Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Update on State "Communications Services" Laws 223

Posted by michael from the when-lobbyists-attack dept.
stwrtpj writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is reporting a breaking news item: Colorado Governor Owens has vetoed a super-DMCA-like bill similar to the one passed in Michigan." Felten has a comment on the Colorado bill. Tennessee is delaying their consideration of the bill. And Oregon's bill has died for now; see below for more.

babbage_ct writes "As has been reported on Slashdot before (see here, here, and here for just a few) the MPAA is pushing so-called Super-DMCA laws in states around the country. Well, score one for the good guys. Oregon's version, SB 655 is going to die. Turns out the sponsor was scammed by MPAA lobbyist. See the e-mail from legislative staff below.

From: "Staff SenCharlesStarr"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: Status of SB 655

Status of SB 655:

SB 655 is slated to die in committee this session. It is no longer an immediate threat, however, there will be a study commission appointed over the interim. Sen. Minnis decided that the issue was too complex to resolve this session. I will attempt to inform you when the commission is formed so that you can have further input. Oregon truly dodged the bullet on this. Some states passed the MPAA model legislation before the IT community even knew it existed.

The email you sent to Sen. Starr (and I hope all of the committee members) helped to stop this dangerous legislation. Good job! In case you're wondering why Sen. Starr sponsored this bill in the first place, it was requested by the MPAA lobbyist (who really is a nice guy) but Sen. Starr was told that it was a simple bill to update copyright law in relation to digital media. Yes, and a whole lot more! As the full impact of the bill became clear, Sen. Starr withdrew his support, which contributed to the bill's "unfortunate demise."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Ken McDermott
Legislative Assistant
Senator Charles Starr
900 Court St NE S-312
Salem, OR 97301
staff.sencharlesstarr@state.or.us
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Update on State "Communications Services" Laws More

Update on State "Communications Services" Laws

Comments Filter:

  • Good News (Score:5, Funny)

    by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:33PM (#6026437)

    Wow, a governor with a brain. I'm moving to Colorado. Think they'll let me bring my guns?

    • This is exactly what Governors and the President have veto power for. Bravo to Governor Owens!

      • Re:Good News (Score:4, Interesting)

        by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:00PM (#6026667)
        I personally detest Bill Owens (for unrelated reasons, mostly relating to pushing the city's around), but I applaud this step.

        I have to say I am feeling very happy about being able to send this message through my NAT-enabled DSL router using SSH legally .

        Good job EFF!!!

    • Re:Good News (Score:5, Insightful)

      by clonebarkins ( 470547 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:47PM (#6026552)

      Damn, Flamebait? Really? I was going for Funny. Guess that'll learn me.

      Since this one'll probably get modded offtopic anyway, I'll say: 1) Yes I have been to Colorado, 2) I support gun ownership, and 3) I was supporting the governor, not being a wise-ass. I'm just glad they haven't tried to introduce this kind of crap in New York State. If somebody stands up to it at some point, it will be that much easier for others to defend against it.

      So I stand by my original post -- A governor with a brain! And one who's willing to fight for the rights of the people who elected him! That's a treasure for sure, and something that you Coloradans should be greatful for!

      • Double Dipping (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JWhitlock ( 201845 )
        Here's a new entry for the Slashdot dictionary:

        Double Dipping - A poster getting +5 mods for a post AND a reply to his own post. Usually due to self-correction, addition of extra information, or clueless moderation to the parent post. Interestingly, it appears to happen more often to sincere posters than trolls.

    • Don't jump up too much for joy. He vetoed the bill and the scuttle butt in the republican party is that the bill did not go far enough. There will be another attempt on a more restrictive bill shortly.
    • The real story here seems to be that VETO power had to be used. The story doesn't say a lot, but that implies that the government there came very close to passing this. While the governor may be a good guy it still doesn't say a lot for the state.
    • Politicians live by focus groups, so send this guy some email and maybe a few others will do the right thing. It sure as hell can't hurt.

      Email Gov. Owens! [mailto]

      Heh. My .sig is gonna look REAL funny on this one.

      • Democracy is the mistaken belief that more than half of the people are right, more than half of the time.

