Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM 38

Posted by Hemos from the political-support dept.
Dark Nexus writes "Wired is running an article on a woman in North Carolina who has chosen to run against Howard Coble, who has come out against P2P networks. She said that she was sick of "individual rights sacrificed for big corporate politics" and is campaigning for digital rights to be preserved. A quote from her weblog: "I have put myself in the bullseye to stand up for our rights as free thinking citizens." It's about time someone stood up and tried to run against one of Hollywood's Congressmen on Hollywood's key issues." Update: 08/23 21:10 GMT by M : We're getting enough submissions of this story that we're probably going to post it on the front page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM More

Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM

Comments Filter:
  • Which congressmen/women are *not* in the MPAA's back pocket. She hasn't been elected yet.

    Everybody seems to forget that their is one *big* difference between the MPAA and the RIAA. The difference is the MPAA's connection to the Mafia. If the MPAA doesn't want somebody to be elected, then that person won't be elected. The mafia will assure that.

    The RIAA doesn't have as strong of a connection. Don't pass this off as my stupid speculation, this is a widely known fact.

  • VOTE!!!

    If you're old enough, but not registered, do so NOW! It'll ensure paperwork is completed in time. To register, visit your local city hall or call them for more info.

    Lastly, on Election Day, GO TO THE BALLOT! You'll receive a ton of mail reminding you, mostly campaign-related, but also something from your county on where to go.
    • Don't just do that.

      If you have the time, volunteer!

      This is very much a grass roots candidate. She'll be running against VERY deep pockets since she's up against one of Hollywood's bigboys.

      Getting the geeks out to vote isn't enough on it's own, she has to capture some of the popular vote. If she makes even a decent showing without winning, it might just send a message to Washington.

      I don't expect she'll win. But if she does better than expected, it'll help get more people involved in future elections. Maybe at the next one, we'll see a larger number of candidates standing up against Hollywood.
    • a bit more info --

      If you're about to turn 18, make sure that there's enough time between your birthday and Election Day to get registered. For example, if your b-day is 10/31, you _will_not_ be able to vote if you register 11/1.

      Why I say that -- My b-day is in March. Two weeks after my 18th b-day was a school-board ballot on a major decision, something that requires voter approval/disapproval. I registered on/about 3/26, but was not able to vote as my registration had not yet gone through.

      Didnt matter that I didnt vote in that case - the vote was highly favoring of one side. But we've seen an example in recent years of why your one-vote is important -- The 2000 Presidental Election fiasco. And I dont just limit this to Florida, as I think other states had either Dubya or Gore win by small margins. Another good example, although fictitious, is an episode of the Simpsons where a vote passed by a single vote, and Marge critisized Homer for not voting. Homer's replied "eh! it wouldnt have mattered."
  • I think it's strange how arbitrary it is that congressmen can end up on commitees that have little to do with their homestate. How would a North Carolina congressman get a copyright related chair in front of one from California, Texas, New York or Washington?
    • The chairs are elected positions, which usually end up being appointed by each party, ususlly on seniority. People with an interest can usually get a committee that they wish to, with the execption if House Ways & Means, House Rules, Senate Finance, and Both Oversight there are others but they are similarly powerful committees. Those are the ones that usually decide funding for a large part of the government, so everyone wants to be on them. The newly elected congresswoman, if she were to win the election would not inherit the commitees of the outgoing congressman, since they usually have quite a bit less seniority. Also since the senate has fewer commitees, senators ususally serve on several, while house memebers only have a few committees they sit.
      • My question is why would a North Carolina have an "interest" in this committee? Wouldn't a congressman on a committee that has nothing to do with a key issue of their constituency be less effective pursuing her/his agenda? With the exception of the "famous" committees you mention, I don't how money or clout can flow to a given congressman unless she/he directly benefits via her/his regional political base.
        • Not knowing anything about the congressman from NC, I would guess he is just marking time to get to a better committee. Unless he has sufficient seniority to have some choice, in that case he either feels that the increased campaign contributions that can come from a media committee outweigh the contributions/votes that could come from a committee that was more directly tied to NC. Media companies are more consolidated, which increases costs to free riders. However the above is simply a guess, made by looking at the possible incetives.

