Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online News

DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority 141

Posted by samzenpus
from the not-our-problem dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The White House has opposed the bipartisan bill that would create copyright cops on the grounds that it would cause the Department of Justice to end up 'serving as pro bono lawyers for private copyright holders.' And while they do occasionally prosecute criminal copyright infringement, they have no intention of dabbling with civil cases because, 'taxpayer-supported department lawyers would pursue lawsuits for copyright holders, with monetary recovery going to industry.' At this rate, the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be imminent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Opposes Extending DOJ Copyright Authority

Comments Filter:
  • by Big Nothing (229456) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @07:59AM (#25149355)

    A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

    • by Shin-LaC (1333529) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:01AM (#25149373)
      It is the best kind of victory.
      • Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thedonger (1317951) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:50AM (#25149779)

        It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.

        Maybe our government is going Taoist?

        • Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @10:04AM (#25150773) Journal

          It's called "wu wei," action through inaction. If you prefer, knowing when inaction is the best action.

          Maybe our government is going Taoist?

          Actively opposing a bill is not inaction.

          The other reason Bush's Administration is opposing this bill was left out of TFA
          http://www.itworld.com/government/55331/us-doj-copyright-protection-bill-flawed [itworld.com]

          The legislation would also require the U.S. president to create an intellectual property enforcement office in the White House, and it would expand some civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement. The requirement to create a new office in the White House would be a "legislative intrusion into the internal structure and composition of the president's administration," the letter said.

          Bush & Cheney would never allow a precedent like that to be set.
          It would be an enormous step back for their Unitary Executive Theory [TM].

          If you think Bush's Administration is going to "wu wei" themselves through this, you've got it all wrong.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ravenshrike (808508)
            Given that every other alphabet agency, all technically part of the executive branch, "causes" this effect it's pretty much a bullshit line. *sniff* *Wipes away tear* I never thought I'd see the day when Bush refused more power.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ubrgeek (679399)
              Not more power, more responsibility.
              • Except the responsibility would not really be his, it would rest in the agency. Oh ultimately if something truly horrifying happened and the media actually paid attention to it(fat chance) the president would be 'responsible' but in practice there is only an increase in power since he is not directly responsible but can directly use it for power. For instance, one could raid a property and take computers on 'suspicion' of copyright infringement when one was really looking for drug or other connections.
          • Good for Bush that he is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, which defines the executive branch as a separate, co-equal branch. All I hear on Slashdot is how Bush tears up the Constitution, but here he is standing up to Congress just not because they are attempting to turn the FBI into copyright cops, but also to defend the presidency from becoming Congress's lapdog. This is *exactly* why there is a veto power! And all you guys can do is dog him? Let's see some intellectual dishonesty her
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by hedwards (940851)

          Not Taoist, it's just that after years of doublespeak they can't figure out what they were going to do.

    • Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tinkertim (918832) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:20AM (#25149531) Homepage

      A victory caused by laziness is still a victory, right?

      Its one thing to permit far fetched litigation. Its another thing to supply all lawyers needed for free.

      I think the RIAA realized .. if we're going to enforce copyright ... enlisting public defenders is probably __not__ going to help. So they quit pushing.

      This is as reassuring as it is funny.

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:38AM (#25149669) Homepage Journal
      WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid? Someone please pinch me. No, wait, don't I like this dream!
      • WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid?

        Don't worry, I'm sure they'll do something [yahoo.com] to make up for it...

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The White House isn't brain-dead stupid. It just has different interests than the common citizen. That's why a lot of the things it does seem off.

      • Re:Yey! Victory! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @09:37AM (#25150397) Journal

        WTF? The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid? Someone please pinch me. No, wait, don't I like this dream!

        I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down. He actually seems to realize the limitations of his office and of American power now. Makes me wonder where we would be if this man had been the one in the White House seven years ago. I guess being POTUS for seven years is a humbling experience.

        • by Talderas (1212466)

          I'd mod you insightful if I had the points.

        • by tjstork (137384) <todd DOT bandrowsky AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday September 25, 2008 @10:05AM (#25150789) Homepage Journal

          I'll get flamed hard core for saying this but GWB actually seems to be getting more reasonable as his term winds down

          The real deal is that you need to have the political party opposite of the President to be the one that holds Congress. Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively. Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.

          • by theM_xl (760570)

            Yes. Being checked because you can't just do something without at least talking to the other side helps a lot. You know, all the US really needs is a third party the same size of the Dems and Reps and there'll always be at least two parties involved. I hear the Netherlands have a funds for helping developing countries set up a multiparty system...

          • by Eil (82413)

            Similarly, Bush being checked by the Democrats is actually more moderate because he has to be. When you have the other side of the aisle to contend with on a daily basis, you have to learn consensus to survive.

            I can't bring myself to agree as I witness what I hope is the last great fuckup of his administration: the handing over of $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to a select group of rich old white guys as a reward for screwing up our economy for their gain.

          • Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively.

            Let's recall, Clinton ran as a new Democrat, the Democratic Leadership Council type of moderate (now called "Blue Dog" Democrats) who claimed he would govern from the center. But once Clinton got in office, the partisan libs in Congress told him, "here's how it's gonna be." This was a disaster for Clinton politically, and the Dems
        • by Thelasko (1196535)
          Since it appears we aren't flaming right now. I don't think GWB is getting more reasonable as his term winds down, I think he has always had his moments of sound and reasonable thinking. Namely, his tax cuts/economic stimulus plans during times of recession and the concept of free trade are straight out of economics textbooks. He runs into trouble with his deficit spending during times of economic expansion.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Shakrai (717556)

            He runs into trouble with his deficit spending during times of economic expansion.

            That's the American attitude of wanting to have our cake and eat it too. I think that over the long term we are going to pay dearly for that -- sooner or later the rest of the World is going to stop financing our deficits and we'll be looking at serious tax increases and/or spending cuts (likely both) to make the books balance.

            Of course that doesn't excuse him. He has the biggest bully pulpit in the World and could have brought attention to this problem if it suited him.....

            • sooner or later the rest of the World is going to stop financing our deficits and we'll be looking at serious tax increases and/or spending cuts (likely both) to make the books balance.

              When that happens we can just default on all those foreign held bonds. After all, if the rest of the world has already decided to stop buying more bonds, there ain't much for us to lose at that point.

              • by marxmarv (30295)

                Tens of trillions of Chinese-held dollars dumped on the currency markets won't be pretty. Let's not go there.

                • They don't hold dollars, they hold dollar-denominated assets -- mostly bonds -- and it is only roughly 1 trillion, not tens.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          I disagree, it's not that he's more reasonable now it's that he's hoping to save his legacy. Having won his second election he's been focused more on how he will be viewed in the future.

          That and the fact that some time in 2006 people started to turn on him. I mean just look at the polls now versus when he was still actually able to do something other than hobble the legislature.

      • The White House doing something that isn't brain-dead stupid?

        The reptilian brain of a bureaucracy does not work in quite the same way as a human's brain. Lack of movement does not mean the reptile is dead or ignoring events around it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jedidiah (1196)

      Not laziness so much as self interest.

      The basic problem here, the one that led to this law
      in the first place, is the fact that real law
      enforcement types don't want this crap. They want
      "sexier" assignments that will look better in terms
      of promotion.

      This is about "career minded opportunists" rather
      than laziness. FBI agents want to do things that
      the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs,
      armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        FBI agents want to do things that the FBI has been traditionally known for ( drugs, armed robbery, kidnapping, terrorism).

        ...I thought that was the CIA?

    • Actually, this is simply the DOJ remaining consistent [slashdot.org].

  • "Immanent"? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Goaway (82658)

    "Immanent"? If you're going to try and talk fancy, you really should make doubly sure you are actually spelling correctly.

    • Re:"Immanent"? (Score:5, Informative)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:12AM (#25149459)
      "immanent" is a (correctly spelled) word, just not the right one. They meant "imminent" (impending), not "immanent" (indwelling). Chalk it up as you would lose/loose then/than or (my personal favorite) "should of" for "should've".
      • by Daimanta (1140543) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:15AM (#25149495) Journal

        The post above is correct. They're version of the word is not correct. There pretty stupid at the DOJ. Their, I said it.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Goaway (82658)

        Well, not quite. "lose" and "loose" are both common words, and it's easy to see how people get confused about them. I doubt, however, that the submitter knew the word "immanent" and just confused it with "imminent". He just misspelled it, and by accident happened to spell another real and extremely uncommon word.

        • by ari_j (90255)
          Yeah, but he did so in the same sentence as he used the word suiformes. Learn the basics, and then progress to more "difficult" things. This is like someone (with no other programming experience) taking Visual Basic 101, getting a D in the class, and then starting to write kernel drivers the next day.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by smoker2 (750216)
        While what you say is true, it is still a spelling issue. One letter can make the difference between saying what you mean and spouting garbage. It is not enough to know what you mean to say, you must communicate that meaning correctly. The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who knew the sound of the word, but not the spelling. Lose/loose do not sound the same (lose - fuse, loose - moose) and indicate a different level of incompetence, even though they only differ by one letter.
        • The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who knew the sound of the word, but not the spelling.

          Allow me ...

          The mistake made in the summary indicates someone who was vaguely aware of how the word sounded, but not how to pronounce it correctly.

          • by siride (974284)

            No, because the words are pronounced the same, thanks to the fact that in English, the vowels in unstressed syllables are reduced to schwas.

    • by jefu (53450)

      And "suiforms"?? I find (though not in a dictionary) "entelodonts and oreodonts" (pigs?). So, when "pigs fly". Have to say though that the fragment :

      the discovery of winged suiformes would appear to be immanent

      has a certain intriguing cryptic elusiveness that - with a bit of checking - resolves to "finding pigs flying only in your mind", or to "finding piggy things flying that are an essential part of the universe" (perhaps the LHC will be tuned to finding them next).

    • Is this the year when they finally Immanentize the Eschaton?

  • Great idea! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WorldInChaos (1250700) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:03AM (#25149397)
    Finally, someone, somewhere - particularly in the Whitehouse, is thinking. I don't really care why, I just hope this bill never passes. The last thing we need are more enforcers of ignorance, taking advantage of those not in power.
    • by zappepcs (820751)

      I have no idea why you think they are thinking with any kind of common sense? Bush was thinking when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. What happened is that this is an election year, and the GOP has had nothing but trouble with the DOJ in the past 18 months. This would only serve as a source of more folly for politicians in the GOP who wish to be elected this year. The puppet masters told Bush to let/make this happen so that things don't get to out of kilter for the elections. Copyright cops would be the sou

      • by genner (694963)

        opyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?

        Unless he's running for a third term not Bush.

      • by Eccles (932)

        Copyright cops would be the sound bite to really get the youth vote out to the polls this election, and who would win then? Who?

        Someone who might investigate the myriad allegations against the Bush administration, that's who.

  • by malkavian (9512) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:04AM (#25149405) Homepage

    Maybe with the possibility of having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the financial sector, governmental offices are at long last waking up to the fact that they need to balance the books on behalf of the taxpayer. It's all very nice having campaign contributions from industry, but if there's no money in the coffers, winning the election will be a poisoned chalice. Already, there's no money in the coffers, but being seen to shell out more taxpayer money to support industry, with no return to the taxpayer, is pretty much political suicide in today's climate.
    For the last god alone knows how many years, the basic taxpayer has been quiescent, going about the daily work, with the odd grumble or two, and the government has been able to get away with the odd outcry now and then. At the moment, a lot of people are looking long and hard at where every penny they pay goes. Not quite civil unrest, but certainly large scale discontent that could easily escalate.

    • by eredin (1255034)
      Sadly, it's not the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars that is the worst of it--it's the printing of hundreds of billions of dollars. If you thought inflation was bad this year, just wait. The biggest burden on the taxpayer isn't the taxes, but rather the devaluation of the currency. Taxes--at whatever level--could soon be irrelevant.

      It's nice to see the government passing on an opportunity to spend.

    • Did you hear the implied, "Show me the money!" in the article?

      What is more profitable for the DOJ, going after drug crimes/criminals and confiscating cash and cars or going after copyright violators, and giving any revenue generated to the RIAA?

      The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".

      • by Dun Malg (230075) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @11:11AM (#25151847) Homepage

        The next batch of proposed laws will have to cut the DOJ in on a slice of the action. Maybe let them resell the confiscated servers or take the money found on/near the "criminals".

        No good. They still wouldn't go for it. It's one thing to RICO seize the property of drug rings, because they have mansions, Ferraris, and hefty bags stuffed with cash. Copyright infringers have what, exactly? A $1200 Dell computer and a poster of Marilyn Manson? There's no money in copyright infringement.

  • by Hyppy (74366) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:04AM (#25149409)
    Oh my gawd. This ... came from the White House?

    I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day. Either that, or the absurdity of the proposal was glaringly obvious, even to them.
    • by QX-Mat (460729)

      I'm shocked.

      Seriously. But then I think of all the mistakes of the current White House administration and the shock just ebbs away. Perhaps those pulling the strings at this moment in time are the ones told to previously "shut it" ?

      I can't envisage the EU Commission (nor the Council who effectively take a deciding vote on all things undecided) going this way. Copyright lobbying over here is in a *bad* state. We have a non democratic mechanism (ie: the Commission and Council, qualified voting etc) that has o

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aurispector (530273)

      This position is consistent with actual conservative beliefs, e.g., smaller government, less government interference. At least one apparently still exists in the administration.

      The dems have been in the pocket of the trial lawyers and entertainment industry for years. That's why Pelosi, Reid, etc., shill for bills like this. Scary.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dkleinsc (563838)

      Seriously. Who is this AG and where is he hiding Michael Mukasey?

    • by ruin20 (1242396)
      ...even to them but not the Senate Judiciary Committee which passed the bill in a 14-4 vote. And before we mouth off on partisan politics it was sponsored and drafted by both a Dem. and a Rep. senator.
  • by runlevelfour (1329235) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:07AM (#25149429)
    "The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power. Then again, it could just be the typical arrogance of either of those groups that if they want it, they will just take it. Or, maybe the LHC did cause a time-space continuum rip before it went kaput and were just now seeing the effects.
    • You're not hallucinating. I just wish we could get more reality like this...

      (Posting to reverse mod mistake.)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:28AM (#25149575)

      The answer is really very simple. You just missed the other news report with the headline: 'RIAA Refuses to Cough Up USD700 billion in "Campaign Funds"'

    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:34AM (#25149615) Homepage Journal

      "The Bush administration is opposing sweeping legislation granting it the ability to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement" I mean, it's early so maybe I am sleep-hallucinating that the Bush Administration or DoJ actually refuses power.

      They're not refusing power so much as refusing to take responsibility. And rightly so! Why should the taxpayers foot the legal bills for the **AA?

    • Good Point. Or maybe the Bush Admin Dept. of Justice would like to save the power and time for something else.
    • Maybe they're expecting that it's likely they'll lose the election, so they'll just drop a few last-minute barriers in place to reduce the Democrat's power if/when they take office...

  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oldhack (1037484) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:07AM (#25149433)
    "Hollywood, send more money to GOP."
    • ....and the Labor Unions, send more money to the Democrats. It sickens me to how bad they Labor Unions have been corrupted, I have no faith that the rank and file would support something like this. What should really scare everyone is this is bi-partisan. Once again, we have no real opposition party.
    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ngarrang (1023425) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:12AM (#25149461) Journal

      "Hollywood, send more money to GOP."

      What does this say about the Democratic party when the bill breezes through their hands unfettered? And the Republicans are saying no?

  • ... My day would be complete. Imaginary property is hogwash, and shouldn't be protected.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If Imaginary Property is real, where are the Imaginary Laws to protect it? Can't I just imagine someone breaking down my door and hauling me off to court to be slapped with a hundred thousand dollar fine? If that's the case, can I just pretend I sent them the money? Seriously, I love music, and the concept of imaginary property is plausible...but if it all sounds the same, whose imagination did it come from? Who really owns it? We need new styles and fresh sounds. Why doesn't someone invent a new inst

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:13AM (#25149473) Journal

    This seems to stop the DOJ from prosecution these cases with tax money. That is NOT a-typical of the Bush administration. What they would rather see is that the record labels have their own private police force that the record labels pay for. Small goverment, big business. Makes perfect sense.

    Remember that if it is the DOJ that prosecutes these cases AND the only one who can do this, that would put copyright infringement up against all other crimes for attention. Plus there would be far more oversight of the cases.

    Remember what happened in germany? There these cases belong firmly in the hands of the justice department and then justice department told the record industry that they can't be arsed. Case closed.

    That is NOT what happened in the US so far. In the US, the justice department can't be arsed BUT the record labels are given more and more powers (or not being stopped) from investigating and prosecuting these cases themselves. If you are worried about to much police power, you should be even more worried about police power in private hands.

    • by Harin_Teb (1005123) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:47AM (#25149749)

      WOW.

      So you are actually arguing in SUPPORT of government funded private lawsuits for big business.

      I never thought I would see the day when an argument for the government footing the bill for RIAA suits on slashdot got modded "Insightful."

      Yes the copyright cops would be competing for funding with real crimes. OK. So they only get 3 million a year to do copyright suits. There is NOTHING in the bill that stops private copyright suits also. RESULT: RIAA continues its current racket of suing the little guy, and now the government jumps in on the action too!

      but I forgot, if the white house opposes something we must be in favor of it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by CajunArson (465943)

        Ah yes.. but remember that this is Slashdot and everything the Bush administration does must be seen as being worse than Hitler. So, even though the DoJ did something people on this site generally agree with, we have to all change our positions and say that this means the Constitution has been destroyed and America is a concentration camp on principle.

      • by mstahl (701501)

        The mods were confused because he used the word "arsed".

    • by smoker2 (750216) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @09:38AM (#25150425) Homepage Journal
      Copyright is not a criminal matter, the record labels do not have their own police force or police powers. They bring a private prosecution to defend private "property". It is not the governments job to actively seek out and defend against infringements on private property.
      Think about trespass. Yes it is illegal to trespass on anothers property, but you don't expect the police to actively seek out trespassers. That is the job of the landowner, to watch out for their own property, and call for help if and when the need arises.
      Christ you don't want the police having even more responsibilities do you ? Look at the situation with emergency phone calls now. There are hundreds if not thousands of twats who expect the police to act as a free taxi service, a free search engine and all sorts of stupid things. Imagine the situation where you could phone the police and complain about copyright infringement. Most people don't understand copyright anyway and giving them an easy to use one stop shop for reporting "infringements" would be ludicrous.
      I think the clue is in the name - Department of Justice. It's where you go to realise justice. They don't come to you unless you are a criminal.
      With rights come responsibilities. In the case of copyrights, those responsibilities are being ignored. Copyright is a limited term right to be the sole entity that can copy a work. But that limited term is being extended instead of curtailed. That is what the DoJ should focus on, not doing the dirty work for the irresponsible rights holders.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by will_die (586523)
        Copyright is treated as both a criminal matter and a civil matter depending on the quantity of items copied also if you are making a profit from them there is a better chance that it will be considered criminal. Also depends on the country.
      • by jambarama (784670)

        It is not the governments job to actively seek out and defend against infringements on private property.

        Just to play devils advocate, what about government prosecution of theft? Why shouldn't the victim need to prosecute the thief to enforce their private property rights? Does the distinction hinge on the type of property (copyright versus real, or "temporary" property versus "permanent" property), or something else? Presumably catching a thief is typically not harder than catching an infringer - so there isn't a greater need to involve the investigative ability of the Feds. Or is the distinction simply

    • by steelfood (895457)

      On the contrary, the Bush administration is interested in a big central government (the great debate in the US has never been about big or small government, but big or small federal government). However, the "big" government they envision applies only to the executive.

      Since congress is pushing this through, they're not interested. If they had gotten to this idea first, they would've done a PR blitz for it that would put Apple's marketing department to shame.

      Now that making available is no longer sufficient

  • Here's a thought, have gov't tell industry that they'll do it, but slip in a caveat that the proceeds of prosecution should go to bail out Wall street while it's in jeopardy....see what Hollywood thinks of that.
  • there are Constitutional matters with the bill as well so even if passed the gov will end spend a lot just on that going to court.

    • by DragonTHC (208439)

      there are constitutional matters with the patriot act too.

      I just wonder if this decision isn't self-serving somehow, or if they realize that the jig is up and we'd call bullshit on them.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @08:32AM (#25149603) Homepage

    The movie industry in particular wonders why it's having a tough time, well, have you looked at the cost of most movies lately? How about Blu-Ray? Gee, I wonder why $30 disks aren't flying off the shelves, and the technology being generally adopted, in an economy that is going sour. Couldn't possibly be because if you walked into a typical retailer, the movies are priced as though nothing has changed in the economy since 1998-1999, could it?

    When these cartels start pricing toward a more realistic economy of scale, and still have no luck selling stuff, I'll gain an ounce of pity for them. Not enough to support this sort of handout, but enough to actually consider them victims of the economy, rather than their own ivory tower mentality ("the law says we have these rights, fuck the real world, fuck the economy, our rights, rights rights, all say that we can charge this much and there's nothing anyone can do about it!")

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @09:14AM (#25150029)

    I agree with the Bush Administration on something? Quick! Everyone duck! There are aviating porcine about!

  • New word proposal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday September 25, 2008 @09:39AM (#25150447)

    I would like to propose that we adopt a new word in the English language:

    Buypartisan: A bill sponsored by politicians from both parties who are both being paid off.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @09:51AM (#25150605) Homepage Journal

    A government agency not jumping on a chance to expand its authority and funding?

    Perhaps the Mayans ware right and the world is about to end after all.

  • by magus_melchior (262681) on Thursday September 25, 2008 @12:20PM (#25152897) Journal

    Others have mentioned this, but well-nested in other comment threads.

    The Bush administration (in particular, Dick Cheney) has rejected this primarily because this is an "intrusion of the legislature" into the affairs of the executive. Cheney has resented any Congressional oversight or involvement in the White House ever since Nixon resigned, and after he failed to get Bush 41 to ditch Congress, he got Bush 43 to let him run the White House and thus ditch Congress directly. The (then) Republican majority went along with this, because they had a Republican in the White House to rubber-stamp their bills.

    In this case, conflicting priorities have turned this very dangerous bill out for the better. Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!

    • Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!

      And who is the media industry donating the most money to [opensecrets.org]?

      And Slashdotters think Bush is the enemy.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...