Questions for Town Meeting with Congressman? 134
tongue asks: "I have
the opportunity tomorrow to go to a town meeting with my Congressman, Gene Taylor (D, Miss.). I'd
like to be able to ask several (preferably intelligent) questions
regarding issues facing the technology industry today, on
bills like the DMCA, SSSCA, etc; but I'm having trouble narrowing
down the field. The research I've been able to do so far indicates
a fairly conservative voting record, although I haven't had much luck
finding a good site that summarizes a bill-by-bill voting record along with a synopsis of the bill." We did a similar question, last month about the CBDTPA which dovetails nicely with this issue. What questions about these and other questionable electronic laws passed over the last few years, would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?
Did you vote for the DMCA? (Score:1)
Don't you care about the children? (Score:1, Funny)
Doesn't he know that if parents keep trading these books on Napster the authors will go hungry and find another line of work? If kids aren't reading, then they'll be on the street at night, we'll need a program of Midnight Storytelling to save the children.
Re:Did you vote for the DMCA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you ever chosen not to accept campaign donations from any corporation, group, or individual because you felt that they harbored agendas which were at odds with the interests of voters in your district?
You are officially an employee of the voters in your district, however you receive a far greater amount of money from campaign donors. Describe your present efforts to correct this conflict of interest.
You have consisently voted against tax cut legislation. As a result, voters have to curtail their personal spending to a level which leaves a remainder adequate to cover their tax obligations. Why should the residents of your district vote for someone who would pass a financial burden on to them, rather than work to decrease the costs of maintaining the programs that their tax dollars are spent on?
You currently have made no opposition to the present policy of incarcerating persons in posession of marijuana. If this policy were enforced consistently, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other members of your party would have been ineligible for public office due to criminal records. Describe what you believe the benefits of this outcome would have been.
Tonguing Senators? (Score:1, Funny)
mmmmmm democracy in action
Re:Tonguing Senators? (Score:1)
Re:Tonguing Senators? (Score:1)
Consequenses (Score:1)
It seems to me that this is an area in which they are sorely lacking.
Keep it simple (Score:3, Interesting)
some starters (Score:5, Interesting)
2. What is the US government planning to do about the consequences this terrible security and lack of privacy laws is having on identify theft and the risk of terrorists using stolen identity (technique 2 - link two things in one question and make it hard for them to give answers heading in a direction away from you)
3 - The DMCA is supressing important research into security technologies, given the lack of security how do you justify this (get him on what he has admitted then force answers)
4 - What plans does the US government have for laws to prevent abuse of end user license agreements, digital rights management and other new technologies (note - you dont ask if there is a problem you state it and ask what they will do. a) this lets you make a point to him about what you see as important b) puts him in a position where he has to justify the position and explain it - the more you can keep them talking on such questions the better 8)
5 - Software patents, meritless lawsuits, high taxes and complex restrictions on exports are making it ever harder for business to justify remaining in the USA and not moving elsewhere. What are you doing to simplify it (same theory as above, and the word 'tax' requires an answer 8))
6 - Copying a protected ebook, even to help a blind user read it now carries a typical sentence higher than that of assault and many other acts of violence against the person. In these times of rising violent crime isn't it about time the US government got back to the needs of the people not the needs of large corporations.
Re:some starters (Score:2)
In these times of rising violent crime isn't it about time the US government got back to the needs of the people not the needs of large corporations.
Violent crime seems [usdoj.gov] to be on the decline.
Re:some starters (Score:2)
Re:some starters (Score:1)
Re:some starters (Score:2, Interesting)
Alan has some good points, but you are unlikely to get 6 questions in. You need to shorten up this script. Also, Alan's questions are not the kinds of things a U.S. citizen might ask. You want to bait the hook to get them to swallow it (use more carrot, not too much stick). You want to ask what the congress and the congressman in particular will do.
Re:some starters (Score:1)
(I've been trying to write some questions for UK MP/MEPs after recent articles on EUCD, but it's difficult to phrase vague concerns into definite questions for non-techincal politicians)
Re:some starters (Score:2)
Ask intellectuals about the fact works will be lost for ever. Ask socialists about the terrible effects on the disabled. Ask conservative anti-EU people how come the EUCD is forced on them by an unrepresentative foreign power. Ask conservative pro-EU people how the security services will function when things like watermarks will reveal which agent leaked documents that appear in court.
As to our dear Tony Blair and his cronies - don't bother. They have their heads so far up the arse of big business that if Bill Gates eats lentils for tea Tony is going to suffocate.
Re:Keep it simple (Score:2, Insightful)
I have an idea. (Score:1)
Maybe I'm just bitter, but at this point I'm convinced that all politicians are crooks.
Re:I have an idea. (Score:2)
They *ARE* all crooks.
Re:I have an idea. (Score:2)
Generalizations are wrong, and serve only to further hate and bigotry.
Consider yourself bitchkicked, whatever the hell that is.
I have to give it to you, tough: You're one of the most successful trolls I've ever seen. I can't believe how many moderators fall for your redneck stupid rants.
Re:I have an idea. (Score:2)
Hate? No, I don't hate them, and bigotry doesn't really mean anything in this context either, unless you want to distort the meaning so much it fails to remain useful.
Troll? Well, guilty as charged, though this was one time I wasn't trolling.
Re:I have an idea. (Score:1)
Generalizations are wrong, and serve only to further hate and bigotry.
A generalization, being what is is, will be wrong, I agree. However, they are about all we have to work with until we achieve universal complete knowledge. One of the kewl things about the way our minds work is that we can make generalizations so easily and, as a result, we are still able to function in a wide range of situations even though we don't have perfect knowledge of any of the situations. It's one of those things that makes achieving "artificial intelligence" such a pisser. Generalizations can vary in usefulness, of course, depending on their degree of wrongness. Ideally we should try to favor good generalizations (less wrong) avoid bad generalizations (more wrong). Your contention that generalizations "serve only to further hate and bigotry" would, for example, be a rather extreme example of a bad generalization.
Re:I have an idea. (Score:1)
For a conservative, call for "conservative" action (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone can write this question better and more accurately than me I am sure, but a question to that effect might be interesting to hear answered.
General mood of the questions (Score:5, Informative)
Also, don't insult the man. Believe it or not (don't listen to most Slashdot readers
And lastly, if he does refuse to answer a question, find out why. If he's got a good reason, move on - don't try and punch the heck out of him, or he won't be forthcoming in the future. If he constantly refuses to answer questions, however, politely show your displeasure and remind him that he works for you.
Hope that helps - good luck!
Re:General mood of the questions (Score:1)
True. In my experience, this means politicians tend to give very broad answers. See nearly any answers by G W Bush. Usually when a specific answer is given it doesn't answer the question asked at all.
Also, don't insult the man.
Yes, it makes the questioner look ignorant. Also if he gives a poor answer the insult becomes the excuse.
Bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
These things are primarily designed to get a nice story in the local paper, and maybe help a few people with "The road near my cousin's house is falling apart" or "I'm getting the runaround from can you help?"
If you are serious about garnering insight or pursuading your congressman of anything beyond the superficial, you need to set up a private meeting with him or one of his staff. (This is not a difficult thing to do, and contrary to the press, you do not need to be a millionaire contributor to do it.)
At the said meeting, you need to have a concise argument ready, provide facts, figures, and documentation. ("I hate Microsoft and think everyone should use BSD" will not cut it.)
Please be knowledgable about your subject. The fact that you're dredging Slashdot for talking points is not a good sign, and will likely do more harm than good when the conversation gets into specifics and fine details. Remember, the idea is to convince, not just spout off your opinion.
Technology issues are a huge body of legislation, and you will more than likely find at least somebody on his staff with experience in such matters, who will be the true path to action. (Staffers are the key to power.)
I can promise you that any townhall grandstanding about any substantive issue will result in a noncommittal "That's really good point, and there are a lot of people who agree with you. Let me look into it."
Pomme de Terre
Re:Bad news (Score:2)
One of the features of a "town meeting" is that the congressman isn't the only person there. There's also the town. Getting a question out into the open -- a question about an issue that 99% of people haven't even thought about -- has the potential to infect some minds. So don't let cynicism stop you from asking.
The good questions... (Score:3, Funny)
Really, can these recently-submitted "Ask Slashdot" questions get any sillier and unimportant? Probably.
Re:The good questions... (Score:1)
would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?
was actually:
would you like to tongue Senator Taylor?
then i got to thinking.. hhm.. a senator.. i could do worse..
ACLU Voting Record (Score:3, Informative)
ACLU's Voting Record [aclu.org]
Re: CDA (Score:2)
___
Figure out who sponsored his campaign (Score:5, Interesting)
you need this: (Score:2)
...and this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.
Since he's a member of armed services committee, I'd ask him about Microsoft lobbying the pentagon for "higher taxes" i guess. ; )
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/23/032
I'd actually ask if
1) he has any ideas on how Armed Services (pentagon?) can save $gazillion$ due to increased use of open source software and..
2) if he knows that Microsoft is lobbying to prevent this.
3) if he doesn't know that you would be happy to send a member of his staff some information.
He'll likely say 'I haven't been briefed on this' and think 'what the hell is he talking about?' but the seed will be planted......
Cheers,
-b
What are these bumps? (Score:2)
But to be serious, I have emailed my Congress-critters and Senators a couple of times about different topics related to tech (minus the wife part!). I get varried responses from each person for each topic, so they seem to DO care about certain topics. It must vary from person to person, but I got a couple of hand signed letters for some things before, so don't despair that everything you send is totally disregarded.
Re:What are these bumps? (Score:2)
Re:What are these bumps? (Score:2, Interesting)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that never looked the other way when they noticed they were getting quesionable capaign donations, even once.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that publically ridiculed another major member of their own political party and didn't back down until that member resigned or publically apologized/changed their stance.
(Note: Democrats abandoning Clinton don't necessarily count, unless you can prove that they recently had some honest words to say about him. The words "rats on a sinking ship" come to mind, too many are willing to ride the waves on the flotsam from the wreck.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that willingly and knowingly ruined their chances at re-election just to do the right thing. (Note: Prepare to back this up, I won't consider those that voted for term limits, for instance, knowing that the bill wouldn't pass anyway.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that has pubically complained about specific spending that they called "pork" when it was their own state/district that stood to gain from the bill.
Answer a single one of these questions, and maybe I'll have to consider that there are a few "good, honest people" in congress. If it makes you feel any better, you were half right, you can find plenty money grubbing lowlives in the Capitol building.
Please, feel free to add other qualifying questions to my little litmus test, maybe he'll be able to answer at least one.
Re:What are these bumps? (Score:2)
Re:What are these bumps? (Score:2)
You have to decide for yourself if it counts... but my opinion is less than flattering.
Biology teaches us that certain animals may develop more than one strategy for any given purpose. I can't remember an exact example, but I think the latest I've read about was a certain species of iguana, and how they go about mating. As it were, there were 3 different strategies (Note: Is it coincidental the number was 3, as in scissors rock paper?), such as female impersonation, harem-building, and "ambush". Researchers studied these things for 3 years (I'm still debating if this was money well spent), and no single strategy emerged as the winner. Harem building would be the best strategy for awhile, until one of the other 2 strategies started working. But the thing that stood out, was this:
The most successful strategy just happened to be the least popular at the time.
This principle also hints at other things, for instance the stock market. Often, the most popular strategies are less successful than someone bucking the trend, and bucking it early (those who buck it late, are the band wagon jumpers who make it the most popular, less successful strategy).
I believe this "system" rears its ugly head in politics too, at least to some minor extent. And I can't rule it out here. So, the real question is, did this behavior, this instinct, influence Feingold at all?
I mean, let's take a look at the facts. Even if he wanted this bill to pass, he had to have know it would, and his vote didn't matter. He was free to vote however might benefit or amuse him, without disrupting it.
If voting against was bad, he could easily say something along the lines "I'd vote against in any circumstance like this, just because it's good principle that nothing be unaminous in such grave controversial circumstances... every position deserves a defending attourney as it were, and fate chose me for the role." Who could argue with that?
And if he doesn't have to say that, well then, he picks up votes from people like you, while still maintaining most, if not all of the rest of his constituency. Hell, maybe not on this particular issue, but he could even have campaign commercials lauding such a dissenting vote "Everyone else voted for this bill, only one man had the courage to stand up against it, and say NO." And as a strategy, it is very likely to not be harmful, as long as its not used frequently.
I can't prove any of this, but at best, Feingold deserves a "maybe" here. Hopefully someone better informed than I will reply.
Re:What are these bumps? (Score:2)
You'd need to look at his record, but he strikes me as being very principled, from what i've seen of him.
for example (Score:2, Interesting)
"Congressman, I'm sure I speak for many people in the district in appreciating your efforts on [warm-fuzzy bill he sponsored]. As you may know, S.2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, would severely encroach on every person's right to lawful everyday use of industry-standard computers. It's being pushed by the entertainment conglomerates to eliminate digital devices that they don't approve of, even when those devices, such as computers and DVD players, are used to play amateur, independent, or public domain media. To protect the market share of these companies, S.2048 would make it a felony to make or sell... well, just regular computers like we have today.
"What is your position on S.2048? For or against?"
It's very important to stop talking now, as what I wrote is already a little long. Make sure you end your speech/question with this direct yes-or-no-type question.
Also it wouldn't hurt to schmooze the Congressman's staff people before or after the meeting. Just say hi, give them your card, and mention that you're against S.2048.
Your effect might be limited, however; as its name implies, S.2048 is a Senate bill and hasn't yet emerged from Judiciary Committee. There's a decent possibility it will not get to the House in its present form during this term.
Good luck.
Re:for example (Score:2)
Ehhh...if it's already an Act, aren't you stuffed already? Surely it's a Bill. (I don't live in the US, so don't know the answer).
Economic Repercussions (Score:2, Interesting)
How come you didnt anticipate that, for exemple, the DMCA could be used to shut down legitimate project that greatly benefit the population? (see for exemple the DMCA used by Sony to shut down the tinkering done to the AIBO, even though Sony realised that tinkering with their Aibo was a good thing and are now pushing it forward).
Conservative vs Liberal (Score:2)
There are quite a few in both the liberal and conservative camps who would happily bargain away your freedom for a Hollywood fundraiser or a chance to demogogue about porn or 9/11. And there are quite a few in both camps who have a libertarian bent and are tend to defend freedom.
Senator? (Score:2)
If you can't think of anything... (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth, the whole truth... (Score:1)
Re:The truth, the whole truth... (Score:1)
you know it all computer geeks think you've got it all figured out, but you don't know a damn thing about politics....
these people deserve the benefit of the doubt.. If you look at politics expecting dishonesty and sugar coated answers, you will find exactly that...
have an open mind *maybe* some of our leaders *might* be honest people trying to do a difficult job
Voting Record... (Score:1)
http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/profile.ph
If you click on the "Voting Records" link, it takes you to a slew of major votes by your rep. Select the appropriate issues that matters to you and find out how he voted!
The Internet section is a bit slim, so you might have to try other places for voting records on smaller, specific items.
A little advise: (Score:2, Insightful)
As for questions to ask, I worked for a Senator for a while (I was an intern - nothing exciting). Anyway, it was my job to help set up these town meetings and I'll tell you one thing, Senators are very busy people. They only know what their aides have told them. Not because they aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues (most are very astute), they just don't have time to study every issue. I suggest asking very general questions like:
"Senator Hollings recently introduced a bill that will require every piece of electronic hardware to possess copyright protection. It has been argued by hardware manufacturers and consumer advocates that this will increase the costs of production as well as infringe on consumer's rights; what do you think of this bill?"
In essence, give him some background and try to get him to commit to something. Most good politicians will be able to easily sidestep the issues; however, if the question is clear enough, even the dullest watcher will be able to tell that he's trying to evade the question. Now, if you know his position on a topic, and you don't agree with it - go for the throat, but nicely. Try to get him to commit to an answer. Politicians hate committing to anything - and they hate their voting records to be scrutinized.
Hope this helps and I hope you agree with me on most issues. I hate helping the enemy.
Re:A little advise: a little followup (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little advise: (Score:2)
How convenient. Now I won't have to "forward you this email in order to have your advise."
General Common Sense (Score:1)
If we want to continue to move forward with technology and improve on existing technologies shouldn't it be the industries(RIAA, Hollywood) that have to adapt, sink or swim and not the technology? Or for that matter, should it not be the consumer that drives the market, by choosing those emerging technologies they prefer?
How can we advance, if invested interests constantly interfere or control that advancement?
Might be a bit long, but maybe you can grab some ideas from this? Let's hear how it goes. G'luck
I had something like this (Score:1)
I think the hardest part about this battle is that they are so uninformed. They sit in their little committees and have no clue what goes on out side of that. They just vote based on the reccomendation of the committee -- and even then along party lines, in most cases.
Re:I had something like this (Score:2)
If you feel that they are uninformed, then why not put together a package for them containing an outline of the situation and references where to find out more? Ignorance is only a temporary problem.
Re:I had something like this (Score:1)
Mind you, that didn't stop him from voting for the CDA (with the excuse of "I know it's unconstitutional, but the courts will stop it in a heartbeat." He wasn't so thrilled with my follow-up question: "If you KNOW it's unconstitutional, then isn't voting for it a direct violation of your Oath of Office, the "protect and defend the Constitution. . ." part ????
Needless to say, that was my last conversation in public with Tom Davis. . .
Re:I had something like this (Score:1)
Re:I had something like this (Score:1)
I would ask..... (Score:1)
How about 1% tax on copyright assessed values? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why don't copyright holders pay an annual tax of 1% on an assesment of the value of keeping their copyrights out of the public domain, like real estate holders do? If they stop paying annual intellectual property taxes, the copyright could revert to the public domain, like real estate reverts to the state when real property taxes are not paid. This would be a great way to increase federal and state tax revenues, while also promoting the public domain.
Essentially, since the "for limited times" bargain has been broken by copyright holders lobbying for extensions, shouldn't the bargain be re-balanced by now taxing all copyright holders for keeping their works out of the public domain? Why are copyright holders so fast to claim they hold so called "intellectual property" and yet they so far seem to remain exempt from any sort of annual "property tax" for the upkeep of the information superhighway that makes their so-called property so valuable, and the public domain of ideas which they draw from to create copyrighted works?
==== more background ====
If the Supreme Court rules against Eldred etc. and allows indefinite
copyright extensions (or even if they don't), here is an amusing idea. I
think I saw the germ of it first in another user's comment on Slashdot
months ago -- and now that I poke around the web and usenet I see that
many others have discussed it a tiny bit. In such a worst case where
copyrights are indefinite, perhaps a property tax on copyright owners
might be enacted as a last resort, where rights holders get to choose an
assessed value for having the monopoly of all rights to the work, and
rights holders pay some percentage (1%?) per year of that assessment,
with the restriction then rights holders have to release the work to the
public domain if a payment to them is made for the assessed amount.
Possibly the assessment would be broken down into rights categories, so
that there could be payments for freeing specific subrights -- like
non-commercial use. This category approach would allow a work to be
bought into the public domain in stages.
For example, if the Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust puts, say, a
million dollar valuation on the "Skills of Xanadu" story (ironically
about freedom) relative to releasing it into the public domain (say, so
they could pursue movie rights for it), at an "intellectual monopoly"
tax rate of 1%, the trust would have to pay $10000 per year to keep the
monopoly. But if the Trust puts only a $1000 value on "The Skills of
Xanadu" to avoid significant taxes (only $10 a year then), I'd take out
my checkbook, maybe along with some other fans, and it would be free
today.
Note this assessed amount is for release into the public domain, not
necessarily the amount to be paid by someone else who wants the monopoly
transferred to them, which might be higher or lower, just like what real
estate sells for isn't necessarily the assessed rate. Since it it hard
to assess the value of a copyright, let the rights holder do it, as long
as this public domain buyout clause was in place to prevent overly low
self assessment of monopoly value.
If some people call patents and copyrights "intellectual property" (yes,
I know that term begs the question of how to handle them) then why not
laugh at them and just tax ownership of such "property"? After all, just
like real estate owners pay taxes to offset the heavy continual burden
their property puts on society (a need for police, fire departments,
water, roads, sanitation, planning boards, zoning, local schools, etc.),
there is a heavy continual burden on society for enforcing copyright
(prisons for infringers, costs of salaries for judges in court cases,
the time cost to individuals of making fair use determinations,
government subsidized distribution channels like the internet, the need
for the government to maintain accurate records, lawmaker's time, etc.)
which ideally should be born by copyright holders as opposed to the
general public.
Yes, I know such a tax might wreck havoc with the GPL or other freely
licensed software too. Most GPL copyright holders would probably need to
set their copyright assessment prices low and risk public domain
buyouts. And there are issues with previously selling off exclusive
rights separately to a work (although such rights holders could pay part
of the tax.) And there are issues with incrementally developed works, or
works with multiple copyright holders...
Still, the big issue is that the cost to society of the copyright
monopoly on any work is potentially high, and the person who should be
paying that social cost is really the rights holder, rather than passing
on external costs to others, as a form of social pollution. Some would
argue rights holders already paid a copyright tax when they registered.
Yet, people who get real estate pay a title transfer fee (sort of like a
copyright registration or renewal fee) but they still pay property taxes
afterwards too. If there was no records of taxes paid on a copyright,
it could be presumed public domain, or the copyright owner could be
pursued for tax evasion (until they disclaimed it to the public domain,
of course). This would make the state of copyright much clearer than the
current situation where it is very expensive to determine if a work is
under copyright, and if so, who currently owns it and how to contact
them. With real estate, all this is a matter of public record.
When registering to pay "intellectual property" taxes for their
monopolies, copyright holders might be required to deposit a complete
copy of the content and preferred form source in digital format in
escrow. This escrow would be in part to allow people wanting to use
public domain materials to easily search published content against
registered works. Escrow would also be in part to ensure the work would
be available unencrypted and unprotected when it became public domain,
such as if the rights holder stopped paying property taxes on it.
Perhaps the way to win the copyright battle, if all else fails, is to
give copyright holders what the want, then something else too that
naturally goes with it. Microsoft would have to put a price on releasing
the Windows source code to the public domain for example (including all
previous versions, which might have separate prices), and then they
would finally be forced to pay taxes. Yes, perennially people have
resisted taxes on capital, so it's an uphill battle, but it is another
front of the copyright battle to consider.
Obviously, stocks and bank accounts aren't often taxed by the federal
government while held (though some states do like with Florida's
"Intangible Personal Property Tax"),
http://www.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/ippt.html
so the argument would have to be worked through if the taxation was at
the federal level. And of course this makes the government meddle more
in everyone's affairs (at least, those claiming copyrights or software
patents) but maybe that's OK considering the alternative in this case
and how much they meddle already.
And, while I'm dreaming
monopoly tax could be used to fund more free software and free content
(and the other half would go to pay down the Federal deficit).
Note: even with laws like the above, I would support some form of
author's moral rights regarding their works, enforced separately from
copyright.
Re:How about 1% tax on copyright assessed values? (Score:2)
As for that awkward intermediate period, the key would be including in the tax-exemption a clause covering not-quite-public-domain software with a license that allows unfettered public use. After all, the GPL is really an excellent embodiement of of what public domain is supposed to accomplish: contribution of works to anyone who wants it, in the hopes of producing more unique and creative material.
Re:How about 1% tax on copyright assessed values? (Score:1)
It works because:
-Entities are encouraged to produce works that are of high value to the public.
-Writers of free software (beer or speech) can retain their rights indefinitely as long as they don't charge for it, but can still accept donations.
-Passing the 1% tax on to consumers would just cause the work to pass into public domain faster.
Good idea? Terribly flawed?
What do you think?
Re:How about 1% tax on copyright assessed values? (Score:1)
Wondering how rights holders would calculate the dollars of royalty income -- there might be an incentive to cheat there. For example, one might allow someone else to play a copyrighted song one composed as part of a commercial and receive free advertising for something else one markets in return -- it becomes hard to account economically for these transactions as royalty income. One could use "fair market" value estimates but it requires all these transactions to be recorded as barter (and they may not be). Also, the royalty recordkeeping and related auditing is a privacy concern. Also, when measuring royalties, is it gross received, or net after expenses (including executive salaries).
Also, if a rights holder values something low to avoid taxes, and sits on it, and then when interest perks up, the raise the value, then the public is not served by having a chance to free the work at the lower valuation -- or I guess the back taxes make up for this? (Are they with interest?) Part of the original concept is the public could buy the work into the public domain at this year's current valuation -- do you see keeping this provision in your plan? In either approach, there is a risk/reward aspect to rights holders setting valuations -- they want to avoid paying taxes but avoid being bought out by the public until they have maximized their gain, and so they must make a complex decision (in either scenario, based on cash on hand, probabilities of the work becoming popular, expected interest rates, and so on). But, this is a great example of letting the market decide the value of a work (in the agent of the rights holder setting a valuation to the best of their knowledge of all these issues).
Are we assuming then that valuations only go up? No tax refund if they lower the valuation?
I'm not sure how I follow free software owners keep ownership -- or are you saying they set a low valuation (to avoid taxes) but then get no royalties so a buyout never occurs? Would the donations count as royalties?
Great ideas here even if some issues remain; the more variants we can explore of all this, the better. For example, I really like the idea of thinking about how passing on the cost to consumers accelerates the public domain process -- neat line of thought. I think that is a strong point of your proposal. I also like your notion of setting up a tax structure that encourages entities to produce higher value works (since so much new stuff is junk or copycat things).
One variant I've thought on the original idea, and it might apply in your suggestion, is when adding the 1% tax on self-assesed valuation, to also remove any income taxes on royalty income. This provides an incentive to financially successful rights holders to support the legislation, while those with copyrights no longer deemed valuable to them commercially (guessing close to 99.9% of works now under copyright) will just let the works fall into the public domain to avoid the intellectual property tax. If that course was pursued, then one might want to set the tax rate at somewhere from 3-15% of assessed value (to make up for some of the lost royalty tax revenue). Under this system, copyright holders would have an incentive to report all income they could as royalty income so it was tax-free. Added to your suggestion, such an idea might counterbalance any trend to under-reporting royalties.
Ask the Politician this... (Score:1)
No stance on technology (Score:2, Informative)
I think this likely means the senator is not the most technically savvy senator (not that any of them are) and he may not even be aware of a lot of the current IP issues. You might want to try asking the senator a simpler question(s) to show him that his constituents are concerned about IP issues. If you ask him a difficult question he (and the rest of the audience) won't understand it and he'll just side step it.
Process (Score:5, Interesting)
What process do you have in place to ensure that you are properly informed of the technological issues surrounding congressional bills? What initiatives are you taking to better streamline the feedback process in this increasingly digital age?
I notice your presence on the web is rather lacking. Is this due to lack of funds, lack of interest, or some other problem, and is anything being done to address this issue?
Existing copyright laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Bills Sponsored by Gene Taylor (D-MS) in the 107th (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking at this, I'd push the impairing-defense-readiness angle. CBPDTA (?), by preventing DoD from procuring GNU/Linux systems offering greater transparency and security and a lower total cost of ownership, does not contribute to the goal of a leaner, more efficient military and leaves the services more exposed to 21st Century asymmetrical warfighting tactics (e.g., the enemy-du-jour 0wning the properly-licensed regimental IIS server).
Don't set yourself up for a disappointment (Score:1)
Sure enough, none of my technology-related questions were answered, nor brought up.
Be prepared for a slew of terrorism-related and patriotism-invoking questions, though.
Yikes! Scary misread (Score:1)
would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?
What I read:
would you like to tongue Senator Taylor?
What I thought:
ummm... not really
Hypothetical Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
"If I buy a music CD, should I be allowed to copy it to tape so that I can play it in my car stereo? Or, If I buy an expensive game for my computer, should I be allowed to make a personal copy for every day use to prevent wearing out the original?"
When he agrees that you should be able, point this out:
"Both these examples are considered 'fair use' under case law but are being made illegal under the SSSCA. Hardware manufacturers will be forced to make copying for any purpose impossible without expressed permission."
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
Re:Hypothetical Questions (Score:1)
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
I don't agree, and I wonder if you'd care to explain yours.
Re:Hypothetical Questions (Score:2)
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
> I don't agree, and I wonder if you'd care to explain yours.
Here's an explaination of fair use [njit.edu].
Under the SSSCA, hardware manufacturers will have to incorporate copy protection into the hardware. How this protection works will ultimately depend on industry standards, but the obvious intention is to prevent all copying. So, if you buy a game for your computer and want to make a copy, the hardware will prevent you, by law. This would occur even though "fair use" would allow you to make copies. That's one reason why the SSSCA goes too far.
Re:Hypothetical Questions (Score:1)
So, if you buy a game for your computer and want to make a copy, the hardware will prevent you, by law. This would occur even though "fair use" would allow you to make copies. That's one reason why the SSSCA goes too far.
I just don't buy it. That argument failed for the DMCA, and it'll fail for the SSSCA all over again. Fair use is about the right to make copies. It's not about the right to buy and sell devices which facilitate making those copies.
My problem with the SSSCA has very little to do with any perceived rights to make copies of copyrighted works. It has to do with my right to make and sell computer hardware and software without worrying about implementing some harebrained technology. Ensure to me that x86 compatibles running open source software and connecting to each other all over the world using TCP/IP will be legal to make, use, sell, etc., and I don't give a shit what Microsoft and Adobe and Disney and VA Software do.
If software companies want to take away my ability to make backup copies, let 'em. If musicians want to take away my ability to listen to mp3s in my car, go ahead. I'll find alternatives. But when the federal government threatens to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot make and sell. Well, that I have a problem with.
The DMCA does that to some extent, but the DMCA only applies to hardware and software designed specifically to facilitate copyright infringement. I really don't have any desire to design such things, and I don't see any reason why anyone else should have a right to either.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR (Score:2)
What about our rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, it feels like the laws are specifically being passed so that we, the consumers (and tax payers) are legally inclined to pay the MPAA and the RIAA money for absurd reasons. For example, if a DVD I bought gets scratched, I am forced to buy a new one or not watch the movie, all thanks to the DMCA. There isn't a provision that declares that I, as an individual, have the right to take necessary steps to back up the products I invested in. Instead, the big corps were given the right to lock up their precious content and force me to pay again for content I already paid once for.
Why isn't the government looking to preserve our individual rights before passing laws to help out corporations? Please tell me it's not because we're not paying the gov't enough money. 30% of my yearly income goes straight to the federal government.
Re:What about our rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA makes it illegal for you tor RECOVER a damaged DVD using any but the most primative methods. That's more of a catcher than 'backing up' a DVD. Few people would see fit to 'back up' a perfectly good DVD, but many people might get raised hackles at the prospect of being legally prevented from recovering a damaged one.
I would also suggest a more direct question. The question that I would ask would be more along the lines of:
Re:you'd never ask this question (Score:2)
B.) What's wrong with what I asked? If you're going to say what I said is stupid, how about backing that claim up? If it's stupid, fine, but give me reason so I can understand why.
Re:you'd never ask this question (Score:2)
The problem is that it's not really a question, it's an angry rant with a few questions thrown in to disguise it as questions. I suppose it all depends on whether you want to ask questions, or whether you want to deliver a lecture.
Re:you'd never ask this question (Score:2)
I personally don't believe that this whole piracy issue can be sorted out until the law spells out what we can legally do. If the law says that we can legally backup a DVD, for example, then the law says that somebody copying a DVD is not a pirate.
Unfortunately, I got a little heated when I started writing that, so I have no doubt that I wasn't very good at expressing myself.
Re:you'd never ask this question (Score:1)
"Mr. Senator, why are the rights of the corporations (who aren't really people, btw...) being considered before the rights of the voting public?"
because every thinking person in the room would (rightly) see that your question was in reality a famebait rant. And when you saw the disgusted look on his face after hearing your first line, you'd realize how stupid and flamebait your question is, finish it early, and sit down.
2)your question is stupid because it is a flamebait rant that would be impossible for anyone to really give an answer to in a 'town meeting'-typ setting. You make alot of broad statements, like the one quoted above, that are prenthetical to the specific issue of the DCMA (and are insulting to anyone in goverment: you're basically calling him corrupt). All he would do is make a few broad statements about not being owned by corporations and having people's rights in mind when he voted for the DCMA, and move on to someone else.
I shouldn't have just posted 'your question is stupid'...that was pretty stupid on my part. See my post "I've Questioned a Senator before" for more on why I can say this with some authority.
Re:you'd never ask this question (Score:2)
I'm just really frustrated that the Gov't is going at this backwards. I'd really like our rights defined before they go passing stupid laws like the DMCA.
Project Vote Smart (Score:2)
The other dude (Score:1)
What questions might Cheek ask also?
Broadband Caping (Score:1)
I've questioned a Senator before (Score:3, Informative)
At the end of the talk, we were allowed to ask questions on any topic, and I got to see first hand what questions work and what questions fail.
Your question needs to be pointed, but not too specific because believe it or not, a congressman votes on alot of bills everyday, and he doesn't have time to read all of them in depth, that's why he has a staff.
So a question like "line 2 paragraph 8 of the DMCA says this, but...." won't cut it, he won't know what the hell you're talking about. But if you are too broad, he will just ramble on about nothing for 2 minutes and then move on to another question.
The best thing for you to do is present one or two simple and well-documented problems/weaknesses with the DCMA, and then ask him how he thinks the problems could be solved.
And, damn, this is the most important of all...don't buy into the media's portrayal of all government officials being corrupt...give the man the benefit of the doubt and give him the respect he deserves
Correction (Score:1)
A view from outside the US (Score:2)
Given the amount of times industry financing of congressmen's and senators' campaigns are mentioned I would suggest asking a pertinent question on campaign finance!
To this casual observer that seems to be at the root of a lot of the problems the hacker community are facing over there.
The Ultimate Question for *any* politician.... (Score:1)
I asked my state rep. that question in front of a room full of people, and pretty much left him speachless. It was a beautiful thing.
voting record and statements (Score:1)
Re:First JESUS ROCKS!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Two Nuns walked into a bar. "Ouch".
Re:why bother? (Score:2)
We will likely see no change in our party system as long as we have a voting system which specifically rewards it. That must be redesigned first.