        You're sig is accurate, but unfortunately almost all the other forms of government scan something like this: X is the mistaken belief that a small handful of people are right, and have the interests of the majority of citizens in mind, more often than once in a while.

        ;^)

    • Re:Good News (Score:3, Informative)

      by wmspringer ( 569211 )
      Seeing as he just signed into law a bill eliminating most of the gun laws in the state, yup, I'd say so :-)

      (It's now illegal for cities/counties in Colorado to have more restrictive gun laws than the state does)

      Still, kudos to him for violating anything DMCA-related

      • Re:Good News (Score:3, Informative)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        Seeing as he just signed into law a bill eliminating most of the gun laws in the state, yup, I'd say so :-)
        Not quite. What owens did, was to come up with one law that requires all counties/municipalities to show cause WHY somebody is to be denied the right to carry conceled weapons. Before that, we were all over the board with laws. In Denver, you could get a permit iff you were politically connected. In Boulder, it was next to impossible unless you were a SOF type. In C. Springs, well, everybody carries
      • Seeing as he just signed into law a bill eliminating most of the gun laws in the state

        Yet another point in his favor. Guess at least in this area he isn't a mysogynistic bastard who's just itching to deprive women of the right to self-protection, so that any man may beat/rape/murder them as the mood takes them.

        Max

    • Don't conclude that the guy knows what he's doing based on one action. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. This is the same governor who paid for his favored highway construction projects by selling bonds secured by future federal highway funding. The result is that there's a big construction boom during his term but there will be no money for new construction for something like 20 years after he leaves office. That certainly doesn't sound like a brilliant forward thin

    • Colorado is definitely a mixed bag, politically.

      There's everything from extremely conservative rural areas to "The People's Republic of Boulder", as left-leaning a city as most any place in the country.

      Over the past twelve or so years, the state has gone from 18th in per-student spending in the country to 38th. Thousands of students go to classes in temporary trailers (some which have been in place for over ten years) because the school districts can't raise money for new construction. At least two sc

  • Please remember his name during election time. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by damu ( 575189 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:34PM (#6026449) Journal
    nt.
    • Excuse me? Vote for a guy who can not understand the bills he is backing? Hell, no! This guy is dangerous, he shouldn't be allowed in Politics!

      • Re:Please remember his name during election time. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:52PM (#6026600)
        But he corrected his mistake before it was too late. Rare in politics
      • There a many bills that go through without those reprensenting it having any idea what the bill is about, that is a fact, nothing will change that. However, I am glad to know that Gov Owens was willing to listen and make the right choice concerning this bill.

      • Re:Please remember his name during election time. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bobdinkel ( 530885 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:02PM (#6026678)
        Excuse me? Vote for a guy who can not understand the bills he is backing? Hell, no! This guy is dangerous, he shouldn't be allowed in Politics!
        No. This is a guy that listened to his constituents. And now he's more sensitive to these issues and is less likely to take lobbyists at their word. He'd have my vote in a heartbeat.
        • So, next time I am in front of a judge, I can just say "Oops, sorry, I didn't know. Thank you for enlightening me. I assure you it won't happen again"? And then, I can walk out clear and clean as a Saint? Of course, not. I am legally responsible for my actions. And so should Sen. Starr with his actions.

          Or, if you think otherwise, please explain to me how it is that noone is supposed to ignore the Law, but you consider acceptable that politicians whose job is to create new laws can ignore what they contain

          • Re:Please remember his name during election time. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by sweetooth ( 21075 ) * on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:29PM (#6026937) Homepage
            Did you ever consider he was only hearing one side of the story? Sadly it appears that most of the laws that end up on the books are not completly understood by those that pass them. They rely on aids and advisors to help them understand the pros and cons of the bills. If he only go the lobbyists side of the story initially and the ACTUALLY LISTENED to his constituents he is a helluva lot better than most of his peers. The problem is that if you look more closely at the story these are only temporary setbacks in both Oregon and Colorado.
          • And then, I can walk out clear and clean as a Saint? Of course, not. I am legally responsible for my actions. And so should Sen. Starr with his actions.

