Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave

Tsar writes "Members of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network turned out in force as Tennessee's Super-DMCA Bill, its hour come round at last, slouched back to Nashville's Legislative Plaza. The industry heavyweights made their pitches, but were thwarted by thoughtful, intelligent comments and questions from the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications Security. My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that."

When will it end?

[bl1st3r]

I'm an American. I love my country and I love the freedoms we have. But when will the copyright crap end? Its getting to the point where enough is enough, and the next president should be considering what to do about the situation.

On one hand, you have 60 million American felons, on the other hand, you wrestle control away from fat, rich corporations. It seems like a no-brainer.

Re:When will it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Founding Fathers viewed exclusive ownership of "intellectual property" not as a right, but as a sharply time-limited privilege temporarily granted by the Government. Copyrights and patents were not intended to last more than a couple of decades of years.

We are now living in a society which is growing increasingly at odds with the original intent of those who created this nation. We are subjugated by the twin pathological powers of corporate special interest cartels and judicial tyranny.

Re:When will it end?

[ceeam]

Too bad founding fathers did not patent their intent. :)

Re:When will it end?

[Colonel Cholling]

Our Founding Fathers viewed exclusive ownership of "intellectual property"...

Others in this thread have correctly identified Jefferson as a proponent of a particular limited version of patents. If that is what you had in mind, you should have said so. Because anyone who says "The Founding Fathers believed..." has no knowledge of history. With the possible exception of independence from England, there is no single issue which all of the Founders were of one mind about. They tended to be sharply divid

Re:When will it end?

[Awptimus Prime]

With the possible exception of independence from England, there is no single issue which all of the Founders were of one mind about. They tended to be sharply divided over most of the crucial issues which went into forming our Constitution. It therefore makes no sense to make them into one monolithic body, "the Founding Fathers," whose "intentions" can be quoted like Scripture.

Someone mod this joker up. He's got the best point in the thread.

Founding Fathers

[solprovider]

It is true that the "Founding Fathers" were divided about just about every issue. The whole State power versus Federal power took 2 tries because the States won the first time, but the Articles of Confederation proved impractical.

But when referring to the Constitution, we assume the "Founding Fathers" were the ones whose ideals were codified. Many of the ones about copyrights orginated with Thomas Jefferson, just like the banking system came from Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were able to find compromises between those who believed free spread of information was important, and those who believed that business would suffer without the monopolies granted by copyright. These compromises are what made our system flexible enough to survive. In this instance, the compromise was that there would be monopolies, they would be granted to the creators (rather than the publishers), and they would exist for a LIMITED time.

Today, we are violating the spirit of this. Big business has wrested control of many of the copyrights from the creators for music, and made a good effort to do the same for books back in the 1970s. And the time limit is almost useless. Rather than 17 years with one possible renewal, it is now life + 50 years and growing. We have also contracted with Europe to defend this practice, so it is unlikely that the U.S. can fix it internally.

Many stories published on the early internet came with copyright notices that allowed the works to become public domain after 120 days. There is little reason for computer books to keep their copyrights beyond a decade, as the technology could be obsolete in 4 years. Creators can limit their own copyrights, and many do. Big business will never relinquish anything unless forced by law. It will probably take another revolution for the public to win back control of ideas.

Technology has changed the need for copyrights. Historically, they were granted to a specific publisher to prevent other publishers from stealing popular works. Then they were granted to the creators, to encourage them to create more. Then the publishers bought them from the creators. But every law assumes that the COPYING takes effort, and that is no longer true. I did not need to publish this as a pamphlet and try to sell them on street corners for a penny each. I wrote it; I published it; you are reading it, and any costs in the process are subsumed in the overhead of having a computer attached to the internet.

---
I would like to use a well-thought license that allows works to enter public domain for most purposes within 20 years, but still allows me to benefit if Disney decides to turn my work into a movie. Of course, this clause in itself would prevent Disney from making a movie from my books, because they only publish material if they can retain all the profits. They wouldn't publish something like Star Wars because Lucas insisted on keeping the associated toy franchise. Why should they make my book into a movie when there are still tons of material already in the public domain from before their efforts to extend copyright into eternity?

Re:Founding Fathers

[HiThere]

When you say the Articles of Confederation proved impractical, you don't quote much evidence. The evidence that I have heard said that they were adopeted *DURING* an extremely severe economic depression brought on by the war, and were never given much change to succeed before a bunch of *SELF APPOINTED* aristocrats and wealthy folk got together and decided to replace them with a document more to their liking. The creation of the constitution had no pre-authorization from the respective states that they cl

Re:When will it end?

[redhog]

I think that the point is, that it does not matte. At all. If the founding father's pointt was that after a _limited_ time, eveyone should be allowed to copy a work, then it does not matter they did not know how easy or hard it would be in hunded yeas to copy that work _after_ the limited time had elapsed.

What has changed is _not_ only technology, but goal and policy. Our culture is by large not our anymore. Our knowledge is neither.

We the people, need to take back what is our.

Re:When will it end?

[whereiswaldo]

It would be interesting to trace back to see who got the ball rolling to change copyright laws and so on. I'd bet good money it was the mega companies of the US, and not the citizens. Why would citizens be pushing to get less control over their property? Goes to show who really runs the country. All they (companies, govt) need us for is to fill their pockets with money. Oh, and human interest stories to make them smell rosy after all is said and done.

Re:When will it end?

[spectecjr]

It would be interesting to trace back to see who got the ball rolling to change copyright laws and so on. I'd bet good money it was the mega companies of the US, and not the citizens. Why would citizens be pushing to get less control over their property?

They certainly couldn't be pushing to get more control over their property; it's not their property.

Red herring

[Anonymous Coward]

Jefferson certainly knew about the writings of the Denis Diderot and the Marquis de Condorcet. Diderot was commissioned in 1763 by the Paris Book Guild to argue for a copyright equivalent to physical property; he went so far as to claim that works of authorship were in fact a truer form of property, as they were entirely the product of their creator, while physical property could be formed only from natural resources and the work of other men. Condorcet held that ideas originated in nature and, unlike real property, could be cultivated by all without diminishment; on the contrary, he wrote, the dissemination of ideas benefitted the common good. Diderot portrayed the artist as a creator; Condorcet saw a discoverer. Diderot perceived ideas to exist for the benefit of one man, Condorcet wished them to enrich every man.

Had the framers intended a Diderotian system, they would have implemented one. Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke. But if you want to speculate about Jefferson's mind, why not ask the man himself?

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.... -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813

Re:Red herring

[cpt kangarooski]

Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke.

I'm sorry, but Locke had nothing to do with American copyrights, and continues to have nothing to do with American copyrights.

Hell, Jefferson was so familiar with Locke that he cribbed from him for the Declaration, YET he disagreed with Locke about natural rights to property!

American copyright law is in fact tracable back to English copyright law. Both were utilitarian doctrines, as your Jefferson quote (on patents) illu

Re:When will it end?

[Lumpy]

Its getting to the point where enough is enough, and the next president should be considering what to do about the situation.

That's the problem... we are NOT a democracy, we are an Oligarcy.

if you vote next year you do NOT vote for your president, you vote for a person to vote for president.

Until we can tear down the system in place that makes everything so easy to corrupt, you will only get presidents in the white house that are nothing but puppets that tow the party line and ensure that the party's f

Re:When will it end?

[HiThere]

More to the point, when you vote you will be choosing between two rat-bastards. And I say this without knowing, or even speculating, who the candidates will be. This is because the basic system is to get people to "buy in" to one rat-bastard or the other. Whichever one most people think is worse will be voted against, but by doing so the people are "buying in" to the other rat-bastard. I think the two parties vie over who can nominate the more visciously vile candidate and still win. Once you get buy i

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[bl1st3r]

I really like it. I like what it stands for, and I like the theory of it. I liked it and believed in it so much I joined the Army. I don't like being in the Army, but its not all that bad.

I just think that this legislation process has gotten all out of whack. No corporation should be able to "buy" senators and bills/laws, but thats what happens every day. Its getting way out of control.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[fruity1983]

You didn't answer his question. What makes your country so great to live in?

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom. It really does feel more free. I now have lived in the Netherlands long enough that I have grown used to the society and love it. But what became clear is that the Netherlands is, in many ways, a very controlled society (self control, government control, etc.). In that sense I feel more free in America. This goes hand in hand with the common belief that anything is possible (i.e. "I want to be an Astronaut!", response: "Great! go for it!"). You can argue that this is overly optimistic, but in the end this attitude often leads to life satisfaction. I honestly believe that the quality of life is good when living in America; yes, better than many places. Switzerland also seems quite nice, if you're Swiss.

Now America's actions on the international scene are simply awful, no question.

If you believe your choice of media (often) protraying the difficulties of living in America (e.g. everyone's mother was a crack whore, crime is terrible), then you're simply missing part of the picture.

The same bias is applied to the Netherlands: many people seem to think that the Netherlands is very liberal, supporting prostitution, soft drugs, etc. when, in fact, the society is quite conservative. The laws governing the "liberal" things are really just (good) ways of dealing with problems. Leagalizing hash and a war-on-drugs are simply different ways of dealing with an unavoidable market.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Freedom. It really does feel more free. I now
> have lived in the Netherlands long enough that I
> have grown used to the society and love it. But
> what became clear is that the Netherlands is, in
> many ways, a very controlled society (self
> control, government control, etc.). In that
> sense > I feel more free in America. This goes
> hand in hand with the common belief that
> anything is possible (i.e. "I want to be an
> Astronaut!", response: "Great! go for it!").
> You can a

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[dipipanone]

If you believe your choice of media (often) protraying the difficulties of living in America (e.g. everyone's mother was a crack whore, crime is terrible), then you're simply missing part of the picture.

I'm pretty familiar with both the USA and the Netherlands, and have spent some time in both countries every year for the last ten years or so.

The thing about the USA is that it appears more free if you're an orthodox sort of person that fits in with everyone else around you and doesn't actually want to make any choices that the rest of your culture think are somehow immoral or improper.

What the USA doesn't do very well, in my opinion, is brook difference or dissent -- and to me, a culture that is able to tolerate or embrace those those things is one that meets my idea of a free.

There's no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan in the Netherlands, spewing hate across the airwaves. And if you want to smoke pot or have some kind of unorthodox sex, the state doesn't feel it has any role in policing those areas of private morality.

So while I think your main point is essentially correct -- the Netherlands is a conservative country, and the culture and many of its institutions are also somewhat conservative, but its profound and deep-rooted tolerance for me makes it a much freer environment than the USA could ever be.

That said, what you do have in the USA is a much greater degree of economic freedom -- be that the freedom to make a million, or the freedom to sleep under a bridge because minimum wage jobs don't pay enough to both feed and accomodate you.

Aren't Buchanan and Limbaugh voices of dissent?

[rruvin]

What the USA doesn't do very well, in my opinion, is brook difference or dissent -- and to me, a culture that is able to tolerate or embrace those those things is one that meets my idea of a free.

There's no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan in the Netherlands, spewing hate across the airwaves. And if you want to smoke pot or have some kind of unorthodox sex, the state doesn't feel it has any role in policing those areas of private morality.

Hold on a second. First you accuse the USA of being into

Re:Aren't Buchanan and Limbaugh voices of dissent?

[dipipanone]

Hold on a second. First you accuse the USA of being intolerant of dissent, and then you boast about how the Netherlands don't have a Pat Bunchanan or a Rush Limbaugh?..

It isn't a boast, it's an observation. I live in the UK. We have our own Pat n' Rush equivalents in people like Richard Littlejohn and Norman Tebbit.

Are you under the impression that those two represent the American mainstream?

Remind me, who is the American president again? George W. Bush, right? Yeah, they don't seem to be too far f

Re:Aren't Buchanan and Limbaugh voices of dissent?

[cayenne8]

There are 'hate' spewers on both extremes...I think Al Franken alone could balance out Pat Buchanan plus a couple of others...

:-)

I did hear one person sum up the US/US Gov. "Yeah...it sucks, but, it sucks a WHOLE LOT LESS than everywhere else in the world."

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[dipipanone]

My point is while there is certainly nice tolerance it is a facade to some degree. Ask immigrants how they feel, the warm welcome that the Turkish and Marocans receive in Dutch society.

Well, my African-American friends say much the same things about the USA, only they aren't recent immigrants but have been there for several generations.

Turks and Marocans aren't very likely to be gunned down in their homes [about.com], or have a broomstick jammed up their arses [about.com] by arresting police officers in the Netherlands either. Are these typical? Of course not, but such incidents do happen with a disturbing regularity in the USA and I can't recall ever hearing of such events in the Netherlands.

Tolerance just to ideas is also lacking. Try critizing the Dutch government in front of them, they'll either 1) tell you how broken American government is in response or 2) tell you you're clueless because you don't know how brilliant the Dutch system is.

Yeah, I think that's right. However, in my experience, they're far less strident than the United States in their defence of 'my country right or wrong', and I can perfectly understand their unwillingness to be lectured on how they should run their government from an American. I certainly don't have the sense that the only way to achieve high political office in the Netherlands is by being in thrall to vested interests. In reference to Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan, did you not hear about Pim Fortuin? He wasn't as hateful as good ole Rush or Pat, but he was pretty radical in views

I don't think Fortuin was comparable for a moment -- and if anything, Fortuin is a pretty good counter-example to the things that you're saying.

Firstly, he was gay. Can you even begin to contemplate a gay Jesse Helms?

Secondly, he was critical of the existing Dutch system -- and gained an immense amount of support from the population for expressing what were effectively heretical views that broke with the longstanding liberal consensus.

