Hollings vs. McCain on Broadband and Copyrights 174
tabdelgawad writes "The Washington Post has a mostly speculative article on the effects of John McCain (R-AR) replacing Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings (D-SC) as chairman of the powerful senate Commerce Committee. Topics in the article include the future of pending broadband and copyright legislation as well as the Senate's relationship with the FCC. Best quote from the article belongs to ITAA president Harris Miller: 'If Jack Valenti had been around at the time of Gutenberg he would have organized the monks to come and burn down the printing press' :-)."
Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe, but a funny anecdote from 220 years earlier: When Ghengis (not yet Khan) led the first Mongol exploratory expedition into the wild western lands, around 1220, one of the ways that the explorers supported themselves was by bringing along a troop of Korean printers. They made cheap printed editions of the Koran and Bible as they went, and sold them to the locals. This was, of course, one of the things that got them labelled as demons, since they were undercutting the monopoly that the local religious establishment had on these books.
But it had no effect in Western Europe, since the Mongol troop didn't get that far. And, of course, technology already in common use in Asia was not considered real by Europeans, even after demos.
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:1)
P.S.-> I don't like Valenti much either but comparing him to a Nazi book burner is disrespectful to the REAL oppression that took place in Nazi Germany. I'm sorry but Valenti's attempts to prevent you from downloading movies because you don't feel like paying for them is not in the same universe as Nazi bookburning... besides Valenti never said you can't make your own movie and give it away, he just doesn't want you to swap other people's movies online (for good or ill)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:1)
Ok, it used to. But we can have that again if only we get some DRM controls and force those damned independants to buy a license so they can distribute movies.
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:2)
Also, I don't think that it applies to actual discussions of WWII or the real Nazis.
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:1)
No, but there is a corollary that says you cannot intentionally invoke Godwin's Law just to get people to shut up.
He isn't? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the future, I suspect that MPAA and RIAA will try to make it impossible to distribute independently-created media without an expensive "anti-piracy" audit, just as license audits are used to shake down schools and businesses today.
Bruce
But i DID pay for it (Score:1)
I'm sorry but Valenti's attempts to prevent you from downloading movies because you don't feel like paying for them is not in the same universe as Nazi bookburning
But I did pay for this genuine copy of a DVD Video title. Why can't I live in the United States write and distribute a program to play it on the GNU/Linux system? Why is the DMCA worded the way it is?
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:1)
Sorry. Maybe someone will drop a couple of dollars into my penny jar and I'll have enough to rent the movie, that is, while renting is still legal. But I'd still be morally conflicted.
But then again, there's this shop down the street sporting a swastika that keeps telling me they'll let me read all about the truth for free. I don't go there because the people scare me, though. I guess some truth is better than none, however.
I'll check it out next week and get back to you.
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:2)
How you prevent people from reading something -- be it by book-burning or court orders -- is irrelevant. Destroying information only indicates that you are afraid of the ideas it contains, and is wrong.
On a side note, it is obvious to me that the German's (and I regret in regards to this instance to say I am a German American) obviously haven't learning anything from Hitler and the Nazi-era. They continue banning the distribution of books who's ideas they don't like. Now, its "Mein Kampf" and other nazi-books which are banned in Germany. Banning "bad books" is just as bad as banning any other kind of books, because who's to decide what's a good and a bad book?
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:1, Troll)
READ THIS KEYNOTE ADDRESS [politechbot.com] for an intelligent, no-bullshit media industry view on disruptive technologies such as napster.
Re:Nope, Jack Valentini... (Score:2)
No, Jack Valenti, would have built a fence around the fire, posted guards, and made everyone show a reciept for the books they wanted to burn. Can't have people burning illegal copies.
Damn... (Score:2)
Re:Damn... (Score:2)
Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a bad thing for opponents of the DMCA.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:4, Insightful)
McCain's opponents accuse him of being a liberal because he had the audacity to run against the interests of some of the Republican party's leaders. They're still angry.
His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.
Give us some examples. The American Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action, two diametrically opposed organizations both rank his voting record as highly conservative. I'm a liberal Democrat and I would love it if McCain turned Democrat, but it sure as hell hasn't happened.
Do you have any evidence to base these absurd beliefs on? Any whatsoever?
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
The senator doesn't apologize for aggressively pushing his agenda, much of it at odds with the White House.
By MARY JACOBY
St. Petersburg Times, published February 18, 2001
WASHINGTON -- Is now the winter of John McCain's discontent?
This is no small question for the Bush administration and its allies, who are keeping a wary eye on the Arizona senator for signs he is plotting to steal the crown.
In the minds of McCain's detractors in Washington, the unsuccessful 2000 Republican presidential candidate is living out a kind of Shakespearean tragedy, not unlike some modern-day Richard III, consumed with bitterness and in pursuit of power at all costs.
It has not even been a month since President Bush was sworn into office, and McCain is already working against his party leadership on two high-profile issues: managed care reform and gun control.
"He has charted a course of action absolutely designed to put him at odds with President Bush and the Republican congressional leadership," conservative activist Paul Weyrich said. "There's no question it is going to undermine the president's agenda."
Or, as Shakespeare's treacherous Richard put it, "I am determined to prove a villain." This line about sums up how anti-McCain Republicans feel about the Arizona senator's recent actions:
McCain has joined liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in sponsoring a managed care reform bill that Bush opposes. Conservatives say the bill needs more restrictions on the rights of patients to sue health maintenance organizations for negligence.
But liberals, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, strongly back the legislation. "Say the word, President Bush, and we can make this bill law," the New York Democrat said in her maiden Senate floor speech last week.
With the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, McCain has reintroduced legislation to impose a waiting period on purchases of weapons at gun shows, crossing another ideological line in the sand for conservatives, who prefer instant background checks instead.
McCain has said he has enough votes to block a Republican filibuster on his signature issue, campaign finance reform. Republican leaders are ferociously opposed to the bill's comprehensive ban on unregulated "soft money" contributions. The GOP says the ban would put it at a disadvantage with labor union-backed Democrats at election time.
With his Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, McCain is holding town hall meetings on campaign finance reform in the states of Republican senators who do not support his version.
The pressure tactic infuriated Arkansas Sen. Tim Hutchinson, who faces a difficult re-election campaign in 2002. McCain promoted potential Democratic challengers to Hutchinson by inviting them onto stage during his forum last month in Little Rock.
"People think they'll cause trouble, and they're frustrated," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said of McCain's Democratic-backed initiatives. "But I don't know how they'll play out."
Weyrich calls McCain's agenda "a deliberate strategy to set himself up for the next (presidential) election" and "retribution for the fact he lost the Republican nomination in 2000."
Yet McCain has said he does not intend to run again for president. His advisers say it would be foolhardy to challenge the incumbent for the Republican nomination in 2004.
His next realistic shot at the White House would be 2008. But by then McCain, who has battled skin cancer, would be 72 and perhaps too old to mount another campaign.
McCain laughs off criticism. "I'm there with the Trotskyites, the communists and the media," he said, trotting out an old line from the presidential campaign to describe how other Republicans view him.
His intention, aides say, is not to undermine Bush or position himself for another presidential bid. It is simply to break partisan gridlock and get things done.
"McCain is an activist legislator," said the senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter. "This is about bipartisanship. He's going to do what he can before he's out of public life."
Yet the bad blood between the two camps is unmistakable.
There is no contact on a staff level between the Bush administration and McCain's office, although regular communication could diffuse tensions. And McCain loyalists complain they are being frozen out of the hundreds of political jobs that open up in the executive branch with a change of administration.
The behind-the-scenes tug-of-war was on display earlier this month over McCain's managed care bill. Bush opposes that bill because it allows patients to sue health maintenance organizations in state courts, where awards tend to be bigger than in federal courts.
As McCain was preparing to unveil the managed care bill he crafted with Kennedy and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., top Bush adviser Karl Rove called a key House Republican to the White House.
Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., who had been the most high-profile House GOP backer of the so-called patient's bill of rights, later announced he was reserving judgment on the legislation he had championed so heavily in the last Congress.
According to reports, Rove also asked Norwood not to attend McCain's Feb. 6 press conference on the bill.
"We emphasized to the congressman, as well as others, that the president deserves his chance to put forward a patient bill of rights that is going to be strong and bipartisan," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said of the Norwood meeting.
Fleischer said conflicts with McCain were "not an issue." Then he chided the press corps for dwelling on the Norwood defection.
"This is part of old Washington versus new Washington," Fleischer said. "In a new Washington, which President Bush is going to try his hardest to create, you just put your head down and you work with people."
To which a White House scribe rejoined, "So you won't tell any more people not to attend press conferences in the future?"
The consensus among establishment Republicans is that Norwood made a smart move. The junior House member has shown himself to be a team player and can expect Bush to return the favor one day.
What irritates the GOP establishment is that McCain does not play the same game. He seems almost quixotically independent. He is the only Republican senator, for example, not to endorse recently defeated GOP Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington for a federal judgeship.
Yet his loose-cannon quality is also the source of his popularity, which McCain clearly hopes will translate into legislative power.
As the surprise winner of last year's New Hampshire and Michigan GOP presidential primaries, McCain claims a mandate from the independent and centrist voters who propelled his candidacy against a vastly better funded Bush.
The anti-candidate who refused to be scripted and campaigned in a bus dubbed the Straight-Talk Express is striving to remain true to expectations.
The problem, though, is that the confrontational style that made him into a political celebrity hampers his ability to cultivate the allies he needs in Congress to pass legislation.
Republican Rep. Ric Keller, who won an Orlando-area seat by only 5,000 votes, is one of 13 House Republican freshmen who are not supporting McCain's campaign finance bill, even after the Arizona senator campaigned for them last fall.
Keller has told supporters in Washington that he was angered by McCain's characterization of his position on the bill as "bulls---" to a reporter the day before the election.
Like Bush, Keller supports a concept called "paycheck protection," which would prevent labor unions from using a member's dues for partisan political purposes without getting permission. McCain left this provision out of his bill because Democrats are inalterably opposed.
Keller confirmed that McCain had made the comment to the reporter but insisted there were no hard feelings. "I'm a huge fan of him on a personal level," he said.
But, Keller added: "I don't think it's fair to say because McCain campaigned for you, you have to vote with him 100 percent of the time."
Similarly, freshman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., won an open seat by only 111 votes after McCain campaigned for him.
But Rogers told the Detroit News that he would not support McCain's campaign finance bill, in part because he believes Bush should be driving the Republican agenda.
"You can be disruptive to a point where it has a negative impact on the good things that need to be done," Rogers said. "Somebody needs to remind (McCain) that he lost."
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
I am not attacking McCain - Merely observing that since this article was published He's been consistant on Standing up to the GOP.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
Organizations that track voting records show that for the most part he votes conservative.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
See this post [slashdot.org].
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:5, Informative)
Neither organization would consider McCain's 2001 year to be "highly conservative." The American Conservative Union rates senators on this page [conservative.org]. A higher rating means more conservative. For example, Arizona Republican John Kyl scores a 100 (very conservative) while California Democrat Barbara Boxer scores a 0 (very liberal). Senator McCain scored a 68 in 2001. In 2000 he scored 81 and his lifetime rating is 84. He is obviously becoming more liberal by these ratings.
McCain wasn't the lowest scoring Republican, as Sen. Spector from PA and both the Maine senators scored lower. McCain also scored higher than any democrat, the most conservative of whom is GA's Miller, with a score of 60. For reference, Sen. Lott scored 96 and Sen. Frist scored 100, while Sen. Daschle scored an 8 and Sen. Kennedy scored 4. So, by ACU standards, he is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, though he should not be called a liberal.
The Americans for Democratic Action have a similar system, but they score it oppositely: a rating of 0 = very conservative and a rating of 100 = very liberal. You can see a .PDF file of the 2001 ratings on this page [adaction.org]. Sen. McCain scored a 40, higher than the lowest Democrat (Sen. Miller of GA) who scored a 35. By ADA reckoning, McCain was tied for the most liberal Republican Senator (with Spector (PA) and Sen. Snowe (ME)).
His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.
Give us some examples.
The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Act [senate.gov]. This act was assailed by many conservatives as being unconstitutional and giving incumbants free reign in their campaigns.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
First of all, that's one example, not some. Second of all it doesn't count as "post-election" as he's been pushing it for years. Thirdly it has nothing whatsoever to do with conservative or liberal ideology, it's just that the Republicans would hate to lose their massive campaign war chest advantage.
I'd guess a large amount of average conservative voters support campaign finance reform. It's the Republican leadership which is against it, for the aforementioned leaders. That's what I mean when I say McCain isn't a Democrat in Republican's clothing, he's just annoyed the Republican leadership and thus is accused of it.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
And you ignore the rest of the post showing that McCain isn't "highly conservative" as you say, but would more properly be termed a moderate.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
These urls I believe are accurate representations on his voting record.
No he is not a radical conservative like Ronald Reagon or Trent Lott but a moderate.
You know there is such a thing as a moderate. democrats like Bill Clinton and republicans like McCain as well as Nixon and Ford are moderates. Obviously a moderate from one party will still have a different record from someone on the other but that does not make McCain a liberal.
The republican party has went so far to the right thanks to Reagon and the christian coalition that any moderate is viewed as a liberal. Those on the far right fear moderatism because they will lose power. How can abortion be outlawed with soft money from right-to-life being limited? This is why many on the right fear him and view him as a liberal. Its absurd. If Nixon ran today, my guess the christian coalition and his own republican party would rail agaisnt him as a liberal out to destroy the republican party and America.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
McCain doesn't need to turn democrat. He is fine as republican with independent leanings (as far voting records, not as far as turning independent or democrat). This bipartasinship (he should turn democrat) is ridiculous. Luckily the country seems to be ever so gradually moving away from it, but it will take a long, long time. In the meantime, McCain will do an excellent job at this position. Even if he doesn't, he couldn't be worse than Hollings, who is nothing more than a pushover for the MPAA and RIAA. My God, such a spineless man should never have been made a Senator.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
I fund a liberal.
I found one !
Really? Which liberal are you funding?
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:5, Funny)
From the looks of my 1040 this year, all of them.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
You just found two. (Score:1)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I thought this petty viciousness against McCain had ended after he lost the primary in 2000. Can you offer any evidence to back up your assertions, or are you just parroting what someone told you on the radio?
I disagree with McCain on most issues. But McCain is an honorable man. He has certainly never stooped to dirty tricks like some other people I can think of.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:1)
Actually he seems great as far as politicians go (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain tends to take positions based on a populist stance--certainly the best way to do it in a democracy. Less so than most other politicians he listens to ALL voters--not just Republicans, or corporations, or lobby groups.
That's probably why the Post article is all wishy-washy. Normally you can count on a Democrat to bend over and take it in the butt from Jack (Valenti, or most others in the entertainment industry cartels) and for a Republican to bend over and take it from Bill (Gates, or the BSA or others trying to lock people into their tech IP).
McCain is going to be hard to pin down by the pundits because he'll be influenced by everyone and anyone, and the press in north America is very poor at correctly gauging what populist sentiment is--it tries to steer public opinion rather than follow it.
All in all, it is a promising move to have committees steered by those like McCain. The press AND government these days really have a problem listening to what the public wants...
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/profile.ph
Yeah, he's only voted with the Republicans every two out of three times, and has only voted for President Bush's proposals nine out of ten times. The horror!
Get your facts straight before you get all preachy about what so-and-so has done for the Beloved Party (either one).
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
(Sure... let's neglect all of his walks, and forget the fact that when he did hit, he hit more home runs than the average player did.)
Rarely in congress do they take recorded roll call votes on things that aren't going to pass. Futhermore, the party in control of Congress gets to control the agenda... one Republican committee head can roadblock a bill that all of the democrats plus McCain would have voted for, meaning a vote that would have shown McCain with the democrats doesn't happen, skewing your statistic.
Likewise, the President isn't stupid. He rarely directly asks Congress for something they're not willing to give him. Even if he does something that stupid, it's likely to die in committee, so again McCain doesn't get a chance to record a "nay" in a floor vote.
McCain is known for having the kind of influence that when he says "I'm not going to vote for that", other Republican senators who also disagree with the party see it as okay to break away from the party too. When the bill's sponsors see that their bill now doesn't have a majority behind it, they'll either withdraw the bill, or make the changes McCain and the other objectors are demanding. Neither of these actions show up on your public vote records, just like how drawing an intentional walk does something productive for the team, but does not get reflected in a batting average.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
McCain won't be as bad as Hollings. Hollings is the original "we must control your hardware" man and as such is one corporate flunky that I would love to see removed from politics.
The I think that many parts of the DMCA will be shot down in the Courts but Hollings is pushing for truly evil legislation that deals with us as consumers for the benefit of corporations. He seems to have forgotten that he is suppose to work for the good of the citizens not just the rich corporations.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:3, Informative)
Only 2 things are non republican about him.
1.) He is not aligned with the christian coalition or at least honestly admits that he disagrees with him. Most republicans will say they are christians when they are not so they will get funding from them.
2.) He hates corruption and believes both political parties work for the American people and not special interests or corporations. He only strikes down republican bills if there is alot of pork spending.
Big tobacco tried to oust McCain and even ran very negative campaign ads when no election was around!
Why? Because McCain supported the right of consumers and the government to sue big tobacco companies for increasing health care costs. He did not take this position to be an all lets save everyone liberal but hundreds of millions of taxpayer money is spent on healthcare for smoke related health issues.
McCain voted for a huge tax on big tobacco to make the difference for the costs. Many enemies in the republican party as well as lobbiests for Philip-Moris painted McCain as a big spending liberal. Behind closed doors all of McCains republican colleagues told him that Philip-morris would run negative campaign ads during the current non election year and give money to the democrats if they voted with him. His colleagues had no option but vote in favor of big tobacco. This angered McCain so much that he began to investigate the effects of soft-money had on our government. This is why he used it during the 2000 campaign.