            There's no law regulating what a legislator can propose as a bill, and neither should their be. To paraphrase MS, if they wanted to propose a bill requiring that all sales of operating systems involve a bologna sandwich, they should be free to do that.

            Or, if you think otherwise, please explain to me how it is that noone is supposed to ignore the Law, b

  • political figures lying to get what they want, not the other way around. I wonder how he feels.

    Hopefully this will send a message to others to understand the situation before blindly following the suggestions of [insert company name here] lobbyists.

  • which contributed to the bill's "unfortunate demise."

    What is so unfortunate about killing off a bunch of piopolists in one stroke? What, did they get Sen. Starr to finally RTFL for him to realise that it was not just an "update to copyright law for digital management?"

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's called a joke, idiot...that's why it's in quotes. Ken McDermott is implying that the bill's demise is not truly "unfortunate".

  • So... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mensa Babe ( 675349 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:40PM (#6026492) Homepage Journal
    There maybe really is some hope... We should thank all of the people who are constantly helping in this fight for freedom. They don't have money and power, like the pro-DMCA people do, but they are on the right side. Thank you! It is a good time to donate money [eff.org] to EFF, without which, we could already forget about on-line freedom.

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by demaria ( 122790 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:58PM (#6026647) Homepage
      Before donating money to the EFF, I'd like to know if they did anything effective here, or just put out a press release. What is their win record? People constantly on slashdot say 'give to the EFF', but are they an effective lobby in any way? Or is my money better spent on other lobbying groups?

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

        by loosifer ( 314643 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:46PM (#6027066) Homepage
        Speaking as one of the main motivators behind the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network [tndf.net], the group that helped stop the bill in TN, no, the EFF wasn't terribly useful here. The didn't have effective legal analyses (we had to do our own), they didn't have good technical analyses (again, we did our own), and they also didn't have good alternative legislation (um, again, our own).

        All of this can be found at our web site [tndf.net], so hopefully others won't start so quite from scratch.

        In this case, save your money and spend some time; create your own tech-friendly lobby in your state, and begin monitoring this kind of stuff. It sucks to watch sausage get made, but if you don't get involved, you've got no one but yourself to blame. We're planning on starting a formal non-profit to continue fighting for the right to innovate with technology, and I recommend that other states do the same.

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @05:22PM (#6027751) Homepage
          As someone who is marginally involved with TNDFN, and personally working hard to kill this legislation, I think it's in order to mention what did help our cause.

          First, plenty of face time with the legislators. Second, we were present and seated together every time the bill was brought up in a committee (after we learned about it). There were 10 of us present each time. Most other issues had nobody there who cared, so we got attention. This thing would have died weeks ago had we been there; it should have never gotten to this point.

          This was difficult. I spent literally 40+ hours on "capitol hill" (it really is a hill here in TN) sitting in boring meetings, talking to representatives and senators, their aids, battling evil lobbyists, etc. This cost me money, cost my company money (my parking costs were nearly $100 over the last few weeks), and cost me a lot of time. It was worth it.

          Mainly, pay attention to the bills that are being pushed in your state, and go fight them in every way that you can if they're stupid. Send a simple piece of paper to all relevant representatives and senators, with simple bullets that can be skimmed in 10 seconds or less (whole sheet). Anything helps, but don't email a stupid form letter.

          We'll be talking more about this in the coming months, but the one thing to take away from this is that we need to band together and make it clear to slimy lobbyists and the elected representatives who listen to them that the tech industry is a bee hive that they don't want to mess with. We are huge ($600B annually in the US) and it's time we use our clout.

          The war isn't over, but we won a major battle. I cannot wait to see the head shill with his tail between his legs. I hope he's in town on Tuesday.

          Michael

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wfrp01 ( 82831 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @04:20PM (#6027331) Journal
      I hope you're right. However, given our current system, I'm dubious.

      The problem is that the pro-DMCA folks will try again. And again. And again. In this venue and that. Turning words and phrases, but never really veering from their intended purpose.