Finally, Fortuin wasn't opposed to immigrants simply because they were different -- inferior mongrel races -- but rather, was concerned about the impact that immigrants from certain other cultures were having on the Dutch way of life -- and most particularly, those enlightenment values of tolerance, equality, etc. that the Netherlands has worked so hard to enshrine.

This isn't an issue that's ever likely to arise in the USA because you insist that every immigrant pledge allegiance to the flag, motherhood and apple pie before they ever get citizenship, and the moment you begin to even start perceiving them as a potential threat you start locking them up or expelling them [amnestyusa.org], regardless of the evidence against them.

Don't get me wrong. The USA has many great qualities and I love the place as much -- perhaps even more -- than I love the Netherlands. But freedom and tolerance just aren't the first things that spring to mind when I think about the place and I often have to struggle to reconcile the good things I like about the political system there (such as the very spirited defence of freedoms of speech and expression, the constitution, etc.) with the reality of how that system actually operates.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[dipipanone]

I appreciate the different view

And I yours. If truth be told, I don't really spend enough time in either place to get more than a very superficial impression of how both countries are, so I'm really only giving my impression based on that.

I'm happy to acknowledge the possibility that by living there, your view may well be a much more accurate one than mine.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[Grishnakh]

Don't remember his statement about Islam being a "backwards" religion?

What's wrong with that statement? It IS a backwards religion. I'm sorry, but any religion which preaches that women are second-class citizens and that their bodies should be hidden from view is not something I'd call forward-thinking or progressive. Sorry it that's un-PC, but that's the way it is. Even worse are the Islamic laws that require women to be stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[Steve B]

Don't remember his statement about Islam being a "backwards" religion?

The plain fact of the matter is that most of the Islamic world has not yet been dragged kicking and screaming into Playing Well With Others (in the way Christendom was during early modern times). It could just be a matter of historical contingencies, such that if a few random events had gone differently Arab troops would be combing the Ozarks looking to catch Pat Robertson and his mass-murdering followers, but the difference is there.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[fruity1983]

Grishnakh! Haven't seen you on EGT in a while.

Drop by the new forum Viracocha and two other guys set up: Consr.us [consr.us]

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[f0rt0r]

That shows your ignorance of Islam. Women are not second class citizens in Islam. They can work, hold political office, etc. the same as men. Yes, their bodies should be covered in public, just as men should be covered below the knees and above the navel.

Most misconceptions about the religion come from the media, and secondly they are the result when culture gets confused with religion. I.E. in Saudi Arabia women are not allow to drive. That is culture and not religion as Islam does not forbid that. Persi

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[Grishnakh]

You never answered the bit about Sharia Law and stoning women to death when they have sex outside of marriage. Sharia Law is part of the Islamic religion, and shows its barbarity.

Women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to read newspapers in public, either. S.A. is an Islamic country, under Islamic laws. That's not "culture", it's the religion.

Sorry, you haven't convinced me at all that Islam is anything more than utter barbarism.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[dipipanone]

That's because it would be illegal.

Um, OK.

You've never actually *been* out of Bumfuck, Alabama, have you?

How is that "more free" again?

Sorry, I erred. If you're a typical example, that should be "more free and better educated."

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[BraveLittleHamster]

If you were kidding, I missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
Um, what hate does Rush Limbaugh spew, exactly?
Not sure if "hate" speech is the right word for it, but he frequently makes bizarre, unflattering, and factually malleable comments regarding women's rights supporters, homosexuals, environmentalists... Pretty much anyone who he fails to agree with. He is a big mindless right wing mouthpiece ( kind of like a less evil Ann Coulter ) and deserves absolutely no respect as a journalist. Please note I am not

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[symbolic]

You can argue that this is overly optimistic, but in the end this attitude often leads to life satisfaction.

This is part of the so-called American dream. But eventually you wake up and find reality staring you in the face. I don't deny there's opportunity, but there's a lot of slime that goes with it. In many cases, it's often a choice of how much you're willing to give for what you get - not only in terms of your time and/or skills, but in terms of your integrity, your dignity, and other things that matt

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[HiThere]

Impartial polls have been showing the net freedom in the US going down regularly for decades in comparison to other countries. Similar results apply to education level and economic well-being. I don't know the long term trends for the percentage of population acting as slaves, but the US is currently right near the top. (Convicted criminals engaged in coerced poorly paid labor is what I mean here.) This has been sufficient to decrease the average wage paid substantially, so it's no minor component of th

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[jlanthripp]

Just a sampling from the top of my head, though not everything on this list appeals to everybody, and there are some things in this list that are in peril under the current administration:

• Freedom of the press - you can print pretty much anything you want, and nobody can toss you in jail for it. The only exceptions I can think of are for libel, slander, and revealing classified information (because if you have classified information you either got it illegally or you signed a statement saying that you promised to not reveal it, understood the National Security Act, and understood that violating that act lands you in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison).
• Freedom of speech - see above, only it applies to verbal communication as opposed to written.
• Freedom of association (now severely curtailed by the Patriot Act, which will hopefully be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).
• The right to not be subject to search and seizure without a warrant, issued by a judge, supported by an affidavit sworn under oath under penalty of perjury (also heavily eroded by the Patriot Act and various laws passed under the pretense of cracking down on drug dealers, which will also hopefully be declared unconstitutional).
• One of the lowest overall tax burdens (for all income levels) in the industrialized world.
• Nubile Southern Women (Southern USA Women, that is).
• Wal Mart. You too can buy a riding lawnmower, a barbecue grill, an oil filter for your car, some clothes, and next week's groceries at 3am on Saturday.
• Almost limitless opportunities for socio-economic advancement. My father's family got indoor plumbing for the first time in 1965 when he was 15 - and though they qualified, neither my grandparents nor my parents nor I have ever applied for or received one cent in government aid. He made over $80,000 in 1990, putting him in the wealthiest 5% of the nation. And he never had a management position with a title any more glamorous than "Mechanical Maintenance Foreman". To me, that illustrates the fact that with hard work, self-discipline, and determination, anyone in America can overcome a "lower-class" background. My house (a modest cottage) and my truck are paid for, and I get by just fine on a part-time job - to me, time to spend with my family is more important than money, and though I can afford everything I need, I am by no means rich. I am, however, housed, clothed, fed, and happy - and thus I'm better off than most people in the world, for which I'm thankful.
• Backyard cookouts, tailgate parties, barbecued chicken with Texas toast. "Plugged" watermelon (cut hole in melon, pour rum into melon, eat).
• Deserts, beaches, mountains, forests, grassy plains, swamps, bayous, rivers and lakes - all within a day or two driving time, and all the hotels accept Visa and Mastercard.
• American Indians (aka Native Americans), Anglo-Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Scots-Irish Americans, Indian-Americans, Spanish-Americans, Cuban-Americans, Asian-Americans, Polynesian-Americans, Arab-Americans, Palistinian-Americans, French-Canadian-Americans, mixtures of all the above and then some.
• Near-total confidence of invulnerability from hostile invasion, even if military spending were cut by 2/3 (which isn't a bad idea).
• Even the American "poor" are wealthy by the standards of many other nations - death by starvation is almost unheard of, for example.
• The right to legal counsel if accused of a crime, the right to trial by jury, and the right to appeal an unjust criminal conviction. (Yes, I know about the people at Camp X-Ray - they are recent developments, exceptions to the rule, and with any luck a judge somewhere will order that they be given their day in court or set free)
• Freedom to practice any religion, or no religion - so long as said practice doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
• Travis Tritt, Rob Zombie, System of a Down, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, the New York Symphony O

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[jlanthripp]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I claimed that the US has a monopoly on freedom of speech, press, and religion.

