jobs i.e. homeland security (big eavesdropping station), prisons (we have FIVE prisons in one county, where NYC exports their criminals), social service workers (the families of NYC criminals in our prisons move up here to regularly visit their incarcerated family member, and sign up for social welfare benefits), colleges etc. The one exception i.e. growth of good paying jobs in the private sector is a gambling casino operated by a local indian tribe, which the NY state gov't is presently trying to shut down and/or tax to death.

    Yes there are some 'very rich' people still living here - a leftover from the days when industry was booming. And there are all sorts of sub $10 an hour service jobs with no future available. But very little exists in between. From a political demographic standpoint, the typically 'red' upstate middle class is shrinking rapidly, while the typically 'blue' poor collecting social services is growing.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    It's also fairly easy to see these changes where I live in upstate NY...
    Here is a link re: a university study about this topic from last year,

    http://english.people.com.cn/200607/...24_285993.html

    What I'd really like to see, and which of course will never be asked, is the following question at both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidate debates: "Why are so many of you in the Senate and the House so determined to financially destroy the middle-class in the U.S.?" I'd be quite interested in their answers to this question.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ from a demographic standpoint, rich people making big campaign contributions gets candidates on the ballot and poor people voting for candidates carries elections. In order to keep the poor people happy i.e. voting for these candidates, the gov't must give them things. Some other segment of the population must pay for those things, with the remaining choices being the middle class or other rich people. Hitting up rich people results in backlash during the re-election campaign ... not to mention the fact that the vast majority of candidates themselves are rich (meaning that actually taxing the rich would mean taxing themselves). The path of least resistance is to tax the middle class instead.

    Of course, those same politicians will SAY that they are raising taxes on the rich. However, they always make sure to leave enough loopholes, tax favored investment opportunities, and technicalities that the rich can afford to pursue, that the actual tax rate percentages which apply to middle class people are higher than the actual tax rates applying to the totality of rich people's 'earnings'. The quintessential example of this principle is the 'earnings' of some corporate bigwigs, which consist of one dollar per year in fully taxable 'salary' but untold millions in stock options.

    I would also make the observation that the same demographic shift pointed out by the author is now pretty obvious in terms of the eventual consequences on strip clubs.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-12-2007 at 09:39 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    I would say a lot of it also has to do with people's "econimic IQ" Let's say you have $30K right now. You could go buy a brand new car completely paid off or put a down payment on a house. Well, with the house you are making equity, able to right off intereste, etc. Buy the car and you have something to show off. Well while the car is depreciating, the house is growing in value. 5 years down the line you could refinance that house, take out enough to buy an even better car, and still lower your payment. But, the "bling" society we live in people want to show off what they have right now. The expanding upperclass know this, which is why they tend to be a little bit older. Two people can make the exact same amount but the one spending the money now is not the one that is going to be retiring early.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ I agree with your "economic IQ' perspective, but for a different reason. Middle class people with a fairly high 'economic IQ' can easily recognize the fact that certain states are spending huge amounts of money per capita on social welfare benefits, educational institutions, penal institutions, public sector jobs in all shapes and sizes, etc. Those same middle class people recognize that the way their states are funding these high levels of gov't spending is by attempting to collect high tax rates ... both on their own incomes and property and purchased goods, as well as on their employer's profit margin.

    These same high 'economic IQ' middle class people also see that different states do not collect income taxes, have lower property taxes and lower sales taxes on the goods they purchase, as well as lower taxes on their potential new employer's profit margin. The reason that these other state tax rates can be lower is because those states choose not to spend anywhere near as much per capita for social welfare benefits, educational institutions, and/or gov't jobs.

    Those same high 'economic IQ' middle class people also connect the dots to conclude that the high tax rate states that offer generous social welfare benefits tend to attract more social welfare benefit recipients, which will create a vicious circle of more taxing and spending for future social welfare benefits, more taxing and spending for the new gov't jobs that will go along with the 'immigration' of more social welfare benefit recipients (i.e. case workers, police, judges, prison guards, remedial teachers).