      The problem is that laws are easier to enact than to retract. The fact that this legislation made it as far as it did is unnerving. If this proposal had been rejected outright by the legislature, that might be different. But we see here that a small shift in the balance of power would result in this bill's enactment.

      The problem is that the general population does not feel like issue such as this are important enough to sway their votes against advocates of such legislation. Unless they change their minds, it's only a matter of time...

  • Hyper-DMCA Laws (Score:5, Funny)

    by core_dump_0 ( 317484 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:40PM (#6026494)
    First DMCA, then Super-DMCA? Soon we'll have Hyper-DMCA, Ultra-DMCA, Mega-DMCA, and eventually Mega-DMCAx2 which gives full ownership of our computers to the entertainment industry.
  • Thanks to all those who helped prevent this law
    from happening.

  • Lots of good news lately... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bonewalker ( 631203 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:42PM (#6026508)
    however, this will most likely lead to more subversive tactics (like the mass IM'ing they pulled recently) by the MPAA and RIAA...what they don't seem to realize is that they don't have a chance technology-wise against those that wish to share files. Of course, if they pull anything as sneaky and underhanded as actually attempting to delete files from user's system, that will be their final mistake, because they will surely feel the wrath of the enraged consumer then.
    • For the most part, consumers don't and should not have a problem with legitimate enforcement of copyrights -- even where they shut down or financially ruin the infringer who might be "just like you and me." Whether or not we may buy into the "infringement as theft" analogy, we understand what is the law, and why it is the law. When someone gets nipped for actually infringing, well, someone got nipped.

      It is only in the arena of legislative and judicial overreaching where harm is done to society, where tec

  • nice guy?!?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by spumoni_fettuccini ( 668603 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:44PM (#6026533) Journal
    the MPAA lobbyist (who really is a nice guy) Yeah so is the car salesman that's got this sweet deal on a '76 Lincoln, driven by a little old lady on Sundays.

    • Re:nice guy?!?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pettifogger ( 651170 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:13PM (#6026788)
      I know exactly what he speaks of. I, too, was a Legislative Assistant to a Senator here in Oregon. Though this issue did not come up when I was there, I worked with a lot of lobbyists. They tend to be selected as such because they have excellent personal skills and are very affable. You almost *never* get a hard sell from a lobbyist. This is why it's so seductive. They simply show up, are very polite, and it's next to impossible to send them off rudely or be short with them. They're simply trying to make friends, so their point of view will be taken seriously and they might get access to the Senator. Lobbying and influence are not as clear cut as people might think. Like I said, it's seductive.

  • Maybe writing your congressman CAN help! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by g_adams27 ( 581237 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:48PM (#6026558)
    > The email you sent to Sen. Starr (and I hope all of the committee
    > members) helped to stop this dangerous legislation. Good job!

    Wow! I guess maybe one guy writing his congressman can make a difference! I'm glad that there are some sponsors of bills like this who don't supporting super-DMCA-type bills because they're eeeeeeeeevil, but because they simply don't recognize the consequences of their legislation and are willing to change when they realize what they're actually sponsoring. I'm also glad this senator apparently had a legislative aid with some sense to oppose the bill!

    • The email in this post was to members of the Senator's staff and as such, I assume the writer is referencing the fact that the staff members sent him an email.

      So yes, one person sending an email can have an impact on a politician but it helps if the politician actually knows who that person is.

      BFL
    • And that's why it works. State legislators are usually reasonable, accessible, folks. They get paid the way jurors get "paid" -- the net effect is that they are much more in touch with real people and their concerns.

      They like monkey-business as much as the next politician, generally speaking, but at least they regard the individual consitituent as something powerful enough to listen to...

    • Re:Maybe writing your congressman CAN help! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ninewands ( 105734 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @10:59PM (#6029219)
      Quoth the poster:
      Wow! I guess maybe one guy writing his congressman can make a difference!

      Well, I wrote to my State Senator about the Bill here in Texas and got a response like, "I received your e-mail and understand you are opposed to this Bill."

      I then wrote to my State Representative, and wound up spending about 20 minutes on the telephone with him explaining just what the Bill was, how unnecessary it was and the damage it would do to the economy of the State by stifling the tech sector. I also talked with him about some of the privacy and civil liberties aspects of the Bill. I think he will oppose the Bill if it ever gets to the House floor.