Small mistake. USA has approx 12% of its population living below the poverty line. That is absolutely unheard of in western europe for example.

Ah, I see - the world consists of Western Europe and North America, and the rest of the world doesn't count. My bad.

But I didn't mention poverty level, did I? I mentioned death by starvation. According to the World Health Organization [who.int], Protein-Energy Malnutrition (PEM), the most lethal form of malnutrition, affects 1 out of every 4 children worldwide. "...more than 70% of PEM children live in Asia, 26% in Africa and 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean." The United States isn't mentioned. Neither is Europe. If I were a child, I'd rather live in the US or Europe than, say, Asia or Africa - nevermind the climate, I'd like to eat on a regular basis!

Now let's take a look at that 12% figure. If you'll reread my previous post, you'll notice that I said that even the poor of America might be considered wealthy by the standards of many other nations. According to the US Census Bureau, 12.6% of all Americans over the age of 15 earn less than or equal to the dollar amount which it says defines the "poverty level" income of an individual. This excludes government aid payments, and every person is counted - including non-working teens aged 15-18 who live with their parents (even if those parents are wealthy), people who need not work because their spouses make money by the bushel, retired people who live on pensions, savings, and Social Security retirement benefits, permanently and temporarily disabled people who live on Social Security disability benefits and private disability insurance, and those whose wages are paid "under the table" and do not report or pay taxes on their income.

"Poverty level" is defined by the US Census Bureau strictly by individual income per year, and doesn't take into account the income of other family members, government aid income, or "allowances" such as the $5,000/month Little Rich Johnny gets from his parents every month while he attends college out of town.

Note that I didn't say that American poor were wealthy by the standards of the United Kingdom, or France, or Sweden - I said "many nations". Places like Ethiopia, Somalia, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, Malawi, Haiti, and so forth. Places where you're likely to see Sally Struthers pitching another Save The Children fund-raising campaign.

Now, let's take a look at someone who is part of that 12.6% who's under the poverty level - me. My income put me below the "poverty level" last year, as well as 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994, and every year from 1988-1993. I will probably just barely clear the poverty level this year, but only if the Dow Jones doesn't close out for the year any lower than its level as of last Friday (capital losses due to drops in stock prices deduct from your Adjusted Gross Income dollar-per-dollar). I own a modest but nice 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house with a mixture of new hardwood floors and new carpet, on a 1/2-acre level lot, in a good neighborhood. I own it outright - no mortgage. I own a 1996 Ford full-sized pickup truck outright, no payments. I have 4 computers, a cellular phone, thousands of dollars worth of books, cable television with 300 or so channels, high-bandwidth internet access, a refrigerator full of food, a Ridgeway grandfather clock/curio cabinet made from cherry wood, and about $9500 in savings. But according to the US Census Bureau, I've been hovering right around the poverty level since I became old enough to be included in the statistics, with the exception of 2 years when I lucked out and made a "middle-class" income. According to the rhetoric spewed forth by the liberals, I've been screwed over by the rich, and should be getting big fat checks every month, financed by the "wealthiest 10%" - which, BTW, means those making about $65,000 a year or more.

Don't be so ready to accept statistics blindly. Sir Benjamin Disreali was right - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[jlanthripp]

Not trying to start an "Us v's You" argument here, but just pointing out that many Things That Make America American are not as exclusivly American as many people seem to believe.

Oh, I understand your point. And I agree with you, at least for the most part - the US hasn't had a monopoly on those freedoms in quite some time, if it ever did in the first place. We merely have those freedoms, whereas there are a lot of places that don't.

And I wholeheartedly agree that our system here has its flaws. No gover

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[YanceyAI]

Personally, I love what my country stands for, not what it is or might become. That said, I've often considered moving to Canada or France (too much classism in England), or even some place more exotic. I worry about the world our daughter might grow up in and what values our system might impose upon her.

Still, every day, I get into my safe, affordable car and drive to my stable, fairly pleasant---yet demanding--job. My husband and I have the economic and political freedom to say and do just about anything

Re:what freedom do u guys actually have?

[WIAKywbfatw]

What do you mean by "too much classism in England"?

If by that you mean we have a royal family (which we share with Canada and a whole lot of other countries too, by the way), then you're right.

But I hardly see how that's relevant. In the UK, our head of state is the Queen, who in many ways has fewer rights than the average citizen (for one thing, she can't vote), and has only a minor consitutional role - she has no say in how the country is governed, in deciding the law, etc.

In fact, for all practical purposes, the Queen is just a glorified ambassador, which is all I want from my head of state. The real power lies with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, all elected officials.

There's arguably more of a class system in America than in Britain. In the US, if you're poor and need expensive medical treatment then you're probably shit out of luck. But in Britain, or almost anywhere else in Europe, you'll get it (perhaps not straight away, but you will get it).

Also, further education is more attainable in Britain than it is in the US. It might not be as free as it once was, but British students don't need six figure bank balances to get there degrees. If you're from a poor background but smart, where would you rather be? A country that wants to see your green before it lets you realise your potential or one that is happy to help you attain it?

Want to attain office? Well, better hope that daddy and his friends have deep pockets. The fathers of our last three Prime Ministers were a shopkeeper, a circus performer and a university lecturer. A humble start in life doesn't stop you from running the country over here but can you say the same in the US? Heck, if you don't have millions of dollars to your name you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even running for Congress, let alone be elected!

There are other examples but I'll only bore you further. Suffice to say class (or, to give it it's proper name, wealth) is more of a barrier in the US as it is in UK or elsewhere.

Don't you dare comment!

[Michael's a Jerk!]

If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it. Not tomorrow morning, RIGHT NOW. Get away from that Submit button and go write a letter to someone who could actually do something. Then send it snail mail to their LOCAL office (not DC office), or fax it. (Not email. Many offices don't pay attention to email, although some do.)

I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!

Some more info, while I'm at it

[Michael's a Jerk!]

What is SB213/HB457?