  • Contributions (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DLWormwood ( 154934 )
    The end of the article mentions that part of the issue facing the Tech community is that we don't have financial contributors and lobby groups. What the article fails to realize is that many in the movement (at least here on /., anyway) oppose such activity as cheating and corruption.

    Question: Which is more important, the end of such corruption in politics, or the assertion of digital rights?

    • Re:Contributions (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Exotabe ( 601787 )
      Question: Which is more important, the end of such corruption in politics, or the assertion of digital rights?

      Answer: Both. There's never been as great a need to end corporate influence over government as there is today. With the advent of the net, we have more to lose as a society (as a world) than ever before.

      That being said, don't stop asserting digital rights. Furthermore, if you're serious about stopping political corruption now instead of later, take a look at the Clean Election [publicampaign.org] movement. Cut out the campaign contributions and you instantly relieve the stranglehold that corporations have over government.
    • The problem is that there are, on any given day, thousands and thousands of people clamoring for the undivided attention of one congressman. Even worse, unless you work for a known lobby of some sort, most people assume you speak only for yourself and maybe a few of your friends.

      To get past the various layers of aides and help, even to get your name mentioned to your congressman, you need to make them believe you represent a lot of their constituents... or, if not that, at least a lot of the constituents who VOTE. You also need to convince them that you are really serious about this, and that the issue matters to you a great deal. One way of doing this is with money. Donating $1000 to your Senator tells him "My problem is worth at least $1000, if you solve it for me." Getting 50 like-minded individuals together, forming a non-profit, and having them all donate money too... that will get you noticed. Maybe not by the congressman, but by someone who will bring your problems to his attention. I'm not a big advocate of the money-for-votes philosophy, but it doesn't HAVE to be the same thing as corruption.

      I'm just not entirely sure what you have against lobbying groups. It's simply not possible to have a democracy with 150 million citizens. The closest we can get is the representative kind, which is what we have, and SIGs and their ilk HELP the little guy. (Environmentalists make up a pretty small percentage of the total population of the country, but because of big lobbying groups they often get their way.)
      • I'm just not entirely sure what you have against lobbying groups. It's simply not possible to have a democracy with 150 million citizens. The closest we can get is the representative kind, which is what we have, and SIGs and their ilk HELP the little guy. (Environmentalists make up a pretty small percentage of the total population of the country, but because of big lobbying groups they often get their way.)

        I'm not against lobbies per se, but the population as a whole is not equally represented by them. Demographic groups with less money, or who have a philosophical opposition to spending it on politics (like many in the OS movement), are at a disadvantage. This leads to the popular perception of lobbies no longer being the voice of "the little guy."

        As a hypothetical example, a Bible Belter who thinks he can no longer take his camper to a national park due to environmental advocacy thinks his lifestyle is being looked down upon by "those rich, lazy, Gaia-worshiping Hollywood types." Unions also are suffering this problem. Originally organized to help labor to stand on equal footing with management, unionization didn't happen industrywide but only in certain sectors. As a result, unions are now widely perceived by non-unionmembers to be run by underworld interests and made to keep the paychecks of "lazy" workers unreasonably high.

        It doesn't matter that much of the accusations are exaggerations and/or outright lies, organizations are susceptable to negative perceptions. Those in the Open Source movement are already accused of being "pirates" and "anti-capitalist"; going the lobby route will only convince their political enemies (and the politically apathetic, sadly) that Open Sourcers are discontent insurrectionists.

        I wish I had a solution. All I can say is if the EFF or whomever is serious about being the Digital Rights Lobby, they will need to preemptively address and correct any negative perceptions before they will be accepted as a political force by politicians.