      So yes, one person who can write a well-reasoned e-mail to a Congressman can make a difference. Legislators have to act on hundreds of bills in every session. There is NO way they can be fully informed on the subject matter of every bill they consider. It is absolutely essential that their constituents who have special knowledge in various fields write to them and give them the benefit of that expertise or we will wind up with even MORE bad laws on the books than we currently have.
  • It's good to see this type of a positive response. Hopefully there will be more in the future.

  • Great start, BUT (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:51PM (#6026593) Homepage Journal
    This is good news, but: the setback to the people behind these bills is only temporary. They stand to loose their livelihoods eventually, if they don't significantly curtail our freedoms. They aren't going to take ``no'' for an answer.

    The lobbyists WILL be back next year, and the year after, and they'll keep telling bigger lies, and offering bigger bribes, until either they get their way, or the industries which fund them shrivel up. Or, perhaps, until we make such a big noise that the politicians decide that this is an untouchable issue.

    Remember: the lobbyists only have to win ONCE in each state. We only have to get careless or complacent ONCE to let them win. This was good news, but the battle isn't nearly over yet.

    We need to keep educating the unwashed masses, need to keep letter-writing campaigns going, and generally need to keep following up. We also need to volunteer in the re-election campaigns of the clueful few who are on the right side here. And tell other candidates why we chose to volunteer for Mr. Clueful instead of Mr. Other.

    Those bribes from the lobbyists are only valuable to the legislators if they believe that the bribe can buy more votes than the legislation will cost them. When a lobbyist walks into a legislator's office and says: ``I'd like to talk to you about strengthening copyright ...'', the legislator needs to be able to point to a pile of letters on his desk and say: `` These letters are from voters who are on the other side, and I get a big stack like that every day. I'd like to help, but I can't afford to. Why, I'd loose half my campaign workers if I even listened to you!''

    • Taking the offensive? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TrekkieGod ( 627867 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:22PM (#6026878) Homepage Journal
      Remember: the lobbyists only have to win ONCE in each state. We only have to get careless or complacent ONCE to let them win.

      What would it take to start going on the offensive instead of the defensive, here? Can't special interests groups like the EFF lobby for the creation of laws protecting our rights to fair use, backups, reverse engineering, etc. so that *we* only have to win once?

      I do understand we can't compete monetarily, but letting the general public know and understand these issues (instead of preaching to the choir and only publishing these types of things on a site dedicated to "news for nerds") could offset the problem. After all, I guess the only thing that can compete with campaign contributions is the actual swaying of public opinions at times of elections and, due to MPAA/RIAA/Blah propaganda, we are the minority.

      I do understand that I'm probably being really naive here, not being a guy that keeps up with/understands politics well. Maybe someone who does can explain the problem and make a few useful suggestions to overcome it.

      • What would it take to start going on the offensive instead of the defensive, here?

        I think it would take the same things I advocated for going on the defensive: letters, grassroots efforts, volunteer time. If you're part of Mr. Congresscritter's support base, part of what gets him re-elected, he's going to listen, at least a bit. He's going to try not to hurt you on the issues you've told him are important (defensive), and he's going to try to at least make a show of helping you on them (offensive).

        Tha

      • In states that allow initiative petitions to enact Constitutional amendments (state Constitution, not federal, for non-Americans) you could indeed enumerate rights that could only be abrogated if the amendment were repealed - by popular vote (Oregon is one of the few states that allows this).

        However, speaking from personal experience there are several things to take into consideration:

        - lobbyists and extremists never give up. Oregon has had a state sales tax on the ballot EIGHT TIMES - and the people tha

  • Play on fears of communism! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Most of these bills contain provisions disallowing the hiding of the source or destination of a communication. This would make using freenet to break the Great Firewall of China(TM) illegal. Make sure to bring this up if/when this kind of bill gets considered in your state.

  • Get involved (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:55PM (#6026621) Homepage Journal
    politics effect your life, now and in the future.
    To not get involved is akin to not monitoring your servers and hoping all will always be fine. Then when it isn't fine, you just complain.