The other time McCain got in trouble was a big pork spending bill that would benefit the then leader Trent Lotts home district. Lott wanted to buy yet more warships that the navy specifically requested it did not want because they had too many ships and too few crewman to run them. McCain attacked Lott as a spender and things got nasty. In the end the ship was built for over 100 million of our tax dollars.
McCain hates special interests and corruption and I am so thankful he will head the committee. He will care about our needs and will not buckle under pressure from the RIAA or MPAA. Republicans stronly believed in individual rights while liberals believed in group rights and big government. McCain I believe is our man.
do you really believe (Score:2)
We are better at software development, but we aren't as good at bribing, sueing, and libeling.
Re:Don't look for McCain to do good. (Score:2)
As a resident of Arizona (the state John McCain represents), my oppinion is that he isn't on a power trip, but rather that he's genuinely trying to do some good. Unfortunately for him, all Americans care about is party lines. While I try to ignore what party somebody is associated with and vote for whoever I think would do the best job, most Americans aren't like that at all. Democrats vote for Democrats, and back up whatever the Democratic Party says. Republicans vote for Republicans, and back up whatever the Republican Party says. Nobody seems to care about what is RIGHT, or what is BEST. Even when their party is obviously wrong, someone who tries to do the right thing and go against their party instead of just towing the party line is labeled a traitor to the cause.
I expect McCain to at least try to do what is best for the United States, rather than just be some corporation's lap dog like Hollings. Someone who is only interested in power wouldn't try to eliminate the huge source of campaign funding that is soft money, IMHO.
John McCain (R-AR) (Score:4, Informative)
John McCain (R-AR)
AR? I thought McCain was an Arizona senator. That's AZ.
Re:John McCain (R-AR) (Score:3, Funny)
An amateur mistake my good fellow. It is well known to political insiders like myself that McCain is in fact Royalty. He represents the most noble gas, Argon, and its 3 stable isotopes Argon 36, 38 and 40.
Re:John McCain (R-AR) (Score:2)
Re:John McCain (R-AR) (Score:1)
Yes, Arizona Republican.
Re:John McCain (R-AR) (Score:2)
Re:John McCain (R-ARRRRRR) (Score:2, Funny)
Pet Issues?? Piracy & backups down, DSL up?? (Score:2, Insightful)
oooh, anti-digital copying protection. This falls back to "closing the analog hole" discussion that we had before. It can't really be done because the last step from the tv/player to our eyes are analog, as some other people have stated before. Laws and technologies will put up barriers, but future technologies will overcome the barriers preventing us from legally having our backups.
Re:Pet Issues?? Piracy & backups down, DSL up? (Score:2)
I can see the future now. We will simply make it illegal to make backups. Think of all the extra money the corps will make by selling that content again and again to the same people. Think of all the extra money corps will have by not having to worry about buying tapes and drives and all that messy stuff. Catastrophic data loss? That's what insurance is for. And only we can afford it. The hapless consumers will just have to buy more, more, MORE!!
Weird, anyhting inside the left pointing arrow and the right pointing arrow simply does not appear.
Interresting Issue To Watch (Score:3, Insightful)
Small Government? Not at the Pentagon! (Score:1)
Re:Interresting Issue To Watch (Score:2)
Re:Interresting Issue To Watch (Score:2)
Senility, then Decreptitude (Score:3, Funny)
Before the page gets /. - ed (article repost) (Score:2, Informative)
By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, December 23, 2002; 7:47 AM
As the newly Republican Senate prepares to take office in January, high-tech lobbyists are anxiously waiting to see how the power shift affects the measures they care about most. In the Commerce Committee, which holds sway over a clutch of high-tech issues, Arizona Republican John McCain's return to the chairmanship could shift the balance in key debates over broadband and electronic copyright protection.
The Commerce Committee has done little more than release a brief statement detailing its plans for early 2003, promising examinations of spectrum policy, media takeovers, cable rates, broadband rules, telecom competition and intellectual property law. But staff members won't discuss McCain's positions on these topics.
McCain has a record of fighting passionate yet sometimes unsuccessful battles against legislative juggernauts that often originated in his own party, but tech industry lobbyists said that he is a shrewd practitioner of compromise and may bring that art to some of the most difficult debates facing the technology industry.
The Yankee Group, a Boston-based research firm, described McCain's approach to broadband policy as "pragmatic deregulation." One of McCain's staffers noted that while the senator believes in free competition, he favors "consumer interests above special interests."
Reed Hundt, who headed up the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997, said McCain's return to power on the committee wouldn't benefit any single group.
"He's pretty much an eclectic mix of policies when it comes to the FCC," Hundt said. "When I was at the FCC he was probably my best friend on 50 percent of the issues I cared about."
McCain in some ways occupies the opposite pole from outgoing Chairman Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.), a vital ally to those on his side of the ideological fence, and a fierce enemy to anyone on the other side.
That is not to say that the two men are completely different. Both are stalwart supporters of their parties, though McCain has frustrated and bedeviled many of his Senate Republican colleagues by bucking the party platform on big-money issues like campaign finance and tobacco. Hollings has tested the patience of senators of both parties because of his ardent, and usually intractable opinions on technology issues.
Each in his position on the committee has used the unique power that committee chairmen wield, but the technology industry in 2003 is preparing to focus on McCain, who could become the most powerful arbiter of the fates of telecommunications rules and the future of copyright and intellectual property on the Internet.
Booming Voices in Broadband
In the just-concluded session, the Commerce Committee considered several bills to make it easier for the traditional local phone companies -- the Baby Bells -- to sell high-speed digital subscriber-line services wherever they want. Hollings, a supporter of the long-distance companies and smaller firms that compete against the Bells, was no fan. When he was chairman, none of the proposals made it through the committee.
The Tauzin-Dingell Bill, named for Reps. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), was the most prominent legislation that Hollings helped squelch. It would have removed many of the regulations that stand between the Bells and the nationwide high-speed Internet access market.
After passing the House of Representatives, it ran into Hollings, who buried it. Some telecom industry representatives predicted that McCain will consign it to history and take another approach.
"The question is whether Sen. McCain would be more interested in drafting some kind of a compromise," said John Windhausen, president of the Association for Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS).
McCain last year took a stab at a compromise that gave the Baby Bells more freedom, but required them to make their services available to rural areas and places often considered poor investments. Hollings kept the bill down, instead writing legislation that would have authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in government handouts for broadband deployment without getting rid of any regulations.
U.S. Telecommunications Association (USTA) spokeswoman Allison Remsen said McCain's traditional stance on business matters favors Tauzin-Dingell supporters.
"I think he brings a different approach to the committee," Remsen said. "I think that he is going to look at the issues from more of a market-based approach and favors that over trying to heavily regulate competition."
Michael Boland, Verizon's senior lobbyist, said that the tussle between Hollings and the Tauzin-Dingell bill's supporters led to a deadlock on broadband.
Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), said that supporters of deregulation should not cheer too loudly. Any one senator has enough power to put a "hold" on a bill, Miller said, noting that Hollings and other foes of deregulation still could wield a big stick.
Former FCC Chairman Hundt said he doubted that the Hollings-McCain power shift would change the likelihood that lawmakers will take their own direct action on broadband in the next two years.
"It's a mixed bag if you're a Bell company or if you're AT&T," Hundt said of McCain. "It's not 'he's with us or he's against us."
Yankee Group Senior Analyst J.P. Gownder also warned that McCain is not a shoe-in for deregulation.
While he sees it as a useful tool, "he really is quite a populist," Gownder said. "He really wants to see the consumers benefit. When he sees deregulation to a bad deal for consumers he's really quite critical."
The FCC Connection
High-speed Internet access remains a congressional priority, but industry focus has shifted to the FCC, which is pushing for telecom deregulation along the lines of what what Tauzin and Dingell want.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has argued that consumers have plenty of high-speed access choices, and that it's time to rethink -- and maybe eliminate -- some of the rules that keep the Bells' DSL services in restricted markets. No less an authority than President Bush said that the White House will abide by Powell's decision.
Powell has less to worry about now that Hollings is not only out of the Commerce chair, but also of his role as chief of the Appropriations subcommittee in charge of FCC funding. Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-N.H.) will take the helm of that subcommittee from Hollings, who as chairman had repeatedly threatened to slash the FCC's budget.
Foes of the Baby Bells said that Gregg is no enemy, but he isn't the staunch ally when it comes to battling the local phone monopolies that Hollings was.
"We see him as taking a moderate position, but we can't say whether he's leaning [more] to one side or another," said ALTS's Windhausen.
ALTS, has Gregg listed as a "three" on a one-to-five scale that rates how friendly lawmakers are to competitive carriers. Hollings earns the highest rating of "one."
Hollings also will lose his chairmanship of the Commerce subcommittee that oversees the FCC's "reauthorization" bills, which determine the commission's agenda and scope. Reauthorization does not always affect the commission's budget, but has proven an effective vehicle for the committee to step up its oversight of the commission.
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) is expected to take the lead on the FCC's reauthorization, which is up this year, while Hollings likely will hold the ranking Democrat spot. Burns also has a higher opinion of Powell's deregulation tendencies than Hollings, noting in a press statement earlier this year "Powell's clear vision of where telecommunications needs to go in this country."
Although Hollings's threats to gut the FCC's funding were probably more hyperbolic than literal, they had the desired effect of slowing the pace of broadband deregulation, Gownder said.
"I think Michael Powell can certainly work with John McCain and vice versa," Gownder said.
Verizon's Boland added that Powell now "faces much less risk of congressional contravention so that he can now push his revisions of the current rules all the way through."
Guardian of Copyrights
If Hollings has been a tough opponent to the Bell companies, he has been seen as an ally to the movie studios and recording companies. McCain's return to the committee chair could herald a sea change in the debate.
Hollings's Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA) earned him the scorn of computer makers and free speech advocates because it would have forced them to include anti-digital copying devices in their products.
The opponents said the bill would transform their products into glorified DVD players, but Hollings heeded Hollywood and pushed hard to get the legislation passed.
"My intuitive sense is that it will have an effect, and one that Hollywood won't be that happy about," said Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn. "If the Chairman is the champion of your bill and he's no longer the chairman, obviously that takes the wind out of the sails over your bill."
Public Knowledge is one of many public interest groups that opposes Hollings's proposal, saying it threatens the consumer's right to "fair use" of copyrighted works, like making a personal copy of an album or a videocassette.
Sohn said the Hollings legislation probably wouldn't fit in with McCain's other policy stances. "McCain is generally deregulatory and that's good news for the opponents of this bill because it's as regulatory as it (gets)," Sohn said.
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti -- one of the most vocal supporters of efforts to bolster copyright protection -- said the Senate shift wouldn't hurt that cause.
"I don't think it affects the debate at all. The change in chairmanship does not affect the need to protect creative works from piracy," Valenti said.
The ITAA's Miller said the party swap could provide a small boon to opponents of the Hollings bill, but that its supporters still will push hard for it.
"I never want to underestimate the (MPAA's) ability to lobby these issues," Miller said. "If Jack Valenti had been around at the time of Gutenberg he would have organized the monks to come and burn down the printing press."
McCain, however, remains the big question mark.
"I don't think McCain is seen as being particularly dogmatic on the issue on one side or other," Miller said. "McCain is obviously skeptical about government mandating industry standards, but the (type of) thing he feels zealous about is campaign finance reform, not necessarily beating up Hollywood or alternatively beating up the Internet.
"A committee chairman can be a major point of obstruction if he says 'this is not going through me.' A chairman who feels strongly about an issue can be a difficult rock to climb over," he added.
If a chairman is a strong opponent of legislation that must pass through his committee, he or she often might squelch the measure, even if it is popular among a majority of lawmakers. Committee chairmen can also champion less popular causes that might not receive congressional attention without their patronage.
