35 horsepower, millions of fans

The company's Nano Web site has seen more than 30 million hits, and social networks such as Facebook have thousands of interest groups and communities around the car.

Why the fuss? The Nano -- its working name was the "People's Car" -- is just half the price of the next-cheapest car in the world, a Chery Automobiles QQ3 sold only in its domestic market of China. The $5,200 Suzuki Maruti is the current least expensive option for Indians, where per capita incomes are nearing $1,000 after years of explosive economic growth. In the U.S., the cheapest option is the Nissan Versa, which, at $9,990, is about five times the price of Nano.

• Video: See the Tata Nano

With a snub nose and a sloping roof, the world's cheapest car can hold five people -- if they squeeze. And the basic version is spare: There's no radio, no air bags, no passenger-side mirror and only one windshield wiper. If you want air conditioning to cope with India's brutal summers, you need to get the deluxe version. Analysts estimate taxes, delivery and extras will add 30% or so to the car's cost.

At 10 feet long, the Nano is about 2 feet shorter than a Mini Cooper. Its 623-cubic-centimeter, two-cylinder engine is estimated to produce about 35 horsepower, good for a top speed of 75 mph.

The 10 cheapest cars sold in the U.S.:

Model	Price	Model	Price
Nissan Versa	$9,990	Toyota Yaris	$12,205
Hyundai Accent	$11,070	Kia Spectra	$13,550
Kia Rio	$11,495	Suzuki Reno	$13,839
Chevrolet Aveo5	$11,965	Hyundai Elantra	$14,120
Smart fortwo	$11,990	Pontiac G3	$14,335

Extra2/26/2009 5:30 PM ET

The $2,000 car you can't buy

The much-anticipated Tata Nano -- at just half the price of the next-cheapest car in the world -- will be sold in India beginning in April. You won't find it in the US, though.

[Related content: cars, cheap cars, save money, economy, gas mileage]

By MSN Money staff and wire reports

The cheapest car in the world is expected to begin rolling off assembly lines March 23, seven months behind schedule.

India's tiny Tata Nano, priced at 100,000 rupees, or about $2,000 at current exchange rates, will not be sold in the United States. Cars will reach dealerships across India in April, and production for the first year is expected to reach 250,000 vehicles.

The Nano's unveiling in January 2008 caused a stir worldwide and especially in India, where there are fewer than 10 cars for every thousand people, compared with 40 per thousand in China and 450 in the U.S.

Indians bought about 1 million cars in 2007. Far more middle-class Indians buy and transport their entire families on scooters.

Twilight Earth

Twilight Earth

Coal Mine Cleanup Reform Proposal by Obama to Save $200 Million a Year

by Derek · 1 comment

in 6. Free For All Friday

Buzz up!11 votes

President Obama submitted a budget proposal on Thursday that halts the distribution of up to $200 million per year to states that have already cleaned up their abandoned coal mines, yet still receive money from the federal Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program.

This action by Obama is bringing heated opposition from Wyoming, the nation’s largest coal producer, and the recipient of $100 million a year from the program.

“I can say with full confidence that I and Wyoming’s current congressional delegation will not rest until President Obama’s current AML proposal is buried.” - Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo

Wyoming has finished the cleanup of its abandoned coal mines, but continues to divert the money to projects such as the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources operating budget ($17.4 million), a gasification facility and technology center for the School of Energy Research ($20 million) , and the construction of a road to a future Carbon County coal-to-liquid plant ($10 million).

“This is a past obligation and to threaten to take away what we are already owed is outrageous.” - Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo

The president’s proposal could also affect Montana, Texas, Louisiana, and three Native American tribes, and its critics claim that the proposal goes against a compromise agreed upon in 2006. That compromise allowed states that have achieved their coal mine cleanups to continue using the funding for road construction, non-coal reclamation, and other projects.

Under the initial federal AML program, coal operations across the country pay a tax on each ton of coal produced that funds the reclamation of mine sites abandoned before the 1977 federal strip mine law was passed.

“The goal is to stop payments to states where the job of reclaiming abandoned coal mines is done.” - Peter Mali, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement.

Some say Bunning, in frustration, hinted he may quit GOP seat

By James R. Carroll and Joseph Gerth • The Courier-Journal • February 27, 2009

• Read Comments(41)
• Recommend (9)
• Print this page
• E-mail this article
• Share
  • Del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Buzz up!
• 

WASHINGTON — Already in conflict with his party’s leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation.

The Kentucky Republican suggested that possible scenario at a campaign fundraiser for him on Capitol Hill earlier this week, according to three sources who asked not to be identified because of the politically sensitive nature of Bunning’s remarks.

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

“I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

“The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event.

That was the clear message Bunning was sending, said a third source who heard the senator’s remarks at the fundraiser, which attracted about 15 people.

Bunning was touring storm-damaged areas in Western Kentucky today. In a statement made through spokesman Mike Reynard, he said:

RIAA Decries Attorney-Blogger as 'Vexatious' Litigator

By David Kravets September 17, 2008 | 5:47:01 PM

The Recording Industry Association of America is declaring attorney-blogger Ray Beckerman a "vexatious" litigator. The association is seeking unspecified monetary sanctions to punish him in his defense of a New York woman accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing system.

The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers, "has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) in court briefs. "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."

Lory Lybeck, a Washington state defense attorney leading a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the RIAA of allegedly engaging in "sham" litigation tactics, said the RIAA's motion comes from the same organization that has sued about 30,000 people over the last five years for file sharing, some of them falsely. It's the same organization, he said, that has sued dead people, the elderly and even children -- all while using unlicensed investigators.

"This is like irony and irony and irony," Lybeck said in a telephone interview. "That's what vexatious litigation is."

Beckerman, whose blog is Recording Industry vs The People, said in an interview the allegations were "frivolous and irresponsible."

Attorney Ray Beckerman denies RIAA charges that he's a "vexatious" litigator.

Lybeck represented an Oregon woman, Tanya Andersen, and got the case dismissed last year. The RIAA fought paying his legal fees because it claimed she was still an infringer. He countersued. The case seeks to represent what he says are "thousands of people falsely sued" by the RIAA. The case is pending.

"Irony is too tame of a word to describe the motion against Ray," Lybeck said. "Their whole 30,000-lawsuit scheme is founded on the purpose to run a PR campaign based on a fundamental starting place of an illegal investigation by unlicensed investigators and then a threatening letter," Lybeck said. "Ray is duty bound and ethically bound to zealously defend his client."

RIAA Fears 'Manipulation' of Courtroom Web Broadcast

By David Kravets January 20, 2009 | 4:16:18 PMCategories: RIAA Litigation

The Recording Industry Association of America is objecting to the webcasting of pretrial arguments in an upcoming file-sharing trial.

The RIAA claims that the re-runs "will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual."

That is among the arguments the RIAA is making in urging a federal appeals court to reverse a Massachusetts federal judge's order that would allow the pretrial broadcast this Thursday. The broadcast, assuming it goes forward, will include a Boston University student and his attorney challenging the RIAA's copyright infringement case. It is believed to be the first time a U.S. federal trial court has allowed a live internet stream from the courtroom.

"Petitioners are concerned that, unlike a trial transcript, the broadcast of a court proceeding through the internet will take on a life of its own in that forum," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. "The broadcast will be readily subject to editing and manipulation by any reasonably tech-savvy individual. Even without improper modification, statements may be taken out of context, spliced together with other statements and broadcast (sic) rebroadcast as if it were an accurate transcript. Such an outcome can only do damage to Petitioner's case."

The RIAA is taking exception to the fact that the feed will be distributed on the Berkman Center for Internet and Society's website. The head of the center is Charles Nesson, who is defending Joel Tennenbaum, the defendant in the case.

"Accordingly, in the name of 'public interest,' the district court has directed the general public to a website replete with propaganda regarding the Defendant's position in connection with this case, and that is specifically designed to promote Defendant's interests in this case," the RIAA wrote.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner of Massachusetts granted the over-the-internet coverage for the 2 p.m. hearing. Only a handful of U.S. trial judges have ever allowed cameras in their courtrooms during a live proceeding. Most of the states grant local judges the discretion whether to allow cameras.

"At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation," Gertner wrote in granting the internet coverage.

The 1st Circuit did not indicate when it would rule.

Judge Declares Mistrial in RIAA-Jammie Thomas Trial

By David Kravets September 24, 2008 | 6:18:26 PMCategories: RIAA Litigation

Jammie Thomas, left, and her attorney, Brian Toder, leave the courthouse last year after a jury dinged her $222,000 for sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network.
Photo: Associated Press

A federal judge on Wednesday set aside the nation's first and only federal jury verdict against a peer-to-peer file sharer for distributing copyrighted music on a peer-to-peer network without the labels' authorization.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Duluth, Minnesota, declared a mistrial in the case of Jammie Thomas, a Minnesota mother of three, setting aside the $222,000 penalty levied by a federal jury last year for copyright infringement -- $9,250 for each of the 24 infringing music tracks she made publicly available on the Kazaa file sharing network.

Davis' decision means the Recording Industry Association of America's five-year copyright infringement litigation campaign has never been successful at trial.

Most of the 30,000 cases have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars and have never broached the hot-button legal issue that ultimately prompted Davis to declare a mistrial.

Thomas was the nation's only RIAA target to take her case to trial, which last year ended in an RIAA victory. The case emboldened the recording industry's resolve to continue its public relations effort against file sharing through a nationwide litigation campaign.

The legal brouhaha prompting Davis to declare a mistrial focused at the heart of all file sharing cases: What level of proof was necessary for the RIAA to prevail.

Davis had instructed (.pdf) the jury last year that the recording industry did not have to prove anybody downloaded the songs from Thomas' open Kazaa share folder. Davis read Jury Instruction No. 15 to jurors saying they could find unauthorized distribution -- copyright infringement -- if Thomas was "making copyrighted sound recordings available" over a peer-to-peer network "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

But Davis had second thoughts and, without any urging from the litigants in the case, summoned the parties back to his courtroom in August, writing in a brief order that he may have committed a "manifest error of the law." He heard arguments from both sides and said he would issue a ruling soon.

With Wednesday's opinion, Davis made his revised position official and ordered a retrial -- one with different jury instructions.