    At the same time these same high 'economic IQ' middle class people will also connect the dots and realize that, on the other side of the equation, every other middle class person or employer who moves out of the high tax rate state first will cause an eventual increase in their own tax rates in addition to the growth in gov't spending for more social welfare benefits and more gov't employees ... because fewer and fewer middle class taxpayers and businesses will remain to share the tax burden.

  9. #9
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^so applying that theory: States where the influx of middle class "high ecomonic IQ" individuals are leaving, will thus eventually be forced to cut social progams due to lack of income to tax, resulting in the "lower class" following the middle class to these other states, thus forcing higher taxes in those states. Thus, we will have a vicious circle of economic darwinism, and eventually the masses will flock back to which they came starting the cycle all over again.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by hazmatt24 View Post
    ^^so applying that theory: States where the influx of middle class "high ecomonic IQ" individuals are leaving, will thus eventually be forced to cut social progams due to lack of income to tax, resulting in the "lower class" following the middle class to these other states, thus forcing higher taxes in those states. Thus, we will have a vicious circle of economic darwinism, and eventually the masses will flock back to which they came starting the cycle all over again.
    Probably depends upon the state. I know the Nevada voters have made certain, by their initiative process, that there will never be a personal income tax in the state of Nevada. This doesn't mean the Nevada politicians will not try to increase other types of taxes. But it does mean imposing a personal income tax in Nevada is denied to them.

    I've also heard a couple of people call in to the radio, both completely incensed over the way illegal immigration was being handled in the U.S. One woman said she and her husband were moving, permanently, to Croatia. The other guy said he and his wife were moving, permanently, to Ireland. If enough people did pack up and leave for other countries, there would be nobody left to tax, other than the wealthy. And perhaps the people collecting benefits, via a consumption tax. THe politicians in the U.S. would then have no other choice. Although this concept is pretty much a pipedream.

  11. #11
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    States where the influx of middle class "high ecomonic IQ" individuals are leaving, will thus eventually be forced to cut social progams due to lack of income to tax
    more likely those high tax rate states will turn to the Federal gov't to cover state revenue shortfalls, resulting in the federal taxes on those middle class 'high economic IQ' individuals being increased no matter what state they have moved to - with that additional federal tax revenue then being transferred back to the high tax rate states !

    Also, just because high tax rate states might be forced to cut social welfare benefit levels by some percentage due to lack of state tax revenue, that does not mean that their 'reduced' level of benefits would actually fall below the benefit levels existing in low tax states. As such, even at reduced benefit levels, social welfare benefit recipients still wouldn't have any incentive to relocate.

  12. #12
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    so, any thoughts on a solution to this problem?

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ a basic law of economics is that if you choose to 'subsidize' something, you cause more of it to occur !!! So an easy answer would be to reduce the 'subsidy'. However, this leads to a conundrum in states where the number of registered voters who benefit from 'subsidy' payments exceeds the number of registered voters whose taxes must be raised to pay for those 'subsidy' payments. In that case, there are only two real options left open to middle class taxpayers who now find themselves in the electoral minority in their state.

    Option 1 is to vote with their feet and become part of the demographic shift ...

    Option 2 is to stop being middle class ... stop working so hard ... reduce their incomes to the point that they too become eligible for social welfare benefits ... and let their middle class neighbors worry about the tax burden

  14. #14
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    interesting. Would you be opposed to me putting this on my forum? I find it very intriguing and would love to have this discussion/continue it with the people over there as well.

  15. #15
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ you might want to try asking the copyright-holder, rather than the copyright-violator, lol

    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
    http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellec...y/copypol2.htm
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/

  16. #16
    Senior Member hazmatt24's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    93
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    My Mood
    Devilish

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot View Post
    ^^^ you might want to try asking the copyright-holder, rather than the copyright-violator, lol

    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
    http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellec...y/copypol2.htm
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/
    not that part, the discussion as a whole

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ personally I don't mind re my own posts. Also, since I credited the article's author Mike Barone plus linked to the original source OpinionJournal.com, since this article was posted in a free area at opinionjournal.com, and since this BBS is non-profit and non-professional in nature, this thread is arguably well within the 'fair use' doctrine.

  18. #18
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot View Post
    ^^^ you might want to try asking the copyright-holder, rather than the copyright-violator, lol


    Since the Author is cited and the location of it's original publishing given, this repost is not a copy right infringement.