McCain's unwillingness to be pigeonholed on pet issues makes it difficult to predict how he'll address them, observers said.
"That's the fear for all of us. We don't know where McCain is going to come out on these issues." Windhausen said.
-- washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Robert MacMillan contributed to this report.
It's Christmas! (Score:5, Funny)
oh wait. shit.
Re:It's Christmas! (Score:2)
"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:4, Interesting)
The situation itself is IMO part of the problem with giving the public the right to choose their senators. It used to be that the states could keep their senators on a tight leash and guarantee the death of their political career if they acted so badly. Let's face it, the public doesn't have what it takes to reign in a politician this side of Hitler or Stalin.
One of the worst examples of compromise is Trent Lott. You all should have seen the joyous celebration at FreeRepublic when it was event hinted that he might resign. The man is not only a racist scumbag, but he compromised the values of every conservative and libertarian voter represented by the RP. I for one am glad as a (classical) Liberal to see him gone. The only thing that would make me happier is to see the 16th and 17th amendments repealed. The state legislatures need to be able to hold their senators' asses to the fire again to keep them from compromising on our rights.
There is one thing that I should mention on that note, one of the most overlooked problems with compromise on gun control is that it puts the public in a subordinate position, armamentwise, to the local police force. Look at Philadelphia, the land of brotherly love, where every black man is a suspect and much of the PD make the Gestapo look subtle. Pink Pistols' motto says it right when it comes to armed minorities, "An armed homosexual is not a bashed homosexual." Those "common sense compromises" only make such pigs more bold in their repression of minorities and dissenters. A cop with such an approach to executing the law of the land will think twice before trying to beat someone within an inch of their lives if they think the person is armed and knows how to use the gun. That is especially true for racial and ethnic minorities.
Sorry, half off topic, but worth noting.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:2)
Alright, the 16th amendment I can see you wanting out; you don't like to pay federal income tax. Neither do I, but I think they're necessary to the continued well-being of the country. But I can understand you disagreeing on this point.
But the 17th amendment? You really think we should go back to letting state legislatures select Senators? I can't see the logic in that. It took us long enought to get universal suffrage, why take it away?
A cop with such an approach to executing the law of the land will think twice before trying to beat someone within an inch of their lives if they think the person is armed and knows how to use the gun. That is especially true for racial and ethnic minorities.
This has been shown not to be true. All that happens is the police are more likely to draw and shoot first.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:1)
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:3, Insightful)
We used to have this system. It didn't prevent corruption; in fact, corruption is far easier on a local level because you don't have as many people looking at what you're doing.
What I can see happening is state legislatures ousting democratically elected Senators because they don't like their ideology. State legislatures tend to be far more conservative than their respective populations (look at Florida's legislature's actions during the 2000 election debacle).
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:1)
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:2)
State senators in Virgina IIRC represent each county.
I'm sure that the Virgina constitution says that senitors represent counties, but the US supreeem court decided a long time ago (100 years? I can't remember) that the little line in the US constitution about ensuring a democratly elected state (and local?) goverment means that state senitors cannot represent counties, they must represent people. Meaning most states have a two house legislator, but no difference in how they are elected.
I'm in favor of getting rid of that system in Minnesota, but it isn't all bad.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:1)
Why would a direct election system produce more corruption than an indirect system? The latter trusts the state legislators more than the people; this was the explicit goal of the original system. In practice, the result was that many senators were those who had earned prominent positions in their party, and were rewarded with senatorial positions. Meanwhile, the state legislatures have no better a record on protecting the rights of the people than the federal government: segregation is a good example. The old system might have decreased the erosion in states' power versus the federal government, but I doubt that it would help guarantee citizens' rights.
Love the argument. (Score:2)
Hilarious. I know I laughed. Its so insane, that I can't even come back to it. Here are some other highlights:
Look at Philadelphia, the land of brotherly love, where every black man is a suspect and much of the PD make the Gestapo look subtle.
LOL!!! The last time I checked, the Gestapo aided (with the consent of the SS) in the killing of millions of people on summary judgement. I love comparisons of without merit.
Please sit down. You're embarrassing the truly insane.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:2)
Half your ass is better than all of your ass. You seem to be extremely uneducated as to what exactly it is that Hollings has been doing with his time in the commerce commitee, then you want to say McCain will be a schill? You are fucking ridiculous and hardly worth reply.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:2)
So, what WAS your point? I could find it buried in that mess.
Re:"Shrewd Practioner of the Art of Compromise" (Score:2)
Yeah, if they think the minority is armed and knows how to use the gun, they shoot their ass 10 times THEN shout "Police! Freeze!!" Then when the person moves to fall over dead, the officer determines that the suspect is not following verbal instructions, empties the rest of his clip in the minority, making sure to hit the face a couple times so that the funeral is closed casket.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with that... The plain and simple fact is, I should be able to safely set foot on every inch of American public property, but there are streets in the city of Compton, which I pay for, that were I to set foot on, I would be shot dead. That means there is a lack of justice and almost certainly felons acting outside the law daily with impunity. The L.A.P.D.'s turnover is huge if you happen to consider those KIA as "turnover". If I were an LAPD cop, and I were having to deal with suspects that were minority gang members from gang neighborhoods wearing gang clothes telling me to fuck off when I ask them a question, and then one of the punks went for something in his jacket, I'd put so many holes in his ass he wouldn't know which to shit from.
The reality is, the average Joe Smith with a rifle in his closet isn't a threat. But pissed off people with real greivences shouldn't be packing heat on the streets. And if they do, they are fucking taking their own life into their hands. You play with the big dogs and you're going to get bitten.
McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:McCain (Score:1)
I haven't seen it in any of the posts in this discussion so far, but I have heard John McCain referred to as John McCain, ( R, Media ) because of how his so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" would empower those who speak about politics on TV due to its Unconstitutional prohibition of paid political ads during certain periods before our elections.