SB213/HB457 is the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which is backed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 session, versions of this bill have already been passed in eight states (and counting). This legislation negatively impacts citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what t

Re:Some more info, while I'm at it

[Cpt_Kirks]

I live outside Memphis. Mark Norris is my State Senator. When this first came up, I sent him an email calmly explaining why I thought this was a bad bill. He replied that he was already doing research and looking at info from the EFF. They backed the lobbyist into a corner, asking questions he *DID NOT* want to answer. It went away, but a staffer told me it would come back later.

I will have to check with him again when I get home, but it looks like (for now) they are doing a good job in grilling the lobbyists again.

Norris seems like a good guy. He had pretty good grasp of the issues and understood why the bill was bad as written.

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[arvindn]

If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators

Excuse me sir,

If you take the same amount of time to post a comment on /. and to write a "one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators", I regret to tell you that you take slashdot way too seriously. I would advise going out and taking a breath of fresh air :)

This bill is for the state of Tennessee

[putaro]

It's not a federal bill. Unless you live in Tennessee those senators are not real interested in your input.

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[Darth_Foo]

I already have. Fortunately, the state Senator Trail, quoted extensively in the linked article giving the MPAA/RIAA/cable crowd a hard time, is a personal and professional acquaintance of mine, close enough that we're on a first name basis. Also fortunately, I'm also on a first-name acquaintanceship with the U.S. Representative (Congress-critter) from that Distric, Bart Gordon. I don't hesitate to write whatever letters I can and to chat them up on these issues when I run into them. The best way to stay

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[Bendebecker]

Yep, write a letter to your senator and watch him laugh immediately before wiping his ass with it. No money, no influence. You can pretty much buy votes these days so what does it matter what the voters think?

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[Bendebecker]

They're probably sending you form letters dude. One of their understaffers scanned the letter for a total of 10 seconds looking for catch words, found one, and mailed you back a form letter stating the senators official position on that catch word/topic.

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[Anonymous Coward]

Contact your local MEP [eu.int] (you have one, you know that?) explaining the problems with the US DMCA, and how the EU should avoid them in revising its [ukcdr.org] own [fipr.org] legislation [patent.gov.uk]. The subject is due to come up in the EU parliament again next month, so you'll be timely and on-topic.

Re:Don't you dare comment!

[ajs318]

This isn't about stealing, troll. It's about the right to use goods you bought, paid for and own, in such a manner as you think fit.

I really thought I had stumbled onto a piece of horror sci-fi when I saw the full extent what the DMCA was about to criminalise. If I own a DVD, IMHO I have paid for the right to watch the content on that DVD. All means to the same end are equally valid - nobody {except the irreversible laws of Nature; and she's reckoned to be a deity precisely because it doesn't do mortals any good arguing with her} can dictate to me how I may watch that DVD. Only in a fascist police state would it be considered "theft" to use software received as a gift with the blessing of the author, to watch a paid-for DVD, on equipment you already own. The only thing you haven't done is paid money to some DVD player manufacturer, but as you haven't made any use of their goods or services, you don't owe them anything. That would be like a consortium of bra manufacturers calling Charlie Dimmock [google.co.uk] a thief!

And, of course, it's totally unenforceable - unless you actually spend more money on enforcing a stupid law than you would have lost through it getting broken in the first place. But you do get to blame it on "criminals", even although it was only your law that made them criminals in the first place.

And then, of course, you have to remember that it could be the thin end of the wedge. How long till the Bakery Products Association of America start busting bread machine users?

Slashdotted

[Pingular]

I can't access the file, so here's a link to the .pdf, HB0457.pdf [state.mt.us].

Re:Slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a different House Bill 457 - it's from Montana, and it's "An act requiring a county to conduct a special mail ballot election at municipal government expense when a municipality requests an election to approve or disapprove the application of the municipality's building code jurisdiction to all or part of an area not to exceed 4 1/2 miles beyond the municipality's corporate limits" Not quite the same thing, methinks.

Uh oh...

[darnok]

> the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications
> Security...

It seems that whenever the term "security" is part of the name of a government body in the US, something bad is about to happen.

Re:Uh oh...

[vidarh]

You have to realise that "security" refers to job security for lawyers and law enforcement officials... :)

Re:Uh oh...

[darnok]

What's this "us" and "you" business? Here in Australia, we're still having the virtues of DMCA-like laws spruiked to our politicians - we've got at least another few months before they're law.

The "sheriff of Asia" still has to go down this particular stupid path.

Firs Amendment advocates....

[t4b00]

'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...

With Advocates like you, who needs adversaries?

Advocates?

[Slur]

Whatever. The MPAA is a leading beneficiary of the first amendment, but frankly if the first amendment were repealed tomorrow the MPAA would do what it must in order to survive... go back to making propaganda films and the like. At least Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay would still be thriving.

Re:Firs Amendment advocates....

[John Allsup]

Like many say: the RIAA and the MPAA support free speech. They really do...

...so long as it's their speech and no-one else's.

They believe in the inalienable right to do what you're told (by them,) and the right to enjoy paying them money for whatever they want you to pay for. They believe in all kinds of freedom and free speech...

...in fact they believe in all the freedom and free speech that allows things to work in their direction. The problem is that they believe in no other freedoms and no oth

Why black out?

[Forge]

The statement was true. The MPAA and RIAA for that mater promote 1st amendment rights. They advocate free speech for musicians and movie producers. They aggressively block attempts to sensor what they want to say.

Sure they spend millions trying to fight our attempts to freely use the stuff we have bought. However they spend billions producing junk^M^M^M^M^art that aught to be sensord for the preservation of what little intellect remains on this planet.

Re:Why black out?

[DarkZero]

The statement was true. The MPAA and RIAA for that mater promote 1st amendment rights. They advocate free speech for musicians and movie producers. They aggressively block attempts to sensor what they want to say.

They block attempts by the GOVERNMENT to censor what artists can say, but they willfully censor artists themselves. With the vast majority of the movie theaters in this nation controlled by the MPAA and its standards, any attempt to freely reach an audience requires that you jump through hoops by

Re:Why black out?

[poot_rootbeer]

The MPAA and RIAA for that mater promote 1st amendment rights. They advocate free speech for musicians and movie producers.

In a very superficial sense, yes. Those industry groups will fight for the right to make an excessively gory movie, or profanity-laced compact disc--if they think there's money to be made from them.

Wouldn't you like to hear what the major recording artists really think about the RIAA, though? Ever wonder why you never do?

we like the 1st amandment..

[gl4ss]

..as long nobody tells things about us or our tech that we don't like.

and by the way, that korean manual on your vcr is a 'copyprotection device', so don't press that button with a red circle.
-

Your Typical Tin-Foil Hat Rant

[Excen]

In all seriousness, the people of Tennessee need to stomp this law into the dirt, before it can spread throughout the country. You may deny it, and say that only the hicks, to use a generalization that would only be relevant in NYC and LA, would approve of something like this, but it's only a matter of time before a whole bunch of states pass this kind of legislation.

On a side note, the -IAA crowd couldn't buy off Congress all at once to get their way, so they're purchasing state legislatures one-at-a-time now? Why don't they just save up for a few months or years or whatever to get what they want? It's what the rest of us have to do!

DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get

[Debian Troll's Best]

In a previous job I was the system administrator for a small legal firm (taking care of their Debian-based legal document tracking and retrieval database server). Hence, I've been taking more than a passing interest in the proceedings of the various DMCA related court actions. If I'm understanding things correctly, then this latest case in Tennessee will be a real threat to open source software, and especially Debian.

The thing with the DMCA is that it's all about trying to thwart people from cracking copy protection mechanisms. And a key step in the process of breaking protection is its eventual transmission from its original source to its eventual destination. IANAL, but from my readings, the DMCA will be coming down as hard on mechanisms which facilitate the transmission of protected materials as much as the mechanisms which are used to circumvent that protection in the first place. Now, let me describe to you the perfect DMCA-circumvention transport tool. It's simple to use. It moves data (software especially) with a minimum of fuss. It can check for differences between the source and the sink, and make appropriate changes to what's being grabbed. And you can use it to upgrade Debian.

Yep, it's apt-get I'm talking about. This is something which has started to get some serious consideration on the Debian mailing lists. What if apt-get is in contravention of the DMCA? What is apt-get is considered to be a tool for the transmission, installing and dist upgrading of pirated/cracked data protected under the DMCA? It's something which is keeping people like Ian Murdoch, Bruce Perens and Joel 'Espy' Klecker up late at night talking with their lawyers just in case the worst does happen.

So fellow apt-get users...please take a moment to consider the precarious position we are all in as a result of this DMCA madness. Write your local congressman. They need to know how evil the DMCA is. And send them a Debian CD-ROM while you're at it...maybe we can win over some Windows users in the process!

apt-get peace out, comrades!

Re:DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get

[cgranade]

By that logic, you could say that http, ftp, scp, bt, tftp, e-mail, freenet, and the like are all against DMCA. This, while it may be what {RI|MP}AA want, would certianaly destroy the entirety of what we now know as the Internet.

Re:DMCA could be bad news for Debian/apt-get

[anagama]

• would certianaly destroy the entirety of what we now know as the Internet.

Exactly. Don't you think the AAs would be happy to see the internet dissapear?

Excuse me????

[rock_climbing_guy]

I started reading this and the following statement caught my attention:

She then introduced the next two speakers, who she said "speak around the country on this specific piece of legislation." Senator Trail asked her why we needed this legislation at all since we already had laws that made cable theft illegal. She stated that the existing law only covers analog, not digital cable theft--giving the impression that, without this new bill, digital cable theft is legal. In responding to Senator Trail's continuing questions about this, she also admitted that the primary goal of the new legislation was getting stronger civil penalties.

Are they actually claiming that it's legal to steal cable TV if the cable is digital?????? WTF???????

Re:Excuse me????

[arkanes]

Stealing cable is a civil offense, or criminal if you do it for profit(resell), because it's copyright infringment (also probably trespass to chattel and theft of service and a number of other things). It's ALSO illegal in it's own right, because when the big cable rollouts were happening the telcos were in bed even more with the politicians than they are now, so there was special, specific legislation passed to protect cable companies. The people referred to in the notes are complaining that the FBI, which

Well these things happen.

[barcodez]

This is what happens when you don't democratically elect a leader.

Re:Well these things happen.

[Glock27]

This is what happens when you don't democratically elect a leader.

Wrong.

However, even if your fantasy were true, think what things would be like with algore as Supreme Leader. I'm sure he'd be fighting the DMCA, MPAA and RIAA tooth and nail, right? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, in fact he'd be fighting for them, because just like the Republicans, the Democrats receive millions of dollars from the media big dogs. The rights of regular Americans and the public good mean nothing by comparison.

That is the reason

Wrong Statement

[famazza]

I'm sorry, but this have nothing to do with the president (we all know who we are all talking about). This is about the faillings of this so called democratic govenment.

In a democratic government we have people electing their representatives so they can have their interests defended and laws supporting their needs and opinions. The way US government is organized it just doesn't happen this way.

The legislative is mostly supported by huge corporations that use their power and money to buy the ones that was supposed to defend the people interests.

And what happens then? Then we have draconian laws that protect most corporations, harming just a few of them, aproved, even if them simply don't bring any good to the people. That's the case of DMCA, for examplo.

What can be done? We can try changing the way we vote, and the way we participate, avoiding being confused and manipulated by huge organizations and voting in politicians that really represent us.

IMO we need even more. Politicians should not be allowed to be paid by corporations. Corporations should not even participate in politcs decisions. Politics campains should be maid on the streets, squares, not on TV. We should be able to contact in person our representatives.

Will that be true someday?

Representatives

[nuggz]

Contact your representative.

Votes come from people, not corporations.

Money comes from donations, money will advertise, hopefully buying votes.

Either buy the vote with action, or buy it with the advertising money.
Without money, nobody will even know what they stand for.
They need both, you just have to play the game.

Re:Wrong Statement

[Wylfing]

The legislative is mostly supported by huge corporations that use their power and money to buy the ones that was supposed to defend the people interests.

You know, at first I was going to blast you for being stupid. I mean, last I checked it was votes that elected representatives, not dollars. But wait a minute. In the near future when we all use Diebold SuperVote 3000(TM) voting machines, we will in fact get a nice big taste of how it feels for our votes to count for nothing. Politicians will finally, trul

Re:Wrong Statement

[famazza]

Sorry, I don't mean to be unpolite, but I think that you are being ingenuous.

Let's consider that you live in a society that have values, and this values are defined not only by looking people around you, but also by other ways, such as media (newspapers, magazines, TV).

Do you really think that those who controls media are imparcial? That they don't use this tool to control masses?

Media is the most effective tool, and most hard to prove, to control masses. Most people are easily controled by media, You

Your "should" doesn't scale

[TFloore]

Politics campains should be maid on the streets, squares, not on TV. We should be able to contact in person our representatives.

According to the US Census, New York state has a population [census.gov] of 18,976,457 (2000 Census).

Please explain to me how, in a democracy (okay, a republic) with involved citizens, 18,976,455 people can have contact in person with 2 people? (NY state has 2 US Senators, who, theoretically, each directly represents the entire population of NY state.) (Or even the 14.2 miilion that are over

Proving Damages and Loss

[Slur]

In the world of electronic data transmission the notion of theft is much blurrier than it used to be. A company that sold onions could point to an onion thief and say "he stole seven onions so we want seven equivalent onions as a remedy." They could easily prove damages because they have physical goods on hand.

The issue becomes blurrier in the case where - at the end of their season - the onion company ends up with a lot of rotten onions that they can't sell. They cannot claim unequivocally that the individual onion thief caused them any damage. They would have to know whether the onion thief would have bought the onions he stole, or whether those seven onions would have rotted with the rest.

In the case of cable tv or music downloads, it seems to me that a company has to be able to show that a given individual thief would have bought the item in question.

In other words, a million dollars in "theft" probably only amounts to a thousand dollars in actual damages. And that's a generous estimate.

Obviously companies have to sustain themselves somehow. However, it ought to be done in ways that make creative use of the newest technologies. It ought to be done through adaptation, not through shortsighted legal scheming.

If I were the President of Show Business I'd tell the music and movie folks to suck it up and send the lawyers home. The present may seem scary, but there's no need to panic and start making kooky demands. In the longer view this is just a little bump in the road.

Flat-rate charging the culprit?

[Phil Karn]

Seems to me the cable companies and telcos want this bill mainly to protect a fundamentally flawed business model -- the flat rate broadband plan.

Yes, residential customers really like flat rate plans because they know exactly how much they'll spend every month. But they have a Faustian downside: they give the carriers an excuse to severely limit and control how you use the service. Just as all-you-can-eat cafeterias have rules that regular restaurants do not (e.g., against sharing food or taking it home) most flat-rate broadband plans prohibit connection sharing, business use, running servers, etc.

If the carriers instead charged by usage for the shared part of their network, then they would have far less of an arguable case (i.e., none whatsoever) for claiming that a NAT box, even if you use it to provide service to your neighbor, constitutes "theft of service". If you pay for those bits, they're clearly yours to give away.

I know it's unpopular to argue for usage-based billing. But if I'm forced to choose (and I think I will be) between flat rate plans with lots of heavy-handed restrictions and a pay-as-you-go plan with no restrictions at all, I know what I'd do.

Groups like those opposing the Tennessee bill should educate their lawmakers that it's simply not their job to protect unsustainable business models. Although broadband service is frequently provided over cable TV facilities, it is nothing like cable TV. With usage-based billing, even your average legislator might see how analogies between NAT boxes, which support a two-way telecommunications service, and illegal cable descramblers, which gain access to a one-way broadcast service, simply don't apply.

Imagine also the public outrage that would finally be directed against Microsoft when end-users have to pay for all the traffic generated by their worm-infested machines. Not only might that create an incentive to get such machines quickly off the net, we just might see a lot of ordinary Joes defenestrating their copies of Windows. Clearly a good thing.

Even the MPAA and RIAA couldn't complain, since usage-sensitive billing would discourage file sharing. (We don't have to tell them that everyone would simply revert to the way music was widely pirated long before the Internet: by exchanging physical media.)

Oh, and the spammers would have to pay more, too. Wouldn't that alone make it worthwhile?

Re:Flat-rate charging the culprit?

[Qzukk]

If the carriers instead charged by usage for the shared part of their network

Go to college. Take networking 101. See why the entire concept of charging for bandwidth usage is flawed.

Here's the gist of it:

If the other end doesn't get your packet, you send it again.

So, if the cable modem drops packets, who pays for those packets? How is the ISP going to prove that a given packet made it through their network? How do you know that the ISP isn't dropping every other packet intentionally to double your ba

Re:Flat-rate charging the culprit?

[Phil Karn]

I suggest you go to college and take Economics 101. Pay special attention to the sections on demand-side elasticity and the "tragedy of the commons".

It may surprise you to learn that most commercial Internet users already pay by usage. They already have to deal with the problem of having to pay for DDos traffic. The answer here is not flat-rate billing, but new mechanisms to control such attacks. Routers should give the user of any IP address, without prior arrangement, the ability to create filters that

Re:Flat-rate charging the culprit?

[Phil Karn]

I admire your deep insights into what "the unwashed masses" want.

Usage-sensitive billing need not result in higher bills. It has been well known for years that most residential telephone customers pay considerably more under flat-rate plans than they would under usage-sensitive plans.

Many creative service and pricing alternatives are available to the ISPs. Draconian laws like the one proposed in Tennessee are simply unnecessary. The one I've always liked is a continuous bandwidth auction. Each user has

Re:Flat-rate charging the culprit?

[Phil Karn]

You say your ISP charges a flat rate per month, yet you have to pay more for going over your monthly limit?

I'm confused. This must be some strange new meaning of the term 'flat rate' with which I was previously unfamiliar. :-)

I've already said it

[Pan T. Hose]

I've already said it countless times, but if you haven't already read The Right to Read [gnu.org], do it now while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. That's funny that we all were laughing out loud at Richard when he wrote his "stupid dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind foolishly guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Sadly, not Richard but us. It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all. The DMCA is the fruit of our own inaction, our own inertia, our own plain stupidity. We all have to remember that. We have to take the responsibility if we ever want to overthrow the law system we don't agree with. The DMCA was introduced democratically and it can be fought only democratically, where everyone takes the responsibility for the will of the majority. It is a great time to renew our EFF memberships [eff.org] because that is our freedom at risk.

Today is a good day...

[BigBir3d]

...to be proud that I was born in Knoxville.

I guess hicks don't like oppressive legislation, regardless of it's focus.

the important question here is...

[jonwil]

Just what constitutes a "communications service".
For example, does the "communications service" end at your cable/DSL/dialup modem?
Or does it end at your web-browser?
Or what?

If we cant get these new bills overturned completly, we should push for clear definitions of just what a "communications service" is to be enshrined into the bills. That way, they can only be applied in the ways that the law-makers intend.

My take on why these bills are being pushed for:
1.to enable companies providing "communications services" (e.g. cable providers, telcos etc) to go after people who are stealing service (e.g. cable pirates, phone phreakers etc)
2.to enable those same providers to have greater controlls over the networks (for example, cable companies can make it illegal to plug digital recorders into their networks and record stuff)

Incredulous Assertions==Lies

[jodo]

"At that point, Ann Carr [lobbyist] was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service."

Here is a population/household stat on Memphis. [areaconnect.com]
Memphis Population: 650100
Male Population: 307643
Female Population: 342457
Households: 250721
Median Age: 32
Average Household Size: 2.52

Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.

Do you believe that?

Re:Incredulous Assertions==Lies

[AzrealAO]

A) He was most likely referring to the area that Time Warner Cable Memphis served, which could include suburbs/outlying areas.

B) If TWC Memphis charges for extra outlets/cable boxes in a house and someone is paying for 1 cable box/outlet, but has 2 other grey market cable boxes in other rooms in the house, they're stealing cable service as far as the law is concerned (and are probably counted as two people, since he did say people, not households).

Whether this is right or not is an exercise for the reader

Re:Incredulous Assertions==Lies

[jodo]

What data set are we supposed to use to determine the veracity of the time warner's claim? I am perfectly aware of the imperfection of the census numbers used in my post but we have to start somewhere. TWC does not indicate anywhere on their web site [twarner.com](that I could find) the size of their Memphis market.
I did find these numbers. [gomemphis.com] "Time Warner Cable has about 124,000 customers in Memphis, about 10,000 in Germantown, about 8,500 Bartlett, and about 9,000 in the West Memphis system, which includes Sunset and M

Misleading

[whereiswaldo]

My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that.

Amazing, it sounds just like Microsoft. These days, we need to make everyone qualify their statements - back them up with evidence. Self-congratulatory, passing phrases such as the MPAA's try and show true substance where there is none. If they were a real business providing value, they wouldn't need to make things up t

Warranty

[roman_mir]

Void in Tennessee

Never enough

[CGP314]

Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave

The title never gives enough information. It is a vampire or a zombie? I don't know if I should go and buy a wooden stake or lighter fluid.

As a Tennessee Resident...

[Greenisus]

As a Memphis resident and Nashville hater, I have to say that this doesn't surprise me. The country music industry is based in Nashville, and is the source of much of Nashville's prosperity. There are also television shows filmed in Nashville (there was TNN - The Nashville Network, and there is some country square dancing show that a lot of people watch that's filmed at some club on Nashville's Broadway (their version of our Beale Street or New Orleans' Bourbon Street). So, it's in the Tennessee governme

Re:As a Tennessee Resident...

[Tsar]

As a Memphis resident and Nashville hater, I have to say that this doesn't surprise me.

Then I suppose that it WOULD surprise you that the bill's Senate sponsor is your own Senator Curtis Person [state.tn.us]. I'll give you a moment to recompose yourself.

The old addage goes something like this:

[Mac Degger]

'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...'

If you have to state it for yourself, then you most likely aren't.

State power will always have its abusers.

[Eiki]

We should not be surprised when corporations seek to use the power of the state to their advantage, since business are about nothing more than self advantage. So are many individuals - and that is perfectly fine. The problem lies with the government that holds enough power to make such abuses possible, not with the corporations that try to benefit. And yet many think that we can get rid of "big business", or limit its activities somehow, and thereby solve this problem.

In communist countries, where no corpo

Re:I live in TN and dont like this....

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I love Tennessee, especially Chatt, but this just goes to show you how stupid our poiliticians are.

Your' politicians are smart. Long ago Franklin and Adams argued over who should run the country, the majority (according to Franklin) or the elite few (according to Adams). The letters they exchanged had a strong impact on the future of American government with both the two party system and the electoral college owing not just a little to those letters. Sounds like your state sides with Adams.

Re:I live in TN and dont like this....

[lythotype]

I live just outside of Chattanooga. When this whole mess came to my attention I emailed my state representative, Bobby Wood, and my state senator David Fowler. They both wrote back in person (and quite prompty I may add). While they admitted this topic was a bit over their heads they were still knowledgable about the bill and its repercussions. They both said they were against the bill and would not vote for it if it came to them. I was impressed to say the least.

More Tennesseans need to do exactly th

Re:I live in TN and dont like this....

[Bendebecker]

Yep, Mr. Smith was the only good politician ever to come out of Tennessee.

Two Cents from Nashville

[DaedalusLogic]

I remember back in the day working for an independent label in Nashville, the head asked us to snag some songs off of Napster for his kids before they shut the service down. If you ask me I think the problem is that these people want their cake and to eat it too. They use pitch correction and all the great things tech affords them to manufacture music. P2P is the disease that simply makes that an invalid way to do business. I find it ironic and sometimes hilarious. I remember a piece done on the local news

Re:Edmund..

[Overzeetop]

Which is why I decided to run for local office this fall. Will I win? Who knows. I didn't like the choices I was going to have on the ballot, so I got the required signatures to put my name on the ballot. I've spent about $160 on advertising and a few evenings away from my family talking to others in my district. A small price to have a voice.

I can't make a difference at a larger level than my county...no I take that back. My new title will actually get me in the door where I couldn't previously. Maybe

Re:Edmund..

[Overzeetop]

He He... I forgot what my .sig was. That's not my campaign slogan, btw. Maybe it should be "There are way to many stupid people in the world, and most of them seem to have been elected to run our county, state, and country. " Of course, the tag line would have to be "You can change that this fall...vote for me instead!"

I haven't made any promises about staying in local office, 'cause I turn 35 this winter which makes me eligible to run for President. It seems like anyone with half a brain and a few mill

Re:What exactly is the problem here?

[praedor]

The MPAA is NOT for the First Amendment unless it applies to movies. When it means people freely exchanging "free" information about how this method of encryption works and its weaknesses, then they are entirely against free speech. They are against it in most important cases that do not DIRECTLY apply to movie making. They are behind the DMCA which, at its heart, is about prior restraint of speech and information. It is about preventing the talking about, or disemination of, any information that they d

Re:Someone clue me in...

[Motherfucking Shit]

How about this, right at the top of the bill:

(a) It is an offense for any person knowingly to:

(1) Possess, use, make, develop, assemble, sell, distribute, lease, license, transfer, import into this state or offer, promote, or advertise any unlawful communication device:

(A) For the unauthorized acquisition or theft of any communication service or to receive, intercept, disrupt, transmit, re-transmit, decrypt, acquire, or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, re-transmission, decryption, or acquisition of any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider; or

(B) To conceal, or to assist another to conceal, from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication.

As written, it sounds to me like (A) would make it illegal for me to set up a wireless access point (which "facilitates the .. re-transmission" of a communication service) without getting permission from Time Warner. [The lobbyists also played the kiddie porn and terrorism cards with regards to open wireless APs.] Previously, doing this would have only been a violation of the AUP, and they could have cut off my service. If this bill goes through, they'll be able to prosecute me.

(B) sounds an awful lot like it would be illegal for me to spoof an email header, browse the web through a proxy server, or perhaps even use Freenet.

Note that the language of this bill specifies a "device," but does not require that the device must be hardware. "Device" is defined later in the bill as "any type of electronic mechanism, transmission lines or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, drive, machine, equipment, technology, or software." Freenet is, by its very nature, a "device" which attempts to "conceal the place of origin or destination of [a] communication."

The major problem with this bill is that the language is too broad - apparently by design:

When one senator asked if the law would have to be constantly updated to allow for new technology, he said "No, the statute is broad. We won't be back." (From

here [tndf.net])

The bill allows for felony charges for violations, and allows for $1,500 - $10,000 fines per device. The bill stipulates that counts and fines shall be imposed per day, that is, if you use 2 unauthorized "communications devices" for a week, you're guilty of 14 violations of this bill (well beyond the qualification for a felony charge) and you're liable for anywhere from $21,000 to $140,000 in fines.

This bill needs to die, or to have its language strictly clarified. If neither of these things happen, don't be surprised when you see "TN Resident Gets 15 Year Sentence for Open WAP" in the YRO section.