  • Waking Up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @02:55PM (#6026626)
    Hopefully this signals that people are finally waking up to what is essentially a stealth campaign to end the doctrine of Fair Use. It is now being exposed for what it really is, nothing more than attempts to take away rights you already have in order to better line the pockets of a few, already rich, companies.

    Now if they public could only realize why they would benefit from undoing the last several copyright extensions as well.

    And that legislative assistant may have called the MPAA lobbiest a nice guy, but I don't agree. He obviously lied about the bill to get it introduced. I'd never let that guy in my office again!

  • Why Owens Did This (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Uosdwis ( 553687 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:02PM (#6026682) Journal
    Gov Owens has banked his popularity on the Colorado economy which is heavily dependant on the 'New' economy of IT,internet, prog etc. Owens has touted that he is resonsible for making Colorado a prominent player in this economy. Very much so in the last election.

    Well the economy sucks here, many people have been laid off, no new jobs, just like most places. He had to do this or he'd be out of a job too.
    • Gov Owens has banked his popularity on the Colorado economy which is heavily dependant on the 'New' economy of IT,internet, prog etc. Owens has touted that he is resonsible for making Colorado a prominent player in this economy. Very much so in the last election.

      Not many people realize what a substantial presence tech has in Colorado. Sun Microsystems in Denver (where I work) for one, and HP in Fort Collins for another. Qwest and Level 3 are headquartered in Denver as well. A lot of people that visit Denve

  • Senator Starr (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oaf357 ( 661305 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:07PM (#6026735) Homepage Journal
    Did he not read the bill before he supported it? WTF! He shouldn't be re-elected.
    • Did he not read the bill before he supported it? WTF! He shouldn't be re-elected.

      Then we'd better turn out pretty much the whole US Congress next chance we get. Most of Congress did not read* the USA-PATRIOT act before it was passed.

      (*) as reported at http://www.birdsall-law.com/usapatriot.htm

  • Democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by osguru ( 656504 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:15PM (#6026810)
    As bills like this are sponcered by our publicly elected officals - I can't help but think that "we the people" do not have any input as to what is acutally happening with the whole DRM/MPAA/RIAA non-sense.

    The majority of Americans who's stock and trade crosses paths with the DMCA appear to be strongly against it - yet corporations still wine/dine/donate to these politations that we apparently elected to push such pro-police state laws.

    Would it be fair to say that are elected officals only agenda is to do whatever the mega-corporation of the week has to say should be law?

    Are there actually elected officals who are are looking out for the common person's liberties, and such? If so, why are there not more of them?

    The people have spoken, we do not want a revamped DMCA - as we didn't even want the original DMCA... Yet the original DMCA passed??? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

    • Re:Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:29PM (#6026938) Homepage Journal
      Would it be fair to say that are elected officals only agenda is to do whatever the mega-corporation of the week has to say should be law?

      No. It would be fair to say that our elected officials' only agenda is to get re-elected. If mega-corp-of-the-week is more effective at aiding that cause than we are, they get to write the laws. If we're more effective, WE get to.

      Are there actually elected officals who are are looking out for the common person's liberties, and such? If so, why are there not more of them?

      Not many, and they won't be there long, unless the common people bother to find out who they are, and support them. We can support the good guys with money, but that won't go far if mega-corp-of-the-week decides to target them by funding their opponents. We can support the good guys by telling everyone we know WHY they're good. We can support the good guys with our time, by volunteering in their campaigns, year after year.

      It's all either expensive, or time-consuming, or both. That's why the mega-corps (and the mega-unions) generally do better at getting their way than we do.

  • Old news. (Score:3, Informative)

    by seebs ( 15766 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:17PM (#6026827) Homepage
    This was new news when I submitted it a few days ago, along with a pointer to a Rocky Mountain News editorial that may have contributed. It's old now. ;)

  • Process workings (Score:5, Informative)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@nOspAm.wylfing.net> on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:32PM (#6026949) Homepage Journal
    The opening bit at the top from Starr's legislative assistant made me think of something my brother told me. He did a stint as a staffer for U.S. House Rep Dick Army. I asked him what the effect was of people submitting their opinion to their representative in Congress. My brother made the following points:
    • If you send your opinion on one side of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, it will get to the decision maker and have an effect on his/her opinion.
    • The "decision maker" is the senior staffer in charge of that content area. The Rep just asks the staffer what opinion to have, because it's impossible to have an informed opinion on thousands of issues.
    • If nobody from the constituency submits an opinion, the staffer will go with whatever the lobbyists tell him/her.
    • The staffers are not subject matter experts on anything except being a staffer.

    The take-home was that just typing up a short opinion and mailing it to your rep's office has a tremendous effect on the political process.

    • I'd like to thank you for your post. You have given me a certain measure of confidence that the occasional letter I send to my congress respresentative's office actually does something.

      And you've opened up the argument against people who like to complain on /. that "in the time it took you to bitch, you could have made a difference. Please re-phrase your complaint in the form of a relatively intelligent letter and address it to your representative."

      Seriously, thank you.
    • I have a few questions I'd like to see if you (or anyone else) could help me answer.

      Are (legible) hand written letters more likely to be seen and/or carry more weight than the standard boilerplate templates that automagically create the perfect sounding opinion?

      When I write a letter to my congressman I have always recieved a response. Soon afterwards, my mailbox is crammed full of soliciations from organizations of all kinds wanting money. Now, as I just recently moved into my new apt, I know that they mu

  • Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by orbbro ( 467373 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @03:36PM (#6026980) Homepage
    Some nationally-recognized news that actually makes me proud to live in Oregon.

    As soon as I read the Legislative Assistant's e-mail, I sent a message to Senator Charles Starr thanking him for supporting citizen's rights over corporate interests. I also encouraged him to maintain that stance and to urge his colleagues to do likewise in the future.

    Fellow Oregonians can follow my lead at the state legislature's home page [state.or.us]. I've realized that I should have had that link bookmarked for years.

  • One may make a difference... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Friday May 23, 2003 @05:11PM (#6027668)
    Dear Mr. Kirksey:

    Thank you for weighing in on SB 213. I began studying it over the weekend
    and have also referred to information available from the Electronic Frontier
    Foundation. I must admit that this is an area with which I have little
    familiarity, but the legislation could be problematic for the reasons you
    address. I appreciate your taking the time to assist by bringing this to my
    attention.

    Please stay in touch.

    Sincerely,

    Mark Norris
    Senator

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Tom Kirksey
    Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:04 PM
    To: sen.mark.norris@legislature.state.tn.us
    Subject: SB 213

    Sir,

    As one of you constituates, I wish to state my opposition to Tennessee
    Senate Bill 213. The bill has some valid points, but the flaws outweigh the
    possible good.

    The bill is too broad and gives too much power to communications providers.
    If taken to extremes, VCRs, network routers and other useful (you could say
    essential) devices could be outlawed.

    As an attorney, please take a few minutes to read through the bill and
    imagine possible scenarios where the bill could be abused.

    Thank you for your time.

    Thomas Kirksey

    and later:

    http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/03 /0 4/31892579.shtml?Element_ID=31892579

    Senator Norris wanted you to see today's coverage of yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing. Thanks, in part, to your input, he had more questions to ask the sponsor than they could answer, and the bill will be taken up again in two weeks. Senator Norris shares concerns about the extent to which this proposal may infringe upon certain fundamental rights, including Due Process and Free Speech, and he will continue to work on it. He thanks you for your input and support.

  • In case you're wondering why Sen. Starr sponsored this bill in the first place, it was requested by the MPAA lobbyist (who really is a nice guy) but Sen. Starr was told that it was a simple bill to update copyright law in relation to digital media. Yes, and a whole lot more!

    I would think that deliberately misleading a legislator about the purpose of proposed legislation would disqualify a person from real niceness. Just my fringe opinion, I guess.

  • Yay! (Score:2, Funny)

    by HomerNet ( 146137 )
    I can move back to Colorado now without being arrested for running a firewall! I think I'll do that soon, actually...

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close