Re:McCain (Score:2)
Bullshit. He stood alone fighting agaist a unified congress trying to pass an act that would expand the media giants monopolies in every American locality during the Clinton administration. Though he lost, he clearly took a firm stance against the giant media cartels and any legislature that would expand their control over television/radio/film.
Re:McCain (Score:2)
NITPICK: (Score:1, Redundant)
Thanks.
The evils of copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard, or I said I didn't have an incentive to make cotton without owning slaves on the plantation, people would see it as the shallow and worthless arguments they are. But if I say I don't have an incentive to create and bring works into the public domain unless I have a copyright monopoly - people just take it on faith. They don't even question it. They just assume on faith that society would fall apart, and artists would be ruined without them. They ignore simle facts like that the entire renassance happened without them, and like how copyrights were originally created as a form of censorship and not a property nor an incentive to creators. They ignore and write off the consistent, dramatic, and often unpredicted success of non "owned" technologies - like Linux, tcp/ip, x86 compatable interfaces, etc...
Not only that, but they completey ignore, blow off, or sweet talk all the bad ancillatory effects of cpoyrights. Eg the failures of hollywood culture, the unethical effects of Microsoft and other companies that leverage intellectual property in a way that does not benefit society in the slightest, biases in the media, overpriced overly revised and modified college books and books of other educational means. And the things that copyright lead to like the DMCA. They ignore things like how the effective enforcement of copyrights is going to require centralized system of checks and enforcement that is costly, invades privacy, violates due-process, and is just plain big-brotherish. And even *if* such a systyem could be held up in the US, implementing that in other countries wiothout constitutional protections could be disasterous, even murderous (eg china).
They ignore simple physical facts. like the fact that normal property has natural limits in supply and demand - that imply markets and property law, but that information has no natural limits. If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing potatos, and then fradulently called that a market because someone could buy or sell that monopoly, they would call it big brotherish and overbearing government regulation. But when they do it with information, people just call it a right, an entitlement, they can't even see that if anything information should have less restrictions in government regulation - not more.
If the government called the right to beat people over the head a property right, would beople just take it that that's the way things should be because they called it *PROPERTY*. Just because government or institutions call something a property does not mean that it is. Think about it.
btw. Merry Christmas
Re:The evils of copyrights (Score:1)
Copyright began as censorship. Government began as thugs demanding "protecting" people from abuses by other thugs. Does that mean government is bad? Many modern practices had ignoble origins, but I don't think that means that we should discard them.
Most art produced prior to copyright consisted of commisioned works. Artists had to have a wealthy patron to support them, because they couldn't make money off their work. The result was that much art was hagiographic propaganda. Ever read the Aeneid? It's a good example. Other old tales are replete with examples where the noble family lines of the "modern day" were traced back to the illustrious heroes of yore. Many old paintings are good examples: pictures of nobles as they liked to appear, or depictions of scenes as they thought they should be. Similarly with religious works: most religious depictions followed the dictates of the Catholic Church (at least until the Reformation, at which point it followed the Catholic Church or the correct Protestant denomination). There were exceptions, but in general art which did not appeal to the wealthy only appeared after copyright.
Without copyright, creators depend on either donations from the public or patronage. The latter is preferable in most cases, because it is more lucrative and more reliable. Those dependent on the former tend to be impoverished (see: typical street musician).
All property distinctions, intellectual or otherwise, are a matter of social and governmental convention. Marxists want to eliminate all private property, but I don't agree with them. I think that copyright should be curtailed, but eliminating it will cause a whole host of other problems.
Re:The evils of copyrights (Score:2)
You may be correct on the general philosophy behind US law, but if you're suggesting that copyright protection is considered to be one of these natural "rights" you're entirely wrong (in the US).
Under US law, the "limited" monopoly on duplication given to an artist (or inventor) is actually a restriction on everyone's natural right to otherwise freely copy works of art (or technology) that is "temporarily" granted to an artist (or inventor) only to provide incentive for innovation. The notion of copyright protection as an inherent "right" is completely against the foundations of US law and the documented intentions of the founding fathers. Some countries do recognize an artist's control of their published work as a natural right but the US is not one of them (at least according to the constitution).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to start using the term "copyright" to mean that the public has the natural right to freely copy a work or idea, while the traditional sense of the term could more accurately be restated as a "restriction or denial of copyright".
In fact, I challenge those who believe in the US constitution to stop fighting against "copyright" and start declaring "I believe in copyright - the right of the people to freely develop and distribute ideas - and I am against overzealous restrictions or outright denials of this natural right!"
Re:The evils of copyrights (Score:2)
Good luck trying to convince artists to return to the poverty levels of that time (hint: this is not about people being creative, it's about money motivating people to be creative).
Re:The evils of copyrights (Score:2)
If I write a book, or a piece of software I DON'T want it to be legal for anyone to copy my work, sell it, and make lots of money from my work while I get nothing. After a reasonable amount of time I should have made my money and my work enters the public domain. It is this last step "enter the public domain" that is being abused. Extending copyrights everytime Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain means that it now can take hundreds of years for works to enter the public domain. DMR, and simply using technology that 'fades away' can stop works from ever entering the public domain by effectively locking them up.
Mozart died virtually penniless. You want to return to that?
Re:The evils of copyrights (Score:2)
Really? Let's dig a bit deeper, shall we. We'll see this isn't entirely true.
"Information" is an abstract entity, devoid of the human effort surrounding it, so at first glance it doesn't look to be subject to supply and demand.
But on second glance, we recognize that economics is the discipline of applying scarce resources (natural resources, labour, capital, and some might say "knowledge") in the face of unlimited demands. And with regards to information, there really are only two major kinds of demands: distribution & creation.
The cost of distributing information is usually tied to its distribution vessel, its medium. Such mediums typically are physical, and hence, scarce (a mouth uttering words, a diskette carrying software in a shrink-wrapped box, etc.). Thus information distribution is subject to supply & demand, in the general case.
The combination of widespread Internet access and digital representation of information has created a situation where information is "on tap", like water, and hence has effectively a negligable economic value -- though not zero. Why not zero? Well there's that ISP fee, similar to your house's water fee. Another note is that some information requires large pipes -- downloading full DivX movies, for example -- and most people don't have large pipes (yet), and pay a premium for them.
This information/tap water metaphor is making me think of beer, so I'll switch angles and refrain from running to the corner pub.
Ok, so if information distribution has negligable economic value (in theory), we must turn to information creation.
Creating something intangible, like information, is effectively a service. What economic resources are involved in creating information? The traditional resources of the economist -- land and labour aren't really used all that much (capital IS used, but not so much as a "factor" of producing information so much as an "aid") but the "new" central resource of our evolving post-capitalist economy, knowledge (perhaps even talent), certainly is involved. We know very little about the economics of knowledge. But we do know that it has become the central factor of production in any modern economy. And it is central in producing information.
Knowledge, by its very nature, is scarce -- it is not held on a disk, or in a book -- it is held inside your brain. It requires a significant ramp-up time to turn information into knowledge. And there are many bodies of knowledge out there -- many specialities -- that are all required by different people at varying levels of demand. There are different tastes in genres of music, different kinds of software, different genres of movies, and different roles in the creation of all of these works of information -- the credits list of any big-budget movie will attest to the wide variety of knowledge required for making a movie.
So I think it's really clear that there is some kind of scarcity surrounding information creation -- supply/demand exists both in the KIND of information we want created and in the KNOWLEDGE needed to create information. It's the knotty issue of actually setting a marketplace AROUND information that is our problem -- the productization of information is the fallacy that must be overcome.
Some things, like movies, will always have scarce distribution channels like movie theatres to rake in the dough. Music and software will probably require entirely new business models.
One suggestion for a new business model is that perhaps instead of "buying" a CD or piece of software, an artist and/or company will solicit "contributions" to create MORE information. This could work well for music -- the market will support the artists that they wish to make a living at what they do so they can make more music. I'm not sure if this makes sense for software yet, given the higher capital costs to get a product out the door.
"Right", "Left", and media whores (Score:1)
Perhaps at that point we can get some sane IP laws on the books, mostly by taking away those laws.
Remeber, it's never too late to reclaim rights lost to those that would seek to eradicate them. It's just that for a time, our lives will be worse off before they get better.
Why does Valenti have any credibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
He has gender discrimination liabilities too (Score:2)
We've seen with Lott that if somebody on the hill is implicated as a racist everybody is going to distance themselves from him. It can't be long before sexists get the same treatment. Already Greenspan and executive branch officials are boycotting the place.
Senator McCain (Score:2)
BTW just because he isn't a card carrying member of the Christian Coalition and doesn't invite Trent Lott over for tea doesn't make him any less of a Republican or any less of a conservative. He is a traditional conservative who has more in common with Goldwater (also from AZ) than the current religious right.
I happen to have much respect Senator McCain because he is willing to stand up for what he believes in rather than slavishly sticking to whatever the party platform of the week is.
Re:Senator McCain (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. Seanator McCain is very conservative. He is hawkish [senate.gov] on the Iraq issue, and conservative on social issues such as abortion [senate.gov]. And where these social issues intersect with tech issues, he will favor a conservative social stance. (Take, for example, his sponsorship of a resolution designating October "Children's Internet Safety Month" [loc.gov], a term of dubious nature which could easily fit any one of a number of different positions.)
I myself am very liberal, and disagree with him on many such issues.
Nonetheless, John McCain is a man that I respect very much. I believe that, unlike come of his colleagues, he does his very best to serve the people. His long and vigorous struggle for campaign finance reform [senate.gov] provides ample evidence, as do his efforts to curb wasteful spending [senate.gov], even in areas traditionally favored by conservatives, like Defense [senate.gov]. He has also shown his willingness to work with Democrats on bipartisan issues. For these reasons, I respect him one hell of a lot more than Bush, or Cheney, or Hollings, all of whom spend more time serving their corporate cronies than their constituents. McCain and Senator Russ Feingold [senate.gov] are, to my mind, the finest statesmen currently serving in Congress.
As I say, I disagree with Senator McCain on many subjects. Given his record, however, I think he is likely to handle this appointment in a way that the tech community will approve of. I suspect that he will put up a vigorous fight against the CBDTPA, on the grounds that it's a textbook case of special interests trying to buy legislation.
One thing I'm sure of: it's going to be an interesting ride!
Consumers = Bad interests? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why does that comment practically chide him for being pro-consumer? Aren't *they* the ones giving companies all their money (aside from gov. handouts)?
Will McCain support community radio, like before? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some relevent links:
There _Were_ Valentis (Score:2)
Slashdot, help! (Score:3, Funny)
ITAA? (Score:2)
Commerce not only Chairmanship to watch... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article's coverage on the "News for Nerds" issues of that committee starts in pargraph sixteen, which begins "The entertainment industry's quest for legislation to stamp out the growing problem of Internet piracy..." and also touches on providing digital content online including webcaster royalties.
-Robert
Devil's Inventions (Score:1)
When the cannon was invented, it was condemned as the Devil's invention, for cheating footsoldiers out of their jobs.
Indeed, firearms overall have been attributed to the Devil:
Source: NARRATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES' EXPEDITION TO THE RIVER JORDAN AND THE DEAD SEA, BY W. F. LYNCH, U. S. N., COMMANDER OF THE EXPEDITION, WITH MAPS AND NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS A NEW AND CORRECTED EDITION. PHILADELPHIA:LEA AND BLANCHARD, 1849. [uscolo.edu]Printing Press Undermines Authority (Score:1)
William Tynsdale translated the Bible into English, at a time when the Church didn't want -- didn't permit -- wide readership of the Good Book.
Tynsdale fled for his life, only finding a publisher for his work after much persecution. For his trouble, he was hunted down, abducted, returned to England -- then strangled and burned at the stake (1535 AD).
Before the invention of the printing press, Tynsdale's translation would not have threatened the Church, because hand-copied manuscripts were scarce and expensive, their readership limited to scholars and a few wealthy collectors.
Re:McCain (Score:2)
RINO - Republican In Name Only
--Joey