Induce Act Stalled For Now 162
Neil Wehneman writes "The AP is reporting, through Newsday, the great news that the Induce Act is not going anywhere this legislative term. Thanks to everyone who took action in various ways, although there's a strong chance we'll see this type of bill again soon. Additional thanks go to Copyfight for the initial heads-up."
Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all that has happened, nothing else.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Informative)
That is all that has happened, nothing else.
That is probably the most relevant post you'll see in this thread. Don't read the article with a sigh of relief and attribute it to the long overdue arrival of common sense on capital hill.
Be prepared to do whatever you can to defend your online rights in 30 days. If you still think this is just a bunch of hype, or don't understand what is at stake, please take a moment to read this article. [savebetamax.org]
The Betamax ruling is the only thing that protects your right to own a VCR, tape recorder, CD-burner, DVD-burner, iPod, or TiVo. It's that important. But new legislation that's being pushed through the Senate by lobbyists for the music and movie industries would override the Betamax decision and create a huge liability for any business that makes products which can copy sound or video. This legislation (formerly known as the INDUCE Act) would essentially give Hollywood veto power over a huge range of new technologies.
Another great quote which describes the situation well:
Is Congress Insane?
You might think so at first glance. Voters, technology experts, public interest groups, and electronics manufacturers all oppose these efforts to weaken Betamax. So why is it still happening? Because the major record labels and the movie studios-- the same companies that opposed the Betamax ruling-- make huge donations to the re-election campaigns of the Senators who are sponsoring this legislation. And most members of Congress assume this is a non-controversial issue, off the radar of most voters. If they can please their donors without a big fuss, they will. It's bad policy, but until we start making noise, it's smart politics.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Interesting)
It will probably become a pissing contest between electronics companies and record labels. Electronics makers/distributors/retailers have alot more money, and more importantly employ alot more voters than the labels. What most likely will happen is some watered down bill that goes against P2P and/or other "outside the corporate structure" copying methods. So betamax will be protected as long as you are running a megacorp.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're close, but this is actually much more sinister. It's a very common tactic that goes like this:
Steps 1 and 2 have now been accomplished. I'm just waiting for step 3 when more of my few remaining rights have been taken away. It will, as you say, though happen after the election.
*sigh*
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2, Insightful)
introduce and pass an amendment that takes the milder version back up to the level of the original bill.
(and I guess the obligatory step 5 - Profit!! (for once it's actually appropriate))
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot something else: LAME DUCK SESSIONS OF CONGRESS!
For those outside the USA this is a session of congress after an election before the new congress sets. This is when the guys who lost punish the voters for removing them from office! It is also so far from an election that most people forget to pay those who betray them during such sessions in the voting booth.
HEADS UP INCOMMING!
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
For those outside the USA this is a session of congress after an election before the new congress sets. This is when the guys who lost punish the voters for removing them from office! It is also so far from an election that most people forget to pay those who betray them during such sessions in the voting booth.
Derivations of the British parliamentary system seem to be much better in this respect. In Canada, for example, the government is disso
Huh? (Score:2)
If you're right about steps 1 and 2 [wired.com], then this *was* step 3.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)
First is... we controll their cashflow. They can push and push, but one day they'll push so far that the average Joe starts to see it and rebel (already started some with people unable to copy their "CDs" to their iPods). And when they are spending tons on lawyers and it is only driving down their cash flow by pissing off consumers, that's a recipy for their death. Too bad that probably won't happen any time soon.
Second is that with at least the buzzwords of the day don't really apply. I mean, how high do you have to be to think that copying your legal CD to your iPod or watching a movie on your TV (God forbid!) is "terrorism" or that it's "patriotism" to not be allowed to tape a TV show?
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
Damn, if I had some mod points, I'd mod you up...
There are many politicions who want to make you think that you are helpless against the mega-corps so you'll vote for them so they can "save" you from the bad guys.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that kind of spin could only be sustained for so long until the cashflow problem became so acute that there would have to be an admission about what the cause of the problem was so that it can be fixed.
We may control the cashflow but they still have the books. Perhaps a independant third party review of their claims about piracy and the effects on sales volumes and profits should be conducted, just to make sure that the truth is not being misrepresented.
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
So? They control the market, promotion, the radio, the concert venues. Unless youre in a metro area which can cater to indie labels, they pretty much own YOU. You get the same nine bands and twenty one singles per quarter. You get the same morning zoo on the radio. You get the same ticketmaster fees. etc. This fight has been going on since the early 70s and we've lost.
Divest in the mainstream music, find some indie labels and bands you like. Indie may not be perfect but
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Today we fight together..tomorrow? (Score:2)
Anyway, this is why they love teenagers and college kids. They're the ones spending money on their most profitable market (slick-pop).
The music industry had some boom years when people were buying CD's for the quality, and to replace their vinyl/tape. It's no wonder the numbers went down. Add a recession that affected EVERY OTHER MARKET, and that's another reason the numbers went do
Re: (Score:2)
We never fought together, we never should (Score:5, Insightful)
While some technology companies did oppose the Act, it is totally unreasonable to say that "Corporate America" opposed it. The INDUCE Act was lobbied for by the RIAA and MPAA and supported by Microsoft, among others. It is the ability of Corporate America to push bills into Congress with thick wads of bills in envelopes that resulted in the DMCA and the introduction of this Act.
I worry how the fight will go down when we are pitched against each other and the fight's fair on our end, but the cash pile is taller on their end?
i.e., now.
Also in today's world when corporate will can be swayed by a few choice words like "terrorism", "patriotism" lobbed at them by the Govt,
Businesses act in self-interest, so abstract, not-directly-profitable ideas like patriotism mean nothing. Meanwhile, terrorism means contracts from the U.S. goverment. These things are designed to scare the citizenry into line, not companies.
do we think they will stand with us when we fight the beaureacracy?
Okay, you are off the planet. Corporate America arm in arm with the Government has borne bureaucracy at its foulest. Corporate America does not fight democracy-choking bureaucracy. They fight for it. The more complex and indirect the Government's sovereignty it is, the less obvious and inescapable its accountability to its citizens. Bureaucracy affords corporate America far more ways to, for example, shove through acts like the DMCA or shoot down acts that would interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's profit margin, and importantly, keep the interests of the consumer and the people away from their government.
(This time, BSA (with its tech company members) opposed the INDUCE Act because it would hurt technology. Pure business pragmatism. Meanwhile, companies with an interest in maintaining control of digital content companies, lobbied for the Act. Again, pure business pragmatism.)
We never fought together; we never should. Our causes sometimes overlap. More often than not they don't. But this never changes: members of any "free market" should have no power in changing the rules of the market itself.
The Government should represent the people only, each person weighed equally, not proportionate to their access to capital. The government's power and authority is granted by every single person, from nowhere else, and it would do well to remember that if eventually we all grow sick enough of its corruption.
Re:We never fought together, we never should (Score:2)
However, the 'devil' part of the DMCA is that it's illegal to even circumvent the encryption used on the item. ...i'm pretty sure that there's no decrypting your text files...
In fact, this whole post sounds bogus. DMCA'd? The only thing I can think of is that you're able to DMCA someone easily and you're DMCA's by bigger corps becau
Re:We never fought together, we never should (Score:2)
Almost. What the DMCA does is let him send a nasty letter to the ISP in question and *poof* the claimed offender's content gets taken down. The parent likes the DMCA because it lets him dispense with that whole 'due process' and 'burden of proof' nonsense.
And to celebrate.... (Score:4, Funny)
Makes me think (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Makes me think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes me think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes me think (Score:2)
The term "freedom" when describing things like speech, the economy, etc. is more of an abstract idea referring to a certain system. We don't really have freedom of speech--our freedom only extends so far as to not
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regardless (Score:4, Interesting)
Point out all the times that corporations supporting old technologies have lobbied congress against new technologies citing piracy, property rights, and labeling their competitors as criminals. Congress has never given in to illegalizing newer, superior technologies in favor of old technologies controlled by a handful of massive corporations, until recently.
The constitution gave Congress the power to grant copyrights for only a limited term and for the sole purpose of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. This is still what it says today, and I (and many others) believe that Congress has violated the constitution in over-extending the reach of copyrights and increasing their lifetime indefinitely. The current trend is that copyrights will never expire, and the information is simply lost to the world because they're out of print and copies are discarded when they get too old. This nonesense going in Congress is not only destroying our future but our past as well.
You know what radio stations have to pay recording artists and major labels? Nothing. They pay directly to the composers and song writers a small, fixed amount defined by Congress (back when it understood the purpose of copyright) because letting the recording industry set the price threatened the new distribution technology in favor of old physical media. Now the recording industry is after P2P, seeking to destroy the superior competing technology rather than finding a balance.
The battle fought by the RIAA isn't about copyrights or piracy, it's about control of the media, and how media is created and distributed.
Re:Regardless (Score:2)
By all means, keep writing to him, on paper (email is a waste of time), but don't stop there. Write letters to the editors of all the newspapers in his district, explaining briefly what he's doing to you all and why it's bad. If you can get a couple of column-inches on the letters-to-the-editor p
Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
- ...aimed at manufacturers of file-sharing software commonly used to steal electronic copies of music, movies and computer programs...
Wasn't there a more, how shall I put this... unbiased way to word the intro to this article??Re:Bias? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bias? (Score:3)
But more importantly, just because a word is true doesn't mean it's unbiased. If an article on abortion called the doctors "Womb suckers," it would be biased. Not because it's untrue, but because it's emotionally charged.
Re:Bias? (Score:2)
What's being done is stealing.
So, when I burn a CD of mine and put it on my iPod, that's theft? What a strange world you must live in.
Re:Bias? (Score:2)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _ id =582602
The gist of the argument is that property law was developed to deal with the problem of "negative externalities", which are things that cost me when someone else uses a good or resource. The traditional example is that your grazing your sheep on my land reduces my ability to graze my
Goliath vs. Andre (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite frankly, it's new media vs. old media, and each side has their pet legislators and lobbyists.
And, in the game of law-passing, it's easier to stall something to death than it is to pass it through. Do Nothings always beat Do Somethings.
Especially in government.
Complete Coverage of INDUCE From the Beginning (Score:5, Informative)
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:2)
The MPAA is not happy with the way the courts have decided the more recent cases related to Morpheus and the other P-2-P companies which don't have a central database of the shared material. They want a stronger law so that they can shutdown all P-2-P software/companies.
Senator Geek (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
It's a great idea, but the only way I can see that it would come even close to working is if we engineered a coalition between Geeks, Greens, and Libertarians (i.e., everyone opposed to corporatism).
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
Total political website redirection.
Goatse.cx has a new purpose!
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
Re:Senator Geek (Score:4, Interesting)
If shareholders were liable for the actions of the corporation, for example, would corporations be so willing to ship faulty products, (knowing that they were faulty)? No, 'cause even a whiff of that would cause their stock price to plummet - the shareholders would run in droves.
throwing out all corporate law and regulations would do much more good than harm.
Re:Senator Geek (Score:5, Interesting)
From your answer, I'm guessing that you're a Libertarian. That being the (presumed) case, I have a question:
There's one part of this particular argument that I don't get: how do Libertarians regulate the commons*? Is it just that they would eliminate the commons entirely and make everything privately owned? If so, I don't really understand how they can regulate things like air pollution, since the problem doesn't stay on the producer's property. Besides that, it seems to me that there are some things that are inherently public, such as infrastructure. How would Libertarians keep that from being abused?
*In order to answer, you ought to be familiar with The Tragedy of the Commons [constitution.org] so as to understand what I'm talking about.
Re:Senator Geek (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Breathers would get together and pay the polluter not to pollute. The problem with this is that encourages pollution as an extortionary tactic. I.e. it encourages people to pollute so as to get paid to stop. For that reason, most would advise against this.
2. Class action lawsuits against the polluters would force polluters to pay for the damage caused
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
Second, I am curious as to why y
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
If fifty people would prefer to pay $1000 more for
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
If this is the case then it is a problem that economists should worry about, and for private business to try and find a profitable solution for, not a problem that government should consern itself with.
The Soviet Union tried to solve efficiency problems with government regulations and central planning, and we all know it was a failure. Government should never try to fix efficiency problems[1] because it is very bad at it, and
Re:Senator Geek (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe... he has an opinion on something as a solution to a problem. Does every fucking person have to define himself by a party affiliation and follow the same exact belief structure as said party?
What party am I? NONE. I form my own damn opinions.
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
Re:Senator Geek (Score:2)
I am an individualist. [freedomfor...tional.org] (pdf file) This means, among other things that just because something is a problem, it does not follow that the government should take responsibility to fix the problem. how do Libertarians regulate the commons?" You skipped the question 'Should (and why should) the commons be regulated by government?' From the Tragedy of the Commons it is clear that an unregulated commons is a disaster. Howeve
That would be Boucher (D-VA) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That would be Boucher (D-VA) (Score:2)
It ain't dead yet! (Score:5, Insightful)
So don't even think of celebrating until Congress adjourns for the year.
True story: Words with my Senator (Score:5, Interesting)
I told him how concerned I was about Induce and asked why he was supporting it... he explained that some of his friends talked to him about their concerns regarding their losses due to piracy.
Thankfully, he did say that that he didn't think the current revision of the bill was very good and did believe that more work was needed.
We spoke for about 10 minutes on the issue (I think I miffed the national guardsman in line behind me).
One interesting note... I mentioned the savebetamax campaign and he knew nothing about it... his aid admitted that they had received 'a few calls' on the topic... either they were lying... or not enough calls were made it seems.
Re:True story: Words with my Senator (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:True story: Words with my Senator (Score:2)
Unless you can get enough callers on a single issue to shut down the Capitol Hill switchboards (yes, it has happened!), you don't have enough calls to matter.
If you want to make an impact, write. Write on paper, put it in an envelope, address it, put on a stamp and mail it. The
I hope you replied: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the whole debunking in 15 seconds.
Re:True story: Words with my Senator (Score:2)
Excuse me? 'His friends'?
So, you're saying that a US Senator backs the creation of new rules from the banter over a beer and hand of poker?
Explain to me again why America is supposed to be an example of a shining democracy? Or have you simply delivered yourselves into the hands of Plutocrats?
"his aid admitted that they had received 'a few calls' on the topic"
Easily deniable in the fac
what about the kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what about the kids (Score:2)
There's so much spin in that one-sentence quote it almost makes one dizzy. You can see how it was a carefully crafted quotable.
Not just kids (Score:5, Insightful)
"So long as illegitimate peer-to-peer services hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids, legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.
I know plenty of "grown-ups" (40 and 50 year olds) who ride the mule all the time.
Of course these young-uns don't know any better and don't know that "stealing" music and movies is wrong.
Re:Not just kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Let see if those who lose their jobs in the hardware industry will be as understanding about the **AA's need for "protection".
Re:Not just kids (Score:2)
Or, alternatively, they don't believe it *is* wrong.
Re:Not just kids (Score:2)
Nothing new there... (Score:2)
1) Grown-ups typically have more money, less spare time. That makes you more willing to pay as opposed to more time "working" downloading stuff.
2) As a grown-up, you have a much better appriciation of the time value of money. I know myself that as a student, I spent hours saving pennies (to exaggerate a bit), while today I know what one hour of my time is worth.
3) Grown-ups on average aren't a
EFF Action Center (Score:5, Informative)
I love it, it allows me to be politically active and relatively lazy at the same time.
What did we lose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone say tactical retreat?
Check out http://www.ipaction.org/ if you want to fight the power with the weapon of choice in this particular melee. Cold hard cash.
Re:What did we lose? (Score:2)
YES! (Score:4, Funny)
*looks out window*
Never mind.
Re:YES! (Score:2)
Hatch is out (Score:5, Interesting)
Something worth mentioning - Sen. Hatch is outgoing chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. GOP rules limit chairmanships to 6 years, and his time is up. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is likely to be chairman in the next congress.
There have been rumors that Hatch is pushing to reconstitute the intellectual property subcommittee, but even with a subcommittee chair he'll be alot less powerful next session than he is now. He could push bills out of his subcommittee and have them bottled in the full committee, or significantly modified during full committee markup.
Specter isn't known for being in touch with IT/IP issues. This is a double edged sword. As committee chair he's likely to give significant leeway to Hatch on IP issues in order to focus on investigations and other legislation. Conversely, without strongly stated public views on copyright/IP issues, Specter will probably be receptive to lobbying. If the EFF/OSDN/Sun/Others effectively represent their issues, they'll be much better off with Chairman Specter than Chairman Hatch. If they blow it --- 6 more years of the same.
A few wrinkles - Specter is up for election and may end up losing his seat. Also, Sen. Grassley is second in seniority on the Judiciary committee. Senators can only chair one committee at a time, and conventional beltway wisdom is that Sen. Grassley will not relinquish his current chairmanship (Finance) in order to take Judiciary, leaving it to Specter.
ANYONE is better than Hatch... (Score:5, Informative)
Hatch was the guy who wanted to remotely destroy people's computers if they were found to contain items that infringed on copyright. Yes, you read that right. Remotely destroy people's computers.
I'm all for destroying their machines, Hatch said during a Committee hearing Tuesday. "'If you have a few hundred thousand of those, I think people would realize' the seriousness of their actions," the wire service quotes him as saying. (source [theregister.co.uk])
Re:ANYONE is better than Hatch... (Score:2)
You give him too much credit. To say, "...if they were found to contain..." implies that a court of law or some kind of legal proceedings were involved. As I'm sure you're aware, he advocated a vigilante system wherein you could attack anyone you alone suspected of being naughty. The poor sap would then have to take you to court to prove that they were innocent (because th
Re:Hatch is out (Score:2)
The same Utah that is home of SCO? I doubt it.
Vox Populi, no doubt (Score:3, Funny)
before heading back into the studio to lay down a few more tracks, right?
think of the kids! (Score:5, Funny)
The kids...it's all about the kids...won't somebody please think about the kids!
Always ask yourself: (Score:2, Insightful)
Network TV won't
RIAA won't
Public won't
Hollywood won't
Etc...
So who will? The political forces that are pretending to support this outrageous and hokey cause?
Am I insane, or am I so sane I just blew your mind? [ionline.net]
On the other end of the scale (Score:5, Informative)
In the proposal, all forms of personal/private copying of copyrighted will be legalized, including P2P. Also, no further fees on recordable media (such as CD-R and DVD-R) will be introduced.
If you understand Norwegian or have an excellent fish, you can read the article here: http://www.nrk.no/musikk/4149551.html [www.nrk.no].
Translation (and no, I'm not a 'fish) (Score:5, Informative)
You may now freely copy your own CDs. Through the national budget the government proposes securing the private right to copy, and is allocating 32,5 MNOK (about 4,8M$) to rights holders.
The proposal is appearing ahead of the departments own evaluation of a new copyright law by proposing a new compensation arrangement which will secure compensation to copyright holders for private copying.
The iundustry overrun
The government has thus chosen to not listen to the music industry, who was seeking to criminalize the private copying of music. The government has also chosen to not follow the industry's proposal of introducing a levy on different storage media, such as unrecorded CD and DVD records.
When the department of culture in the spring of 2003 sent out a hearing with regards to new copyright law NRK.no/musikk wrote about a democratic deficit in the process. Of 126 hearing instances invited to have an opinion on the draft, only one represents the consumer; the small, idealistic organization Elektronisk Forpost Norge (EFF in Norway).
Small voice heard
Now David has won over Goliath. EFN has been heard on all their ideas of securing the consumers' rights.
- This shows that it is not the number of arguments but the strength of the arguments that is decisive, says Bjørn Ramseth, VP of EFN.
- The problems surrounding copyright is not simply a question of market- and technologyadoption.
- It is first and foremost cultural policy. The decision belongs in parlament and not in the court room, something I'm happy that the goverment has realized, says Ramseth.
More court cases
- TONO, IPFI and several other rights holder organizations has chosen to sue individuals that have broken copyright law. Do you believe there will be an end to such suits and threats of lawsuits now?
- No, I don't think so. The industry will all the time try to find new ways to sue people, because they seek to criminalize everything that has to do with file sharing.
- But this will at least make it much harder for the industry to do so. At least in Norway.
Great importance
Copyright law is complex. This is not a case that has engaged the masses. Bjørn Ramseth think it'll take time before people realize how important this is.
- File sharing is becoming more and more an integral part of our culture. We consider this as natural, despite great pressure from the music industry to make us percieve it as illegal and immoral. Now it is clearly decided that this is legal and okay.
Complementary arrangements
The department of culture writes that the new compensation arrangement must be seen in context with the grant of 19,5 MNOK to the "Fund for sound and images". The funds will be granted collectively by application, while the compensation will be individual.
It is still unclear how one is to calculate the share of each composer, text writer and artist should be granted for private copying. Because how do you measure private copying? Should record sales decide? Or perhaps net based music sales? Or what about radio air time?
The government will probably not use the download statistics from the still illegal peer-to-peer servers on the Internet.
----
End article, begin personal comment
WTF? Private copying is ok, but Internet is not? And while I do appriciate the deal, it seems like local musicians will be funded, while Britney et al get the shaft. Ah well another wierdo suggestion from the goverment. That's not new at least.
Kjella
Re:On the other end of the scale (Score:2)
The music and film industries in Norway will now be given a government subsidy for being too stupid to distribute their own products online in formats that don't suck ass. In exchange for this marvelous use of your money, the nation gets a reprieve from having half the population being labelled as criminals and sued for their last Norwegian øre. Brilliant!
Offloading to kids?!!? (Score:2)
"So long as illegitimate peer-to-peer services hijack a positive technology and intentionally offload their legal liability to America's kids, legislation will be a priority for the creative community," Bainwol said.
I don't understand what he is talking about. What does it mean "to offload legal liability to kids"??? I don't get it. Could someone explain it to me?
I'm not kidding or ironizing here, I really don't understand RIAA's point.
The question is... (Score:2)
And I mean someone who actually stands a remote chance of winning...
Hopefully us aussies can kick howard out on saturday and get a government who is NOT pro-big-business on IP laws (although I dont see any specific statement one way or the other on this issue on the ALP website)
Re:The question is... (Score:2)
And, funny enough, if you'd read that article, you'd find out that someone in America could and did vote for someone who DOESN'T support these stupid lame pro-big-corporation IP laws.
Wanted this to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Needs reworked.... (Score:2)
Second, just because everyone does something, does not make it right. Being able to make MP3's off oc CD's you own should be legal. Giving your friend a copy for free should also be legal. Giving it to your 5 million closest friends online is one step too far!
Re:Needs reworked.... (Score:2)
They need to _start_ with rewording it so that it doesn't make VCRs illegal! Then _maybe_ they'll be competent enough to handle the subtleties of computer communications protocols. If the first draft can't even handle 20-year old technology, there's no chance of it being good enough for computers.
Second, just because everyone does something, does not make it right
Very true, but before you go off telling umpteen millions of your own constiuent
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Re:Request for Utah... (Score:2)
Plus you could pad execs' payrolls [even more] and they would be in a position where donating it is in their best interest.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like this is an actual viable solution to campaign reform. Not that I have a bett