    But you knew that.

  19. #19
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    Since the Author is cited and the location of it's original publishing given, this repost is not a copy right infringement.

    But you knew that.
    I don't believe it's that clear. From the U.S. Copyright Office link:

    "The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

    Just because you cite the author and location of the original source doesn't clear copyright protection. Otherwise, copyright would be meaningless. "This reprinted book was originally written by Harper Lee, and published by Lippincott." Doesn't work that way.


    Further, the U.S. Copyright Office goes on to state other criteria of fair use:

    "'quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.."

    And so on. In this thread, and many others, we see wholesale copying of the work, not just excerpts or summaries.


    And finally:

    "The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material."

    It really does bother me that this "fair use" concept is so easily bandied about, saying, "Oh, yeah, we fit under it," when clearly, there is no such easy way to affirm that under copyright principles, especially with entire works substantially copied (and the term is copyright, after all). The most troubling is that it's so blithely done here when it's Pryce who would probably bear the ultimate liability.

  20. #20
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    The repost makes no attempt to take credit for the article in whole or in part, nor does the OP attempt to make a profit from the repost. Therefore there is no intent to deprive the Author or Publisher from all due credit or profit.

    When one profits or is accredited with material that is not their own, and does so without permission of the Originator; this is intent to deprive, and clearly a copy right infringement.

  21. #21
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Well, I'm just going by the clear language of the U.S. Copyright Office website, which I quoted. You may well be an authority on copyright law, but I'll stick to what the officials say.

    But I don't think your analysis holds up anyway. There's a bunch of people being sued for downloading music which they claim no credit for nor tried to profit from.

    If you take a book to Kinko's and try to run off a page, if they follow company policy, they'll tell you they can't do it because of the copyright, even though you're not claiming credit nor trying to profit.

    If I run off a photocopy of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull," to give to a friend, besides showing that I'm not quite right in the mind, it'll be a copyright violation, even though I'm not trying to take credit for Mr. Bach's work nor profit by it.

    Let's go to the article that's the subject of this thread. It says at the bottom of the page: "Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Do you suppose that one of those rights that they reserve is to not have the article copied in its entirety for posting on another website?

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    ^^^ not wanting to get sidetracked on the copyright issue, but the underlying legal principle is indeed the 'intent to deprive'. With all of your examples i.e. downloaded music or photocopying a book, the action serves as a substitute for a purchase and therefore 'deprives' the copyright holder of potential revenue. In the case of the OpinionJournal article I posted, it is impossible to construe my reposting in DD as an 'intent to deprive' since the article was provided for free to all comers at opinionjournal.com. Therefore any incentive created by my repost for a handful of people at DD to NOT visit the opinionjournal.com website in order to read the article in its entirety actually saves Dow Jones & Company money in bandwidth costs !

    However I agree with you in limited fashion that the reposting of much internet based copyrighted material does NOT fall under the 'fair use' doctrine. The discriminating factor is whether or not that copyrighted material is offered for sale or provided for free by the original publisher. As such, I NEVER repost internet based content that the original publisher has posted in 'paid subscriber' areas - because doing so WOULD clearly constitute an 'intent to deprive' via substitution for a potential purchase = exactly the same sort of criteria as downloading music or photocopying books.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 06-17-2007 at 05:38 PM.

  23. #23
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Well, Mel, you may be an authority on copyright, too. Here again, I'm going by the words of the Copyright Office, which I've quoted, which have not been refuted authoritatively, and I assume the Copyright Office knows what it's talking about. And all that is notwithstanding the site policy here.

  24. #24
    Banned ArmySGT.'s Avatar
    Joined
    May 2005
    Location
    SW Counter Troll HQ
    Posts
    5,582
    Thanks
    1,589
    Thanked 1,674 Times in 1,043 Posts
    Blog Entries
    13
    My Mood
    Amused

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Well, I'm just going by the clear language of the U.S. Copyright Office website, which I quoted. You may well be an authority on copyright law, but I'll stick to what the officials say.
    As ambiguous as it is, that is what we will have to go with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    But I don't think your analysis holds up anyway. There's a bunch of people being sued for downloading music which they claim no credit for nor tried to profit from.
    My analysis holds up quite well, though you choose not to see it. There is intent to deprive. Though the downloaders are not taking credit, or indeed they are making a profit. By not paying for the musc the downloader is profiting. The Artist and the entire system are deprive a fair value for their work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    If you take a book to Kinko's and try to run off a page, if they follow company policy, they'll tell you they can't do it because of the copyright, even though you're not claiming credit nor trying to profit.

    If I run off a photocopy of "Jonathan Livingston Seagull," to give to a friend, besides showing that I'm not quite right in the mind, it'll be a copyright violation, even though I'm not trying to take credit for Mr. Bach's work nor profit by it.
    You profit and your friend profits. Though this example is closer to what has happened here. The downloader version was just crap and not thought through on your part. When you take a product for your use (personal) , such as the photo copy of a book, that is infringement. The book was offered for sale and you have deprived the Author value for their work.

    I would happen to guess that by having the article reproduced here (without profit) that the original author would be pleased. Since it has been carried to a wider audience and more broadly discussed by that audience. Since the article was published without necessary subscription (free) the Authors were given their credit as was the publisher. The repost was given in entirety and without cost, infringement would be difficult to litigate for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Let's go to the article that's the subject of this thread. It says at the bottom of the page: "Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Do you suppose that one of those rights that they reserve is to not have the article copied in its entirety for posting on another website?
    I see no Rights conflicted with. No one but, the Original Authors and their Publisher have profited.

  25. #25
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: The Realignment of America ...

    (Notice: If you want to avoid all this debate chatter and get to the nub of it, skip to the last paragraph.)
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmySGT. View Post
    My analysis holds up quite well, though you choose not to see it.
    It wasn't what I choose to see. I'm quite happy to go where the facts lead. I was just quoting your criteria: "Since the Author is cited and the location of it's original publishing given, this repost is not a copy right infringement." Your criteria that I based my statement on there was: Not taking credit; and no intent to profit.

    Now you're adding a new criteria, intent to deprive. Okay, I'll consider the new hypothetical. I guess I "choose to see it" since it's now been added.

    But unless you and/or Mel are authorities in copyright law, these are criteria offered up by lay people. Let me offer up some criteria which you agreed, "As ambiguous as it is, that is what we will have to go with," and I'll try to make it less ambiguous.

    The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.
    Explanation: Unless you know, authoritatively, what you're doing, you're running a risk.


    Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
    Explanation: Just because you quote the author doesn't mean the author agrees to the copying.


    “quotation of excerpts ... quotation of short passages ...for illustration or clarification ... use in a parody (not applicable here) ... summary ... with brief quotations...(other nonapplicable stuff)...
    Explanation: You can use small bits of the copyrighted material to quote from.


    Copyright protects the ...way an author... expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas...
    Explanation: Saying that Ellen Goodman is pro-abortion does not affect copyright. But don't republish her column on it.


    The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
    Explanation: Just ask if you can.

    That way, when you're thinking, "I would happen to guess that ... the original author would be pleased," you don't have to guess (and guessing is not sound legal basis). You know one way or the other.

    For instance, I don't share your confidence that if the author and the publisher, Dow Jones Company, Inc. (who holds copyright), were asked, "Hey, can we reprint your stuff in its entirety for our interested readers on Stripperweb?' that they'd be as pleased as you think they would.

    But there's a simple way around that, and to prove me wrong, as proposed by the U.S. Copyright Office: Ask.


    When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation.
    Explanation: If you don't ask, and if it's not really legally clear, you ought not to do it.


    If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
    Explana.... never mind. We all get that one.


    Really, what I fail to see is what the defensive fuss is about. As outlined above by the authorities, reprinting an article in whole without permission bears some risk, however slight, to Pryce. Why bother with that when you can post a link, promote it to get people to read it, and then open your discussion here? It's the same effect without the risk. What in the world is wrong with that approach?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Blue America vs Red America
    By Miss_Luscious in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 08:17 AM
  2. Only in America...
    By Kaylinn in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-28-2007, 06:27 PM
  3. The Realignment of America ...
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 04:20 PM
  4. Only in America!
    By exotisch23 in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 01:05 PM
  5. Anywhere in America!
    By Lysondra in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-30-2006, 09:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •