Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA 179
L. J. Beauregard writes: "Wired reports that the Commerce Department is not too thrilled about S.2048. Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,' a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:1)
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:2)
Bush already signed an Unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law, one that makes it a FELONY to buy any advertisement dissing one of your representatives 60 days before an election.
This means, that you coudn't run any ads detailing what Sentator "Disney" Hollings has done TO the Constitution, in the time period where most people who will are paying attention...
Guess who gets an exemption and gets to decide what is said about candidates? The MEDIA, largely owned by the IP cartel. Note that this law will be in full effect next time Senator Disney runs.
This is also the same Congress that passed the DMCA by unanimous voice vote.
Technicalities (Score:1)
A whore gets money for doing their master's bidding.
A slut does stuff without monetary compensation.
I propose his title be changed to Slutty UnderSecretary of Commerce or 'SUC' (ok, I'm reaching here) for short.
Seeing as he is also the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, I'd also suggest his title to be extended to 'SUC US PTO'.
Re:Technicalities (Score:1)
Re:Technicalities (Score:2)
Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. (I could crack a joke about how that ought to be justification enough for his impeachment, but that would be piling on.) Think about it for a minute...how beholden do you think an administration would be to a media elite that has pretty much nothing but hostility toward it?
Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?
Re:Technicalities (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one way of putting it, but from everything I've seen/read/heard about Rogan, he's a reasonable fellow. If I remember correctly, he was involved in the impeachment process because of his qualifications as a lawyer. It cost him his seat in Congress, if it makes you feel any better. One of those principle/duty versus practicality things. Doesn't bode well for those who think he's paid for.
Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law.
And Senator Foghorn Leghorn (Fritzie Hollings, the junior senator from South Carolina) is a Democrat, too. That said, there are many Republicans who support this bill. Would the president sign it if it got to his desk? Probably, unfortunately. Bill's biggest opponent in Congress? Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.
I think a big problem we've got here is that this isn't the kind of bill that's got the run-of-the mill congressman (like my undistinguished one) interested -- they'll vote whichever way the party leadership tells them to. Letters might help, but I think this is something that somebody important is going to have to pickup on, and sway quite a few votes. I'd focus on the senators whose states have the most to lose by open source development being hurt....
John Edwards and Jesse Helms, North Carolina
John Warner and George Allen, Virginia
Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, New York
and so on....
And I'm not a member of either party...I belong to one of those third, so-called unimportant ones. If you're interested....click here [lp.org].
Divided and Conquered, You are Both Their Bitches (Score:2)
For the same reason we had 12 years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations before that [Reagan-Bush Sr] (including the sale of what were likely CIA drugs on American streets, Iran-Contra, and a war in the middle-east that was either engineered or a result of amazingly incompetent diplomacy), 4 years of the same before that [Carter], Eight years of the same before that [Nixon-Ford], etc. ad nauseum, back to probably within a generation or two of the founding of the Republic.
The draconian controls Copyright Cartels enjoy under the current legal regime over our popular culture, the draconian laws being enacted to impose an unnatural economic regime (capitalism as envisioned through monopolistic intellectual property regimes) on a domain with no inherent scarcity (electronic media and, specifically the internet) that will likely make the old Soviet attempt at doing something similiar (trying to impose an unrealistic communisim on a world of natural scarcity) look postively liberal in comparison, and the unconstitutional precedence copyright is taking over freedom of speech (despite the fact that virtually every constitutional scholar will point out that Amendmensts, even the first one, always take precedence over their antecedents when they conflict, and thus freedom of speech should constitutionally trump copyright every time) are neither a democratic or republican issue, and attempts to argue this in those terms are bound to result in failure.
Both parties have colluded in passing numerous extentions to the duration of copyright since the 1970s, legislatively robbing the public domain of its constitutionally guaranteed material.
Both parties passed the Sony Bono copyright extention act, which retroactively and unconstitutionally removed material from the public domain.
Both parties passed the DMCA, criminalizing copyright violation for the first time in American history (though not for the first time in western history
Both parties have been in bed with the Moghuls of Old Guard Media, be they recording companies, Hollywood Studios, or television networks stealing billions in public airways for a pittance.
Both parties have blatently accepted legalized bribes and allowed their respective interests to purchase legislation in flagrant contradiction to the public interest, and with open scorn for the same.
In short, politicians in both parties have earned the moniker of "whore" quite publicly, and the only real criticism of the term that is warrented is the lack of the adjective "cheap." How else can one describe selling out one's multi-trillion dollar nation, and multi-billion dollar growth industries, for a few hundred thousand in campagin donations (a total of a few tens of millions for the party, including all soft monies). These people, democrats and republicans alike, are not just whores, nor are they just "corporate" whores, they are cheap whores, who have sold every American man, woman, and child down the river for a pittance.
That all having been said, may I suggest you concentrate on fighting together to prevent further ravagement of our freedoms by both parties. The struggle for freedom of thought and expression, against the copyright and intellectual property regimes being forced down our throats by a particular, concentrated special interest, is a non-partison one, and the enemies to the same are most emphatically non-partison, for they encompass many in BOTH parties. This partisan bickering of conservatives vs. liberals misses the whole point, is divisive and hell, and quite frankly undermines your ability to act effectively in countering these attacks.
In other words, if you remain partisan and distracted from the issues you will have not only been divided, but very effectively conquered, before the battle is even joined.
Re:Technicalities (Score:2)
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50754,00 . tml [wired.com]
Selected paragraphs from the article:
Legislative Agenda (Score:5, Interesting)
What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.
NY Fairuse [nyfairuse.org] is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS [nylxs.com], and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.
The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.
The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:
All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.
No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.
All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.
Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.
No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.
Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.
Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.
We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings
WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.
Ruben
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
I just rattled everyone I could in DC.
kevin.a.ryan@mail.house.gov is the Weiner Cheif of staff
and they are going to send a representitive tomorrow to
sit in on the committee, which is not their committee. Weiner is in
the IP subcommittee in the house of the Judiciary Committee, and this
committee in telecom of the commerce sub committtee.
I'm sending him an email with our position on DRM.
Our position on the Digital Rights Managment on the net is that
First, the government should not mandate any technological means of
assuring Digital Rights Management, and as INTEL said, this is the
problem of the MPIAA, and Music Publishers, and not an issue of the internet.
Secondly, all proposals of Rights management interfer with free competition in
the computer industry, and is contributing to the economic downturn of the internet
by preventing the use of Free Software and ordinary research and developement of
software to expand the use of media in the public at large.
Additionally, DRM, by it's nature, infringes on the 4th Amendment rights of the consumers who
own the media which they buy, and prevent it's normal enjoyment. All DRM schemes require prior
consent to use the property after a cpommon purchase. That is cpmpletely unexceptable.
DRM is an assualt on the educational system and public libraries, by preventing the free
disemination of information to the general public, stifling broad education, and further
disenfranchisong minorities which depend on public education for advancement into the society
at large.
DRM is an extortion racket....PERIOD
We have no use for it and will vote on this issue.
It's destroying the economy, disenranchising our children, crippling our tax base, preventing
competition, worsening the recesssion and targets Free Software, which was the engine which
propelled our economy all throughout the 1990's by making the internet possible.
If DRM is forced on us, and we can't use digital media for expression and education, and after
buying something, you find you can't read something after a limited time, or without an approved
hardware or software device, it is same as if someone banged down my door and stole my whole
CD collection and my Newspaper archive. It prevents me from using MY property and it destroys MY
business. My business is designing systems to read media and productively use information.
Lastly, the Telecom subcommittee should not even be conducting this session since the proper place
for this the IP subcommittee since this is an IP issue.
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:1, Insightful)
The legisitlative assitiants have their own club in DC and Lamar Robertson has been in constact with a number
of the best people working on this agenda. We need to get people in DC to be available to testify at these
conference meetings because what we've learned is that the participants have NO IDEA about details of Copyright
Law and digital property rights, and they would LOVE to have our input, if it's done intelligently.
We need to also campain to defeat Hollings and make an example of what what happens to elected officials
who oppose private ownership of digital media and trample on our 4th Amendment rights.
Re:3400+ Slashdotters Can't Be Wrong... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2)
Something à la Blue Ribbon Campaign (Score:2, Interesting)
This time though we should be producing 'stickers' , 't-shirts' and stuff that people can show and wear in the real world where it will get off-line people taking notice.
Any ideas for a mascot or a logo?
Re:Something à la Blue Ribbon Campaign (Score:1)
And let the PEOPLE do the PEOPLE's business, which is passing laws. We need a Tammany Hall [nylxs.com] like operation
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2)
Which is what pisses me off about the so-called "campaign finance reform". It does nothing to address the existance of industry-wide "cartels" like the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Who even if not allowed to give money to a candidate, will still get their ear, BECAUSE they are an industry cartel.
Maybe the MPAA/RIAA's memberships are of multiple companies, but when it comes to setting prices and policies, and lobbying, they act as ONE... That can't be legal under the Sherman act.
Indeed, the RIAA has been found to be guilty of price fixing the cost of CD's... Punishment? none that matters.
When such a group has been found to break the law in that way, it should be dissolved.
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2)
*sigh* Although if I had to take a guess, it'd be that the folks on the Hill don't give a crap about constitutionality in the first place.
Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason for this istwo fold:
First, the courts can not be depended upon to uphold
the constitution.
Secondly, the bulk of the common law and case law uses language which disadvantages the property rights of
individuals in regard to copyright, and considers fair use
ONLY as a defense against copyright violation. A statute
which reverses this language will affect every court case
by giving new language to work with.
Ruben
"Beware of whores who say they don't want money.. (Score:1)
Corporate whore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:1)
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:1, Offtopic)
The scariest part [slashnet.org]:
It's really scary tho- more then half of Slashdot's readers NEVER read a comment. - CmdrTaco
Half the people who come here never read more than the crap on the front page.
Bout damn time (Score:3, Funny)
"Before Congress rushes into the imposition of a legislative solution," Rogan said, "I hope its members will grant more time for the free market to find its own middle ground."
Thank the gods for that. Its about time somebody stands up and says "Hold on a second, lets give business the chance to make their own decisions,
before we step in and legislate for them." I hope that more of this sort of thing happens in the future. I sincerely hope that those in congress decide
to heed Mr.Rogan's words, and their voing reflects it.
Re:Bout damn time (Score:3, Funny)
In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.
sounds to me basically like he's saying "it's too soon to pass it", lets just warn the hardware people that they better do something soon, before we do pass it.
1 more session of Congress without it being passed is a start, it gives us more time to rally more support, but this certainly doesn't look like the time to back off on applying pressure on the lawmakers
Re:Bout damn time (Score:1)
Re:Bout damn time (Score:1)
youve got a good point there
typo in article (Score:3, Funny)
Re:typo in article (Score:2)
"And today at the NYSE opening, Sen. Hollings was trading at $17.55 per share, but sharply dropped after a Reuters poll indicates that his election campaign might not go as smoothly as he had hoped. Analysts feel however, that this is only a temporary downturn, and that the stock will rebound by the end of the week..."
Hey, maybe we could use this for campaign finance reform.
"In other news, every major mutual fund has downgraded Pres. Candidate Perot stocks to junk bond status...."
Re:typo in article (Score:2)
Corporate whores? Indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders. Thing is, they don't see customers as stakeholders. An argument could be made that customers aren't stakeholders in this sense -- after all, they have no financial stake in whether most CBDTPA-protected works succeed or fail. Never mind the principles that are involved, it's all about money to corporations and to Congress.
a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do
Like pay any attention to whether their customers care about what they're being exposed to? You could make some interesting comparisons here. The corporate whores are exposing their customers to CBDTPA; the rest of the analogy is left to the reader's imagination.
Re:Corporate whores? Indeed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Problem is (US economy...) (Score:2)
I think the US economy needs it's people to pay $20 for 1 or 2 songs on each almbum that they like. They need you to spent $600 on office. In fact, they need you to spend most of your money on high profit consumer goods.
Why? You that you can earn such a high income as a society. Because they can sell you 100^20 copies of office, 100^20 madonna CDs, and 100^20 CPUs without pushing the real sources much. On the other hand, real resources (food, houses, cars) can't grow much easily. They have a lower profit and really limited resources.
So you can earn $20.000 a month, but if you don't spend much of it in stupid stuff (high profit = low marginal cost) then prices of real stuff would LIKE IT OR NOT, skyrocket. And you'll find you are all poor guys like in many countries. So to be rich, you need to HAVE TO PAY $20 a CD, $600 for office, $500 for photoshop and $20 a DVD. Then that money goes back to some coporations that buy REAL resources aboard. And you can then dominate.
So my conclusion is that people in the US are better off buying CDs at $15 or $20 a piece, and paying a lot for software and anything that has huge profit margins. That dilutes the REAL spendings (low profit stuff, pushing resource limits) and allows the dolar and the US to "_expect_ this and that" from the rest of the world "or face the consecuences".
Bottom line: don't complain, it's in your best interest to pay a lot for what IS CHEAP.
Honest Politician (Score:2)
Still not safe... (Score:3, Insightful)
We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works.
Re:Still not safe... (Score:2)
Not to be a nitpicker, but the USA Patriot Act was far from unpopular, the public swallowed up all the rhetoric of it, and it flew through congress like greased lightning. It's a poor example. The thing passed with like a 7-1 ratio in the house, and there was a grand total of one vote against it in the senate.
I agree that now is not the time to back off on the Hollings bill, on the contrary i believe that now is the time to turn up the heat in every way we can... but frankly thoose of us who value personal freedoms were definitely in the minority in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 when the Patriot Act passed.
Re:Still not safe... (Score:2)
We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works."
We shouldn't feel SAFE at all... Remember, it was only 1998 when Congress, by a UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE passed DMCA.
I don't belive that 535 members of Congress have been replaced in the last 4 years. That means, obviously, there is still a huge majority, a Veto-proof majority, that is still there who voted in DMCA.
Until people start changing their politicians like they do underwear (for the same reason), this kind of power and influence by industry cartels will continue to write the laws.
Restrictions on consumers OK, on business not-OK (Score:4, Informative)
Take a look at:o l-intel_critique.html [eff.org]
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_a
[my comments in brackets]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Restrictions on consumers OK, on business not-O (Score:2)
This shows (again) that the political system called by Americans as Democracy is not that democratic. Where is the statement "From the people, for the people"?
The representatie system the way it is implemented today only represents big corporations and business associations, both capable of keeping expensive lobbies so the legislators can legislate as their will, not as the people needs.
The status quo are supported including for those who controls the media. Ideas like this will never become popular. Don't let them control your opinion, think for yourselves.
Little Excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
Allright, now listen - I hate the CBBLAH & DMCA, etc like everyone else. But, come on now, is it REALLY necassary to call them whores when posting this news to the site? ATTENTION SLASHDOT EDITORS: it doesn't make you look very professional or worthy of respect when you result to cheap tactics like this.
Leave it to people like ME to call them whores but please not on the main page. it just doesn't give us a very solid position to argue from if you result to name-calling on the main page.
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:2)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:2)
The editor was submitted a story that should appeal to the editor's intended audience. The submitter made statements that the editor may or may not disagree with. The editor approved the story as it was, as opposed to censoring it in any way.
It's my humble opinion that the editor did right by the submitter, and right by the audience.
-9mm-
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?
It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was childish and useless. What would be preferred is someone like timothy actually putting a little work into his job, and maybe writing his own summary if there were none handy.
But why bother? Ultimately as long as we keep bringing in the ad revenue, slashdot doesn't have any incentive to grow the fuck up.
Re:Little Excessive (Score:2)
But would it be OK to call them "those who, for apparent compensation of fiscal cash contributions, perform in return a service, said service being analogized to that of a sexual nature, due to the presumed pleasure obtained by the servicee, and also in part due to the negative, dominance, connotation of the sale of the service"?
I once was chastized using a phrase involving pimping for censorware. The objection was that this terminology was unfair to pimps :-).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:Little Excessive (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
Re:Little Excessive (Score:1)
If you checked the definition of whore you see that it is valid to represent a whore as:
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. which is obviously what Sen. Hollings is out for with his bill.
Ignorance is something stupid people use often
Re:Little Excessive (Score:2, Insightful)
when i read it first i was pretty shocked as to whether this was slashdot or some other web-crap.
1) let another person be in the wrong. i think it doesnt behoove us [submitter, editor , whoever] to react like that.
2) dont put yourself in the slime just because the other party is slime.
3) also remember responsibility is something that is proportional to the number of people involved. when you have thousands of people it really isnt nice to air sentiments like this publically.
4) it also dilutes the point. here we are discussing something totally different from the actual post which was relevant, important and DOES constitute news but delivered wrong.
5) i say my share of swear words but yes it _is_ relative and idealism doesnt hold water here. imagine the president standing up and swearing like hell in the speech or your parents doing that while they talk. you have to look a little further than your freedom if its going to turn a public nuisance
my sincere opinion. thanks.
V
Re:Then go somewhere else... (Score:1)
Stand by for shaft aft. (Score:1)
I wouldn't fear the current legislation, I'd watch out for the seemingly more moderate bills that are sure to follow. If our beloved under-secretary of commerce (or whatever) thinks the DMCA is well-balanced, then we're sure to see more of the same in coming days.
Be on your toes and don't let down your guard.
Remember: when they want you to "comprimise" it really means they want you to give up half of what you have. All they need is a few cycles of that, and pretty soon, you have nothing.
The anti-gun crowd has been using that tact for quite a while and painting those who refuse to play the game as unreasonable. Expect the same treatment.
They'll get my Linux Distro when they pry it from my cold, dead disk drive!
Corporate whore? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:2)
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:1)
Also, they will probably never win this guy over. But they could have put-off 100 other people who were still deciding where they stand.
If you want to fight for a cause, you don't call people names and act like they are some evil enemy.
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:2)
But honest to god, the gap was already there, if not quite public. Besides, for every person that was turned off by the namecalling, there was another person impressed by the truth in it. This is a situation where there aren't any rewards worth having forr pulling punches.
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:1)
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Thus the definition is valid and you are an idiot. Enough said.
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:2)
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
What makes you think the commerce secretary doesn't legitimately hold the values he's expressing?
Re:Corporate whore? (Score:1)
Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the story.. (Score:1)
Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor (Score:2, Interesting)
Running away means you're taking yourself out of the fight (sheep-like behavior at best).
The only way to beat these idiots and corporate whores is to become very vocal and present a well-reasoned arguement against these encroachments.
If we act like immature jerks, we invalidate our own arguements and give the win to them.
Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor (Score:1)
Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor (Score:1)
I wasn't born with privledge, nor was my family wealthy. I earned my own way. In this country such things are possible and happen every day.
All that it takes is the will and to refuse to play the victim. With your defeatist attitude, you've lost before you even begin to compete. Don't think like a sheep. Be a wolf. survive. win. sheesh.
And on that note, Welcome to
Such great timing. (Score:2)
Spoiler: It is 'violate the DMCA' sung to the theme song of YMCA...(Muh haw-hahaha)
Re:Such great timing. (Score:1)
Nothing to get excited about (Score:1)
I don't give any single politician points for standing on principle here or an iota of credibility. IMO, it's more of the standard attitude, that "it's coming from the other guys so we're suspicious of it" posturing that is so typical.
Just be thankful for now that a Democrat is the one behind this bill (gah... never thought I'd hear myself say that!) If this were a bill being pushed by a Republican, we'd be in deep shit right now.
--Rick
Re:Nothing to get excited about (Score:3, Insightful)
Scary, but slightly relevant omen. (Score:2)
This page was generated by a Squad of RIAA Goons for NoMoreNicksLeft (516230).
It's too late, they've already taken over.
Yet another unenforcable attempt? (Score:1)
An whats to stop someone from opening a shell account offshore and building their software on that server. Can they legally restrict telecommunications to such a server? If not maybe I should invest in off shore shell accounts for development...
How bad is the DMCA? Getting around the DMCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
I should start by saying that I loathe the idea of the SSSCA/CBDTPA totally, since it would kill open source, and grant MS a monopoly as they
own the patent on DRM tech in computers. Well, more of a monopoly than they already have =)
But really, how bad is the DMCA (not CBDTPA)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the DMCA affects me personally, and
doesn't have to affect most GNU/Linux users.
It seems to me that most posters here talk of the DMCA as if it is something which is impossible to escape. Its not. No one here relies
on DVD movies, or the latest tasteless music from the record companies FOR THEIR SURVIVAL. There are alternatives. There is genuinely
free music from the 'net (mp3.com, etc), or an indie movie festival. Maybe ifilm.com. You can avoid being affected by the DMCA simply
by refusing to make use of protected content.
So, the movie studios and recording industry want the DMCA to protect their content.... Blizzard wants to protected their game server....
So what? Don't like it? Don't buy it, don't pirate it, and DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH IT. You DO have a choice. Yes, that may mean not having
Tron 2 (when its out) or LOTR, or Warcraft 3 or whatever the latest fad is, but if you really want to take the moral high ground with
these people (media industry), simply crying "I like shiny things" wont help.
For the record, I do think changes need to be made to the DMCA to prevent future cases like the Skyralov case or the Felten case. These
are quite franly sickening; you should not be on dodgy legal ground just for doing encryption research. Some provisions need to be made
for this.
Otherwise, let them keep their stupid DMCA. =) It doesn't affect me, and it WONT AFFECT YOU IF YOU DON'T LET IT. =) The DMCA can ONLY be
applied to specific works, unlike say software patents for instance.
- MrMeanie
P.S. Personally, I use GNU/Linux almost exclusively. I am currently coding an open source program. (not affected at all) I don't have
any illegal MP3s on my system. (I like to take the moral highground and criticise the music recording industry
would be hypocritical of me to complain about their efforts to 'protect' their content if I had illegal music on my system) Despite
having a DVD drive in my computer, the only DVDs I have are cover discs from Linux format magazine. I have no DVD movies, because of
the DMCA and lack of fair use rights; to play a DVD any way I want (ie on Linux) I would have to break the law, therefore I boycott
them. I will continue to boycott any medium which disallows what is commonly called fair use. As far as I can see, I make use of NO
protected content, therefore the DMCA has NO effect.
The Hollings Bill is Alive and Well (Score:1)
Those negotiations are the BPDG, a consipiracy of 15-some tech and entertainment companies. They're writing a "standard" that they've asked Hollings to give the FCC the power to give the force of law to. It will be illegal to manufacture or distribute any device or software that can access digital broadcast TV if it doesn't meet the "standard."
And what will the "standard" require? Well, for starters, all tech will have to be "tamper-resistant," which means that you won't be able to tinker with the hardware and software you own. Open source will be illegal.
Those devices that are allowed will only be permitted to incorporate cables and media that limit copying. And new technologies will only be added to the list of permitted tech if Hollywood says so (the standard that the studios have proposed for evaluating new tech is "We'll know it when we see it").
Imagine it: HDTV devices and computers that interface with them will only be allowed to incorporate broken technologies that Hollywood permits. If your computer monitor doesn't include the "approved" inputs, it will be against the law for your computer to output a digital video stream to it. The manufacturer will have two choices:
We all got upset about the Hollings Bill because it would use the force of law to control how a computer could be made. The BPDG will do exactly that -- it's not a "free market middle-ground," it's Hollywood's absolute dominion over your machine.
Don't let 'em fool you -- CBDTPA is just another way of spelling BPDG, and it's a-comin' soon. The BPDG says it'll have its standard finalized by May 17, and no one's even noticing. The BPDG meetings are public (though they cost $100 to attend). There's one coming up in LA on Monday, and wouldn't it be sweet if a couple hundred of us showed up to tell 'em what we think?
DMCA Balanced? That says a lot (Score:2)
Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.
The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.
Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.
It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...
It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.
Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.
Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:
1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.
2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...
Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.
3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.
The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.
Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law"...
Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?
With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...
Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.
We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?
Moderators... (Score:2)
That's the most intelligent piece of political commentary I've ever seen on the Net. Send it to 5!
Especially: The law should be simple, and understandable by all. Is that not the truth?
Re:Too bad... (Score:1)
Furthermore, not all laws "create crimes." Some laws are there to protect my (and your) rights - like those that prevent the government from prosecuting me just because I think the DMCA is bad legislation.
View from the average American (Score:1)
What's really happening here? (Score:1)
So, instead, paying attention to this comment:
In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.
We see that the Bush administration instead wants this settled out of public view, in secret negotiations.
Yes, that would technically leave hardware manufacturers free to produce unencumbered devices, but that won't do any good when the mainstream media has copyright protections in the path of accessibility. Then it just becomes the whole deCSS case to view DVD's on unencumbered Linux all over again.
As long as so-called content providers (MPAA, et al) can get a reasonable majority of the mainstream manufacturers to go along, there will be insufficient public outcry to stop them and those who don't wish to give up their fair use liberties will be left out in the cold.
-Robert
Better then the Clintoon administration (Score:1, Interesting)
Idiot. (Score:2)
Nice way to earn allies, asshole.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Rogan is worse than CBDTPA (Score:1)
Some things even whores won't do? (Score:1)
Digital media software (Score:1)
(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
Seems to me the only software that would be effected would be CD/DVD writers, media players, web/mail servers, ftp and napster like stuff, mails clients, web browsers, and possibly other stuff I'll think of once I hit the sumbit button.
Re:Fascism? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I doubt anyone here sees President Bush as a god. Hate to burst your bubble.
Now, you make an accusation that the legislative body is disregarding the Constitution by passing laws to promote and protect big corporate interests. While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I will only touch on one other thing you brought up, as I am tired. Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
I can name a dozen charities that are successful and really help people. I can only name one government program that did the same, and it no longer exists. (the CCC.) I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here. I happen to know for a fact that he could go to Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and they would help, along with most churches, and many non-religious organizations. Why make the government responsible for a task that is already being done?
Maybe we should just hand them money and make people like me do the work?
You really touched a nerve in me tonight.
You know, I've become unemployed in the past (living in the state with the top unemployment rate in the country right now) and you know what? I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school. But then again, if you aren't motivated to work (or even try to get a job), why would you bother to put the time into school?
Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life? Hey, spit out a few kids and get even more, right?
Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
You sit here and cry "fasicsm" all the while insulting people like me who do the best we can in life, and telling us how inhumane we are for trying to be successful on our own accord. Here I am back in college trying to improve my employability so I can be successful, and you tell me that when I become successful, I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Don't compare me and mine to Nazi Germany, asshole. (My family is from East Prussia, by the way.)
You offend me.
Re:Fascism? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ever try to see things from any view other than the one you have now? Hell, the original poster might be a twit, but he's not all wrong either. I don't want to support bums with my tax dollar either, but you make it sound like that's all welfare ever is.
Hell, but then, with people like you in charge half the time, and people like the original poster in charge the other half, how could it ever be any different?
Re:Fascism? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, ignoring all the BS about Hitler, I have a beef or two with what you've said:
>While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?
I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?
>Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.
That certainly can be your opinion (and, fortunately for you and many others the majority disagrees with it), however you can't have it both ways.
>You know, I've become unemployed in the past... I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school.
You can't have it both ways. You can't use the government acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.
>I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here.
Huh? Did he say for you to walk up to street beggars and give them money? You need a fixed residence to pick up a cheque from the gov't, so if there's anyone you should respect with your views, it would be a street beggar.
Again, another contradiction in your ideas presents itself:
>Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life?
Ok.
>Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job?. I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
If you want, feel free to reply and clear up what you've just said. Maybe I'm reading you wrong?
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
Its:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"
If you don't consider the president elect (I do consider him elected myself, but by a really thin thread) its easy to see how laws like the DMCA and CBDTPA causes socioeconomic controls (if you don't have the money, you can't participate in society), and suppression of opposition through censorship (DeCSS, anyone?). The other items (nationalism, racism, and terror) tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, so these are the points that should be argued against the US being fascist. In my opinion the US is still far from it, but bills like this bring it closer and closer to the line.
Wether or not a burger flipper has 10 or 20 babies doesn't really factor into the discussion.
>I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.
Where did that come from?
Re:Fascism? (Score:2)
I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like governent regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
No, it is not a charity. Sure, there are some people that screw the system, but most do not. Like any other lender, the government expects to be paid back, with interest. They will do everything they can to get it back, including collections actions, witholding of tax refunds, and civil lawsuits. That's not the same as handing out the money for free.
I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job? . I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.
I NEVER said it was easy. I have been a burger flipper at McDonalds, and it paid the bills. Within six months I was a manager. When I decided I didn't want to do it anymore, I went into the Army. Partly so I could afford more education, and partly to gain more work experience. When I left the Army, I had a job within two weeks. It paid a lot less, but it was still honest wages. When I got laid off from that job, I got another job immediately, again, honest wages. When I became unemployed last year, and could NOT find a job, I went back to school.
What I have a problem with, is that while there are people who genuinely need help, most people "out on the streets" CHOOSE to be there, because they aren't willing to do what it takes to make them successful. They won't go to places like Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or any number of employment charities. (That I routinly give money to so they can continue to do so.) They won't go back to school, and they won't flip burgers. Not because they can't, because they won't.
You can bring up the point that they might be physically or mentally disabled. My school employs about 250 people with varying problems like downs-syndrome, confinement to wheelchairs, and other disabilities. For people with acute sociopathic disorders that prevent them from working, there are institutions that can and will take care of them.
The simple fact is, that the original post pissed me off by basically saying that people who are successful are directly responsible for people who fail, and made the implication that it is the government's responsibility to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful.
Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.
I know damn well what fascism is. Our country is a far cry from it. My problem was, the original poster was calling the U.S. fascist, all the same advocating socialism-near-communism. The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
People are hungry because they choose to be, either by choosing not to work, or by choosing not to go to one of the established charities who would love to help them.
People are homeless for the same reason. In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army, and they have 212 ways for you to be a soldier. And I'm NOT a recruiter, just a happy customer. They'll give you a home, a job, and a paycheck.
People are uneducated because they choose not to take advantage of the aforementioned student loans, or they drop out of high school.
People are in poor health because they smoke, eat junk food all the time, and don't bother to plan for health care.
All choices for most of those people. For the relatively few who need help, the help is available.
The original poster was trying to imply that our "fascist" society forces them into the position they are in. For most of those people, they put themselves there.
And that's where the last comment I made that you said you didn't know where it came from fits in, though I could have stated it better.
Re:Fascism? (Score:1)
I agree. I don't agree about your feelings on piracy (American satellite TV in canada, until this weekend, was absolute proof against your argument), but I agree artists have the right to control their labour.
Unfortunately IIRC, part of the CBDTPA would control how free software can be given away (perhaps I'm confused on this). If so, how can you possibly say the CBDTPA allows for the freedom of will for artists? Perhaps some artists (actually, when one considers most non-commercial sites on the internet a work of art, one could say most people) would rather their work be used by everyone, rather than just everyone with money.
It seems you're a nice person who gives to charities directly. I personally don't (again, a surprising majority of people, especially your friends up north, don't give much to charities). I'd rather (and most of us would rather -- again, if I could find the stats on the net I would, but I only have them on paper) the government worry about who needs my charity money most, and that's why I prefer the government to give it away for me.
>The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.
Well, you've got to consider the reason they never make it even close to #1 on the "World's best country to live in" is partly because when the judges see the slums there they are disgusted. [Thank God they haven't seen our Canadian Indian reserves yet]. I'm not an expert in social policy (but I play one on the internet) so I really don't know how to fix that problem.
In most 1st world countries when you are broke, though, you can still get basic medicare, and you can still get a basic living allowance no matter what.
What the guy should have said is "a social policy that leaves lazy people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health". A lot of us feel that just because someone isn't interested in putting in an effort doesn't mean we should leave them in the street to die. You've part of that set of people who think that's wrong, its just your way of giving is diferent.
My thinking has always been that there's a fine line between keeping someone alive and giving them a reason to be lazy. Our Indian reserves are exactly the second half of the problem -- too much money means people who don't care about their lives...
(but anyways, this is probably way off topic now)
>In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army
Well... where I am they aren't hiring, and there's a lot of people who take offence at being torn down as a person and built back up as a killer (again, try not to take offense at that, but as a pacifist that's how I see the situation). However, I do agree there's more than enough work out there for people willing to do it! [I've held as many as 3 jobs at a time on top of college when I wanted money, so if I can do that, why can't others?]
>People are in poor health because they...
Well, I'd disagree with that. Yes, they don't plan for the worst (bad health) but that's the human condition, not to mention an aversion to paranoia. That's what stops a LOT of people already in 1st world countries emmigrating to the US [I know its what's stopping me!]. They just don't want to save $100,00 in the chance they'll need it for health care -- insurance doesn't work, I'm sure you've heard the many ways they squirm out of their policies when you need them.
Anyways, I also strongly disagree that the US is Fascist in general. However, I would say that the US would be implementing a Fascist policy in the CBDTPA, and that's why it needs to be stopped!
Re:Fascism? (Score:2)
Let me clarify my stance on the CBDTPA:
For the record, I agree with you about the CBDTPA. I don't like the law, and have written letters against it. I agree that there IS a problem with piracy, however.
I used to be a pirate. To be honest, it was mostly because I couldn't afford the stuff I wanted. I would have paid for it otherwise. Then I discovered Linux.
The main reason I brought up content control is that the original poster seemed to think that ANY copyright system of any nature was wrong, and limiting free speech. (freedom of speech and expression is already limited, and I don't have a problem with reasonable limitations... yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.)
I agree with a non-renewable copyright system. A shorter-time patent system that doesn't include software (reimplentation is fine for all things, and software is covered in copyright) or naturally-occuring substances (DNA).
The big problem with patenting software and algorithms, is that with patents on physical objects, one generally has the chance to invent something that gets the same (or similar) result through different means, at least for processes. That is not true of software, and getting the same result violates the patent. That is just plain wrong.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my point of view, and seeing past the way I put things. That makes you a lot more respectable than most people.
Re:Fascism? (Score:2)
Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.
And the legitimate alternative is "This MONA LISA will self-destruct in 1 year unless you renew your viewing license! You are on day 364 of your viewing allowance! All attempts at photographing or redrawing this MONA LISA will immediately void your license regardless of your previous fee payments and also voids your right of refund!"
Yeah... the no-copy society sure adds value. There is another way of regarding this mindset - EXTORTION. Pardon me if I will ignore all "ART" under these conceptual limitations. The mindset of science is "Publish or Perish". If you don't share your ideas they simply die when you die. Creative information unshared is WASTED and DESERVES TO PERISH.
Imagine a social upheaval that destroys most of the original work and artists. If that work remains uncopyable then it is certain to be lost forever. There is another form of social upheaval that is always present - TIME. The art that has shaped our society remains in PUBLIC collections and not private homes (which can burn down more easily and destroy that art forever). Certainly well-maintained and loved private collections can become a wealth of public value only if they are later shared with the public.
To make a living in the artist's lifetime there must be some copy control. However, in the public's interest the artist must release that copy control so as to ensure their work survives past their limited lifetime. No matter how great the artist the work will not survive their lifetime if they keep it under private control.
The best example you can regard at this time is in the genre of computer games and emulators. Without rampant piracy from that era - EVERY SINGLE GAME AND PROGRAM OF THAT TIME WOULD BE LOST! Think about it. There may have been some financial loss to the artists of that time, but the cost is offset by the value given to later generations by these "concerned collectors". Private individuals will dispose of their old software and hardware when something better comes along at a reasonable price. Pirates will keep their collections intact and transfer it to the new media formats for the later generations regardless of whether they can get some immediate financial returns from the effort. Hell, I honestly feel bad when a software piracy ring gets busted purely because of the long-term value they provide as private archivers. Sure there are public archivers, but they do not keep copies of corporate software because of the fear of piracy. Which means the public archivers have most shareware, freeware, and really crappy freeware. Even though piracy is regarded as wrong it still provides value in the long term that the short term mindset NOCOPY CROWD PERISHES FROM.
Think about it as we return to the age of DONGLES, KEY DISKS, COPY BLOCKS, and other archival-unfriendly methods which kill the joys of our day to future generations. You know what is even more sad? Games today are released with patches being released weeks afterward for obvious bugs. If our future generations want to play the games that thrilled us then, they most likely will not have the patches available that made the games tolerable and will see the bug-filled mess that we endured pre-patched.
Re:Fascism? (Score:2)
That's not the same as money that does not need to be paid back.
Furthermore, one could treat school, and becoming a better benefit to society, as an occupation. At least it's a form of work. It certainly isn't "free" money.
Hitler was elected into office. (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of environmental and science issues, the current government is better than life under Clinton. Having to deal with the likes of Boxer and Feinsten in the Senate is enough - no need to give them free access to the White House!
Re:Hitler was elected into office. (Score:2)
So, to sum up; 8 years of prosperity and peace, with a healed Social Security system, gone. Presently, a President selected into office by a dirty network of far-right wingers, including 4 on the SCOTUS, has declared the Forever War, knocked out at least three articles of the Bill of Rights, sealed his records so no one can see what he's done, and give the foxes the keys to the henhouse corporatewise. And to top it off, he's a bloody idiot who can't even speak without a speech written by his handlers. We're governed by a fool controlled by smart amoral men.
And we're better off? HOW???
Re:Hitler was elected into office. (Score:2)
Um, we have a shiny new 100 billion dollar deficit, a neverending "war" on a common noun that gives an administration carte blanc to imprison whomever they want for eternity
All of which have full bipartisan support. In fact, most of the complaints about the Patriot Act I hear come from conservatives who are rightly concerned with what someone like Hillary could do with that expanded power.
The NYT story and most of the others that reported that Bush won the recount were extremely erroneous. Frankly, if you exclude the military vote illegally cast after the election was over, Gore would have won.
Ok, I'll trust your obviously impartial opinion over the detailed studies of several left-leaning newspapers. Or not. If all the legal military votes had been counted, Bush would have won by even more. I'm really not interested in getting into the whole postmark/consent decree thing again, but everyone except those completely blinded by their hatred of Republicans has accepted the repeatedly verified results and moved on.
8 years of prosperity and peace, with a healed Social Security system, gone.
Those are some impressive drugs you have. Clinton inherited a good economy from GHWB (yes, we were well out of recession before the 1992 elections), managed not to screw it up too badly thanks to Republicans blocking his more destructive plans (i.e. HillaryCare), and handed W a failing economy which is now largely turned around. Regarding peace, Clinton repeatedly failed to deal effectively with terrorism, unless blowing up asprin factories is an innovative military strategy I'm unfamiliar with. Social Security was never financially sound (you don't really believe there's a "trust fund", do you?), and never will be until it is shifted from a pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme into an actual investement program. Of course liberals can't allow that since it means fewer retired people dependent on government, and thus fewer Democrat votes.
Presently, a President selected into office by a dirty network of far-right wingers, including 4 on the SCOTUS
Hmm, since the relevant SCOTUS ruling was 7-2, does that mean that 3 of the noble and pure left-wingers were in on the plot as well?
give the foxes the keys to the henhouse corporatewise
The best you guys can come up with is Enron, which is instructive because there is no indication whatsoever that they received any assistance from the Bush administration. And even if they did, I'd much prefer that our politicians are bought by American corporations than the Chinese military.
Keeping this vaguely on topic, it has to be really annoying for you that virtually all the support for the CBDTPA comes from Democrats. I'd expect nothing less; since liberals acknowledge no limits on government power, when their campaign contributers tell them to destroy another industry for their own benefit, they will do so without hesitation. I'm disappointed that conservatives didn't stand up for the Constitution and oppose the DMCA, but at least they're standing up for free enterprise and opposing Hollings's abomination.
Re:Fascism? (Score:1)
Thats it lets firewall all outside traffic to the US, dont want any "propoganda" getting in from those anti-capitalist nations. And while we're at it lets make it so all software must be downloaded from the government servers or bought at government stores...and you thought the bread line was bad in the former USSR...
Re:Fascism? (Score:2)
It's days like these that make me weep for joy that I'm a citizen.
Re:S.2048 (Score:2)
Yeah, I noticed it after I subtracted 1 and did an XOR with the result.