  • Considering the influence of the ??AA and other media organizations on legislation these days, I'm pretty sure that the "D" and "R" actually refer to "Disneycrats" and "Ruperticans*"

    Naturally, because the candidate in question is neither Disneycrat nor Rupertican, her chances of even having a major showing, let alone a win, are already dismissed in the article, which in my opinion is a sad reminder of one of the major "facilitating" aspects of the current problems in the existing system in the US...expect to see a lot of real-world replays of the Simpson's infamous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" disclaimer after then next round of elections regardless of who wins...

    (For the few who may read this who aren't unredeemably convinced otherwise, I should mention that in my opinion, your personal vote for any "3rd party" candidate makes MORE difference than your vote for Disneycrats or Ruperticans. Consider that a "3rd party" only needs to make a substantial showing to "influence" political policy - if the Libertarians, for example, got 20% of the vote, they certainly wouldn't "win", but "the two parties" would almost certainly moderate their policies, at least in the open, in a "libertarian direction" in an attempt to "win back" some of that chunk...also consider that your one vote for the candidate who gets a total of 10,000 votes is 100 times more influential than your one vote for a candidate who gets 1,000,000...)

    *-referring to Rupert Murdoch, of course...

    • I was a little young then, so could you enlighten me on how Ross Perot's 20% in 1992 influenced the two parties (other than taking the majority of that 20% from the Pubs)? Not being a smartass -- it's a serious question.
      • I'm a little hazy on that myself, but Perot no doubt set up the conditions for the Contract with America and a whole lot of limited-government, more-accountability electioneering. That in turn led to the Republicans capturing the House of Representatives in 1994 (with some help from Clinton's utter cluelessness on the issues of energy policy and health care). Perot dragged the Republican party away from the Religious Right for a little while and toward a more consistent stance on limited and efficient government (rather than "limited only where it doesn't offend our preachers"); unfortunately, it has fallen back.
      • I was a little young then, so could you enlighten me on how Ross Perot's 20% in 1992 influenced the two parties (other than taking the majority of that 20% from the Pubs)? Not being a smartass -- it's a serious question.

        1. Ross Perot did not take the majority away from the Republicans. One of the very interesting things about his campaign was that roughly as many democrats voted for him as republicans. He didn't cost George Bush Senior the election, George Bush Senior cost himself the election, by being completely and utterly out of touch with America, to the point that when he visited a grocery store and saw the laser scanning bar code reader he commented on that remarkable technology that was 'making America more effecient' ... a technology that had been around for a decade or two by then and was familiar to anyone who ever bothered to go out and shop for themselves.

        2. Ross Perot influenced both parties thusly:

        Democrats would discuss balancing the budget, but state that certain programs (mostly social and educational) were a higher priority.

        Republicans would discuss balancing the budget, but state that certain programs (mostly defense and drug war) were a higher priority.

        Ross Perot came along and discussed balancing the budget in his famous "it's time to pay the piper" manner, and stated in terms everyone could understand that nothing was more important than getting our fiscal house in order.

        Although he likely wouldn't have made a very good president, he was right. And many agreed, so many that he won 20% of the vote in a two party system where voting for a third party is widely (and erroneously) equated with "wasting your vote."

        It shocked both the democrats and the republicans, both of which fell over each other trying (and succeeding) in balancing the budget. The budget remained balanced until George W. Bush took office, cut taxes in a manner which was widely considered to be fiscally irresponsible, followed the events of 9/11 which led to increased spending and, and further exacerbated by the numerous corporate scandals and subsequent short-circuiting of the economic recovery which reduced revinue even more.

        For several years it was Ross Perot's single campaign plank, balance the budget, that drove the agendas of both major parties, almost entirely as a result of his winning 20% of the votes and shocking both parties deeply, to the core.

        Of course, after the Republican's attack dog Bucchanon sabataged and destroyed the third party Ross Perot founded we are now largely back to business as usual, with another segment of the electorate that, for a brief time, thought they could actually effect change, having joined the growing ranks of the disillusioned.
        • The budget remained balanced until George W. Bush took office, cut taxes in a manner which was widely considered to be fiscally irresponsible, followed the events of 9/11 which led to increased spending and, and further exacerbated by the numerous corporate scandals and subsequent short-circuiting of the economic recovery which reduced revinue even more.
          Au contraire, the budget was in surplus due to the bubble-economy of the Internet boom and the opposition between Republicans in the Congress and Clinton in the White House which kept them from agreeing on ways to spend all the revenue. (Gridlock is very often a good thing.) Bush I lost the election in no small part because of his tax increase (after running on a "No new taxes" pledge) and the recession it started; the recession was already going away in November 1992, but Clinton won the election anyway (and then he got to take credit for the expansion which followed). Clinton's poorly-advised "economic stimulus program" (pork-barrel spending) barely got out the door, and then there was 6 years of relatively stable economic policy, a welfare reform package which turned a lot of tax-consumers into taxpayers, and the aforementioned gridlock.

          We would have lost the surplus anyway due to the bursting of the bubble economy; all you have to do to prove that to yourself is to look at the tax collections of the states, whether they cut taxes or not. They were also riding high on the capital-gains taxes of the .com economy, and when the .coms .bombed they went the same way as Washington; Bush II's tax cuts had nothing whatsoever do to with it, and could not have because the vast majority of them haven't even taken effect yet.

          I do agree that we could be fighting the war against terrorism a lot more cheaply. The way to get rid of terrorists is to discredit the fundamentalists who need it to prop up their mind-share; we should be going after that entire segment of Asia with news reporting on shortwave and TV, education in the English language, and cultural propaganda in the form of Locke, Payne, Thoreau, Vogue and Playboy.

        • His showing also shocked the two parties into changine election policies, such as to make sure no third-party candidate gets in on the presidential debates in '96. It is impossible to make a good showing without being in the debates, so they eliminated him.



          And don't forget the recent campaign finance laws, made to make it harder for other parties to raise money.

    • our personal vote for any "3rd party" candidate makes MORE difference than your vote for Disneycrats or Ruperticans. Consider that a "3rd party" only needs to make a substantial showing to "influence" political policy - if the Libertarians, for example, got 20% of the vote, they certainly wouldn't "win", but "the two parties" would almost certainly moderate their policies, at least in the open, in a "libertarian direction" in an attempt to "win back" some of that chunk

      yes! This cannot be stressed enough! Most new political ideas come from the "third parties" and are later adopted reluctantly by the Democrats and Republicans. Those parties want the STATUS QUO, not new ideas that threaten their cushy jobs and sweet campaign financing from big business.

      Third party candidates (such as Ralph Nader) are not spoilers. The two main candidates' political platforms are spoiling their elections for them. In 2004, do you think Al Gore will become more right/moderate in an attempt to steal votes from Bush? or will Gore try to sound more liberal in an attempt to steal Ralph Nader votes?

      anyways, I'll be voting for Jesse Ventura in 2004.. ;-)

  • Anybody know of any good way to find out whos running for write-in or third party votes in my district? I really don't ever hear about these things on the local level.
  • Who is Coble's Democratic Opponent?

    Anybody know where they stand on user rights?
    • RTFA. There is none.

      Aside from Grubb, Coble remains unopposed for re-election this fall. A spokesman for the North Carolina Democratic Party said the party doesn't recruit candidates. Aspiring contenders have reason to balk: Redistricting in the area has removed many traditionally Democratic neighborhoods from Coble's 6th Congressional District.

      Translation: The democrats ahve been gerrymandered out of the district.
    • Brace yourself -- Nobody! He is running unopposed (until now, any way).
  • We're getting enough submissions of this story that we're probably going to post it on the front page.

    Apparently so! [slashdot.org]

  • She was a lot fucking cooler when "Manilla" wasn't plastered everywhere... And userland.com with their $899 web application was a silent partner.

    I like what she has to say, not the political bullshit of how the site is ran.

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close