Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
United States Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA

Comments Filter:
  • Corporate whore? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:08AM (#3423612)
    I think the use of that word shows more bias than any statements this guy possibly could have made.
  • Still not safe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NickRob ( 575331 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:30AM (#3423669)
    This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.

    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.
  • Little Excessive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ender81b ( 520454 ) <<moc.aksarbeni> <ta> <dllib>> on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:31AM (#3423671) Homepage Journal
    a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do

    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.

  • by ChadN ( 21033 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:34AM (#3423680)
    Replace "customers" with "citizens". The DMCA is not just anti-consumer (which some could legitimately debate), but removes rights that citizens previously had (reverse engineering, study, personal use, etc.) You can infringe and be guilty, even without ever having a "customer" relationship with the sellers (you may just be curious).
  • by xenoweeno ( 246136 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:50AM (#3423727)
    The editors didn't call him a corporate whore. The person who submitted the story, L. J. Beauregard, did. Note the quotation marks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:59AM (#3423749)

    I just rattled everyone I could in DC. 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, 2002 @03:06AM (#3423764)

    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.
  • by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @04:31AM (#3423880) Homepage
    Just wait till the apply it to portscans. But hey, there's a war against terror! You can be an Enron exec and squander the life savings of thousands of employees away, but I doubt that there will be more than 10 years of jail time done between the lot of them. However, a 19 year old script-kiddie gets a little full of beans and brings down a couple Exchange servers, and it's a lifetime of forced sodomy for him. Yet people still believe in the "justice" system - why the hell not, we get the best justice money can buy!
  • Since when are we not in deep shit? The democrats are more than willing to trade some pork barrel tax dollars to get it passed.
  • by vvikram ( 260064 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @05:33AM (#3423990)
    i totally agree with you. it IS excessive.

    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.

  • Re:Technicalities (Score:2, Insightful)

    by idiotnot ( 302133 ) <> on Sunday April 28, 2002 @07:11AM (#3424101) Homepage Journal
    Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment?

    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 here [].
  • by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @08:46AM (#3424230) Journal
    Check your history books. Your fascist example, Hitler, was democratically elected by the people of Wiemar Germany. Whether a leader was elected by a majority of the people or not has little or no bearing on whether that government or leader is considered fascist. Instead, consider the actions and the policies of that government.

    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!
  • by MrMeanie ( 145643 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @10:45AM (#3424493)
    /me prepares to get modded to -infinity....

    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 (, etc), or an indie movie festival. Maybe 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 :-P, and I think it
    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.
  • Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair@NOwcmifm.c ... M minus language> on Sunday April 28, 2002 @11:58AM (#3424767) Homepage
    That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:

    "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?
  • by MrBrklyn ( 4775 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @01:22PM (#3425058) Homepage Journal
    That's a good question.

    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.


Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson