EFF: 48 Hours to Stop the Broadcast Flag 702
The Importance of writes "Think the Broadcast Flag is dead? EFF is warning that Hollywood is trying to sneak the broadcast flag into law as an amendment to a massive appropriations bill. 'If what we hear is true, the provision will be introduced before a subcommittee tomorrow and before the full appropriations committee on Thursday. That gives us 48 hours to stop it.' Action Alert here. List of Senator's phone numbers here."
senators (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:senators (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta love how this was modded 'insightful'...
Re:senators (Score:3, Funny)
Re:senators (Score:5, Insightful)
If we actually hated America we'd be happy to let our so-called leaders destroy the hell out of it. We're fighting them. The proper conclusion should be obvious to anyone whose brain is not made of sour cream.
Re:senators (Score:5, Funny)
Re:senators (Score:3, Funny)
Re:senators (Score:3, Insightful)
(Also, the supreme court seems to think that this should happen in actual courts, with proper procedure and without secret evidence rather than the "tribunals" that Rummy seems to prefer.)
Re:senators (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they are innocent? And we can't determine this yet because they haven't been tried by a court....
Re:senators (Score:3)
Re:senators (Score:5, Funny)
Re:senators (Score:3, Funny)
Re:senators (Score:3, Funny)
BroadCast Flag (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:BroadCast Flag (Score:5, Insightful)
I wrote about this to CNN (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wrote about this to CNN (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wrote about this to CNN (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wrote about this to CNN (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, CNN sues people constantly for bootlegging old Larry King Live shows. Teens and college students just can't get enough of that show.
As I said... (Score:2)
Why.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is playing dirty somehow beneath the good guys? Oh, that's what makes them the good guys...
Re:Why.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why.. (Score:3, Interesting)
(wishful thinking...)
Re:Why.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why.. (Score:4, Informative)
"L-TX (well should be, stupid ballot access laws)"
In Texas, you must run as R or D. These are the "stupid ballot access laws" of which the GP speaks. Paul is a registered Libertarian, though, so it's close enough to call him "L-TX".
Er... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I think he means "paleo-conservatives" as opposed to "neo-conservatives" (the majority of Republican politicians being of the neo sort).
The Republican party desperately needs to split, but there is no place for them to go if they don't want to become Democrats. Under the broken US election system any third party attempt inherently throws the election against their interests. The third party spoiler effect - it tends to cripple the "major" candidate that would otherwise be closer to their preffered position.
-
A centrist party would be supported by both sides. (Score:3, Insightful)
[1] Something the founding fathers seem to have forgotten, where's the bill of responsibilities?
voting system is to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, Duverger's Law (spoiler effect) is a feature (bug!) of the system itself, not any inherent flaw in the platforms of the minor parties. If we used Condorcet voting (not the same as IRV), every party could stand on its own merit. There would be no advantage inherent in being an incumbent party, or having the perception of being one of the most popular.
Of course, if everybody voted honestly instead of strategically there wouldn't be a problem either. But since that's awfully hard to do when the system encourages strategic thinking, we ought to change the system so that it encourages honesty. I don't know how we can have truly representative government if the people don't vote how they really think.
Politics isn't one-dimensional, so why do we think two parties can accurately reflect all political views? Politics is n-dimensional, for the n different issues that have become political. A strong multi-party system where everybody has a representative voice would be a big help.
Re:Why.. (Score:3, Funny)
And they for big grammar too.....
48 hours? More like 0 hours. (Score:5, Interesting)
The broadcast flag is here to stay, regardless of the EFF's "48 hours" claim.
Re:48 hours? More like 0 hours. (Score:5, Informative)
Tell you what, why don't you call your Senator anyway, even if you think this is true? What have you got to lose? If the law goes through, you can tell everyone that you were right. And if it doesn't, you get to say you helped stop the flag against all the odds.
Believe me, I love cynicism as much as the next person, but when it stops you from taking the one tiny step, the single principled stand that might have prevented disaster, you're not a cynic. You're a statistic. And a predictable one at that.
Re:Who's going to introduce it? (Score:3, Informative)
We don't know who will be introducing it. Possibly Senator Ted Stevens, co-sponsor of the Hollings Bill [wired.com] which would have also enforced mandatory DRM.
Met a Bill I Like (Score:5, Insightful)
Every bill must have a scope. It must apply to a single budget, or a single government organization, or their subsidiaries. Or it must be a "metabill", which specifies only a collection of bills related in an explicit policy, the exact relationship stated in the metabill.
Of course, Congressmembers should be voting against these big bills, with arbitrary attachments, on the principle of government manageability. But they obviously don't - they're all codependent on letting each other's attachments pass, often regardless of consequences, in exchange for the same favor later on. So we need to force them to stop doing it. Because the mass of laws, their inner complexity and scale, is killing the ability of anyone to participate in our democracy beyond any significant confrontation with the law. When only the lawyers win, we all lose.
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:3, Insightful)
But you US-ans should be so lucky. The problem you're settled with now is one which should be obvious: in a nation where no-one takes the sciences, but a lawyer is glamorised (along with other law enforcement agencies like the police, CSI etc), you end up with a nation of lawyers.
And if your populace is composed of lawyers....they'll do what lawyers
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, the evolving Web, especially decentralized social networks, might turn out to best feature pornopop idols like Paris Hilton. I think the next few years, especially as mobile multimedia networks defined by people's contact lists begin to dominate, are the defining moment for the next few (human) generations of mass media. It's up to us to take the spotlight back from lawyers, and feature more real people.
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Did you see what happened to the Interstate Commerce clause? They can relate any two things easier than you can tie it to Kevin Bacon.
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Met a Bill I Like (Score:4, Informative)
As a matter of fact, there is a group trying to get a law passed that requires this exact thing: that all congressmen READ laws in their entirety outload before passing them (and only the ones present for the full reading may vote):
Make Congress Read the Bills Campaign [downsizedc.org]
It's brilliant really. You gotta love the Libertarians.
Re:Post-Reading Test (Score:5, Informative)
"I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." - John Kerry
Bush used that quote to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on issues, but Kerry didn't actually change his mind - the version of the bill he voted for, Bush threatened to veto because Bush wasn't happy with where the money was going to come from. The bill was changed so the money would come from somewhere else, and Kerry voted against it, not because he opposed the whole bill, but because he opposed one part of it.
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign. Of course, since you're the incumbent and they're not, you can't use the same trick against them, because they weren't in office at the time!
Re:Post-Reading Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Revolution anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
s because you sound so much cooler talking about revolution than talking about campaigning for election, right? Actually putting liberty, to say nothing of your life, on the line, has nothing to do with your tough talk.
Re:Revolution anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Voting doesn't help; you're voting for one member of the existing system, or another of the same, or you're voting for someone who can't win.
Worse, if you DO manage to vote out the incumbent, the rules of the House and Senate assure he has no real influence until he's been around for a while and therefore has fully aligned his interests with those of the system.
Letter-writing doesn't work -- such campaigns are often ignored, and those who prefer the status quo can and do mobilize their own campaigns.
Demonstrations don't work. If they're peaceful, they're ignored. If they're violent, the side opposing the status quo gets blamed. If they're peaceful and too big to be ignored, agents provocateur ensure they become violent, thus discrediting them.
Civil disobedience doesn't work; the penalties are too high, and once you've been convicted of a felony you've forfeited your political viability within the system -- as well as your chances of even making a decent living. Nobody cares if you're rotting in jail for violating an unjust law; you're just a criminal.
Even bribery (legalized or otherwise) won't work. Those supporting the status quo have more money. And the campaign finance laws are set up (not coincidentally) to help out the incumbents; those who have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo.
I didn't think you could (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:4, Informative)
You're thinking of one of those axis of evil countries where people can vote and they hold government accountable, like England or something.
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:5, Funny)
I seem to recall the words of our honerable Senate president: "Go fuck yourself!"
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I didn't think you could (Score:3, Insightful)
Damnit! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm gonna post this over on the various MythTV communities as well... try to get more support drummed up.
Link is bad? Here's another... (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, slashdotted to hell. But you can get them from the source [senate.gov].
Slashdotters Untie! I mean, Unite! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdotters Untie! I mean, Unite! (Score:5, Funny)
(Note... many are confused as they believe this may be a reference to the previous administration.)
Why do you still have riders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's illegal here in the US, too....It's just condoned.
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:4, Insightful)
". .
"All opposed?"
(chorus of nays)
"Motion fails."
That's why.
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:3, Informative)
The main difference is that they usually are a multi party system; occasionally independents or minor parties hold the "balance of po
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Police: "Ok, bribes are illegal, don't take bribes."
Politicians: "This isn't a bribe, it's a campaign contribution."
Police: "No, it's a bribe, and if you take it I'll arrest you."
Politicians: "Oh, ok, sorry."
Whereas in the US the conversation goes something like this:
Police: "Hey guys, 'bribes' are apparently illegal now, looks like we're gunna have to be honest and do our jobs for a change."
Politicians: "Don't be silly, we'll just call them campaign contributions."
Police: "Uhhh, look, I'm not sure you can get away with that."
Politicians: "Really? Here's a contribution to the campaign to help you see things my way."
Police: "Heh, ok, I get ya, it's not like anyone is minding the store anyway."
And no-one was.
Re:I looked it up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi, welcome to the 20th century... well, you're a bit late, but that's OK.
Here in 20th-land we call any form of government where the people elect leaders, and where any citizen (with minimal restrictions, usually based on age, nation of origin, etc.) can campaign for those offices, a "democracy".
Yes, this does NOT fit the classical definition, but since no one has founded a democracy in a VERY long time (arguably never), it's not going to be very confusing as we continue to use the new definition.
If you're going to stamp your feet and hold your breath over it, you're really going to be unhappy, since most of the world started using the new definition [answers.com] (also, check out Wikipedia's excellent article on the topic of the modern usage of the word "democracy" [wikipedia.org]) at some point last century.
Re:Why do you still have riders? (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, to serve his country?
To promote world peace?
To change the country (and the world) for the better?
To share his wisdom and experience for the betterment of humanity?
To meet interns?
EFF has a site that will fax your senator for free (Score:5, Informative)
If I'm not mistaken.... (Score:5, Funny)
By the time this story is an accepted submission, it will be 36+ hours past the deadline. All slashdotters should therefore direct their attention to criticizing the outcome pre-emptively in order to maintain an effective schedule.
Email is counterproductive (Score:5, Insightful)
I am highly critical of these online petitions, because people believe that they have done something, and therefore will not follow up their web form tick-off with something more substantive like the communications mentioned above.
I know it's a bit too late to dash of a handwritten letter to your rep in this occasion. But a phone call may be appropriate.
Re:Email is counterproductive (Score:5, Insightful)
And at 200 calls per-hour, they'll just stop answering the phones. Seriously, do you think they're going to listen?
Going down there in person is a hit-or-miss chance of actually speaking to someone with the power to change anything... or you'll end up in jail for "stalking" your senator.
The reason they probably slid this through on a rider so fast, was likely so people could NOT write to their senators in time.
I love my government more and more every day, don't you?
Re:Email is counterproductive (Score:3, Informative)
This was true, until Capitol Hill was hit by letters containing anthrax back in 2001-2. Nowadays snail-mail letters get a lot less personal attention than they used to (for obvious reasons).
Our Founding Fathers messed up... (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact the Broadcast Flag has been inserted to another bill is an example of where someone needs to make a phone call to Guido and have him wait on a door step, ring the doorbell, and kneecap someone.
Some are more adept at doing it than others. One good example is a former KKK member. That should provide enough information to forego the necessity of naming them. Some of the network reporters are good at presenting some of the larger garbage ammendments but they never say who actually added the material to the bill.
When writing to your senators, please (Score:3, Funny)
Orwell just rolled over in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so here we have the FCC mandating that we have to all convert our "old analog" television sets to digital television sets by 2007 or something...
Then we have the "Broadcast Flag" being driven through on a rider, shh... nobody will notice.
And now they can basically control what you can record via your "Dish DVR" or "TiVo" or TV tuner card or whatever other device you want to use, because of Hollywood pressure.
We already see DVDs where you can't bypass the intro commercials to get to the navigational menus, even for DVDs which we bought, which should have paid for the removal of those commercials.
Next, we'll see television sets being sent a signal that ignores the remote control's "channel" buttons during commercials. You just won't be able to switch away during commercials... you'll be forced to watch them (or power off your TV).
How far are we from a Telescreen here, really? I mean... all they need is a way to peer back in, and a way to stop you from turning off the TV or the volume...
Orwell would be proud.
Re:Orwell just rolled over in his grave (Score:3, Insightful)
You meant to say "which we licensed for limited use" - I'm sure the MPAA will forgive you this one slipup.
Re:Orwell just rolled over in his grave (Score:3, Insightful)
Sound like the best solution I have heard so far.
Another 48 Hours Killed the Broadcast Flag (Score:5, Funny)
"After looking at our summer lineup of movies, and previewing 48 Hours [imdb.com], starring Eddie Murphey and Nick Nolte, it was pretty clear that we wouldn't need a broadcast flag to keep people from recording our programming. I and a few others, hoping to promote our July 4th weekend of 48 Hours of 48 Hours, only on Spike TV also watched Another 48 Hours [imdb.com]. After we finished the film, we were confident that we had done the right thing to abandon the broadcast flag and honestly were considering abandoning television altogether."
This is what I wrote my Senator (Score:5, Insightful)
Media oligarchies, led by the RIAA & MPAA, tried to sue the VCR out of existence. They sued the first makers of MP3 players. They sued ReplayTV into bankruptcy because they dared to introduce an innovative product without the MPAA's permission. If the broadcast flag and similar legislative tools had been around for the last 25 years, we wouldn't have the VCR, iPods, TiVos or computer DVD recorders. These tools have helped democratize content creation, distribution & consumption by putting citizens/customers in charge of their home-made movies, music, and photographs.
Vote against the Broadcast Flag. It is simply a power grab by media oligopolies intended to criminalize the fair-use of media of Americans of all stripes.
Why bother... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that a cheerful comment on the state of our nation?
Get your mom to call too, don't forget that... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's where your mom comes in: she's a different generation and (on average) a different gender. This surprises the staffer, and they'll add a +2 to whatever your mom says.
She can use one of the standard talking points, or mention how she wants her techie child to continue being employed. And, if she has grandkids, then variations of "Nothing, but nothing gets in the way of my showing off hi-def videos of my grandkids to my friends" could be useful. Plus, sad to say, the staffers are more likely to believe her when she says that she votes (or contributes to campaigns) because (on average) its true.
Best Strategy: Boycott and Donate (Score:5, Insightful)
If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.
Re:Best Strategy: Boycott and Donate (Score:3, Insightful)
Campaign update. (Score:5, Informative)
As of 10PM PST, six hours after news first leaked out, we've reached over 4550 messages sent to the 26 senators on the appropriations committee. The median number of emails and faxes per senator is 64; the average is 150.
Patty Murray (D-WA) received over 300 from her constituents on the Broadcast Flag. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) has received over 500 mails warning her of the controversial rider. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has over a thousand faxes sitting in her inbox telling her not to accept any Broadcast Flag amendment.
And that's not including the telephone calls, which are still continuing.
Hollywood's first chance to slip in an amendment will be at 2PM EST Tuesday, in the Commerce, Justice and Science. Their next opportunity will be the full committeee mark-up [senate.gov] at 2PM EST Thursday.
We need to keep the pressure up, but I think it's fair to say that so far this rider is not slipping by unnoticed through the halls of Congress.
If you're in the states below, please call your senator.
COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND SCIENCE SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653
FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (202) 224-5054
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
MONTANA Conrad Burns (202) 224-2644
UTAH Robert F. Bennett (202) 224-5444
IDAHO Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
OHIO Mike DeWine (202) 224-2315
COLORADO Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Byrd (202) 224-3954
NEVADA Harry Reid (202) 224-3542
CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841
ILLINOIS Richard J. Durbin (202) 224-2152
SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
LOUISIANA Mary L. Landrieu (202) 224-5824
A TYPICAL CALL
"Hello, Senator _________'s office"
"Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm registering my opposition to
the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the
Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations
subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on
Thursday."
(*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag
here. Here's a sample: ***)
"The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of
receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts. It give
Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members
of the American public use our televisions. It forces
American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before
adding new features to TV. "
"This is an important issue which will affect all
Americans, and should not be inserted at the last moment,
with almost no debate."
"Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and
address are ___________________."
"Thank you for your time."
Other messages that might be equally appealing (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind them of a world of working people working wierd hours - late nights at the mall, night shifts, and the like. These are the forgotten people that all make our lives a little asier that are going to be most screwed by this evil broadcast flag. Not the people of Slashdot who can collectivley hack around most laws, but the bread and butter of each senators voting district who just do thier jobs and don't need the government coming in to tell them what can and cannot be recorded.
There is some mis-interpretation of the flag uses (Score:3, Interesting)
2. The broadcast flag will NOT stop you from recording a show. Your VCR, TIVO, PVR, etc will still work. The uproar of not being able to time shift would be too great for them to kill it. (Obviously)
3. The broadcast flag WILL stop you from being able to publish a broadcasted show over the Internet.
4. The TV/Movie industry has methods to stop/track recordings from cable/satellite and their Internet transmissions. In some cases they are not using them, in others they are being developed.
5. The broadcast flag already exists in the content, the legislation is intended to force the hardware to recognize it. Manufacturers can voluntarily act on it now if they choose. But why would you add a feature (raise cost) if you don't have to. Thus the legislation is needed to get the hardware to do what the TV/Movie industry wants.
I don't care if it is implemented or not. Yes, I time shift continuously as my kids are not allowed to watch any night time TV. No, I don't get any TV or Movie content from the Internet. If I missed the show I missed it. I'll pick it up in reruns if it is important to me, which generally it is not.
As for commercial skipping, studies have showed that people that fast forward through commercials have the same retention rate as people that watch them all. Now is this saying that people intelligent enough to program a recording device are smarter than those that can not? I don't know. It's all open to interpretation.
Re:heh (Score:2)
Damnit, the bible belt is going to decide wether or not we have a broadcast flag or not, those farkers better not screw up!!(Of course by screwing up I mean doing anything that I don't agree with)
Re:heh (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this mean that U.S. Senators don't need to take calls from US residents ?
Could someone explain how this works ? Is this normal in the states ?
I think I would be a bit concerned if our politicians wouldn't even pretend to listen.
Re:heh (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that line-item veto power required an amendment (probably correct), so Clinton's strikeout were reversed.
Re:heh (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as they are abused there is a reason many things can be put in a bill. It is so a consecion can be made to the other side and things can keep moving along.
Re:heh (Score:3, Interesting)
The line-item veto gives the President an insane amount of power that he, as chief executive, has no right to. Anyway, do you really think George Bush or Bill Clinton gives a crap about the broadcast flag? Hardly.
A more realistic (and Constit
Re:heh (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Party X proposes legislation, concerns raised by party Y.
2. Safeguards added to legislation to satisfy party Y
3. Congress passes legislation
4. Party X president snips out safeguards and passes the rest
5. ???
6. Police state!!!!
Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)
Score:3, Insightful
This should be Score:5, Funny! I absolutely burst out laughing when I read it. It took me a full minute before I could manage focus enough to read beyond that first sentence.
Bush veto the broadcast flag? Woohoo! I guess that would be right between vetoing a Defense of Marriage item and trimming troubling new police powers out of Patriot Act II Revenge of the Sith.
-
Re:heh (Score:5, Funny)
especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
s/pen/crayon/g
Did it ever occure to you yanks... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about spreading some democracy in your own back-yard before trying to take over the world.
Re:Did it ever occure to you yanks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We still can use our VCR (Score:4, Informative)
There also goes any hope of any non-corporate innovation in HDTV and the beginning of all-out consumer fleecing without any regard for fair use. From now on, we'll have to beg for everything from Hollywood. Even the stuff we take for granted today.
Re:We still can use our VCR (Score:5, Insightful)
As for utilizing the analog hole, yes, that remains possible, but there are serious drawbacks - remember that we're talking about HDTV here - I'm pretty sure all the ways that that actually gets transmitted over the wire transmits the flag.
Now, obviously from a technological standpoint, this means nothing - there will be firmware hacks, instructions on how to assemble a flag stripper from $0.47's worth of parts from Radio Shack, and of course eBay. It will end up being slightly easier than disabling Macrovision, slightly harder than making your DVD-player region free. But the important thing is, it will be illegal!
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm fucking tired of everything I do being made technically illegal, even if it has no tangible effect. I'm not ripping anybody off, I'm not sharing with millions of my closest friends, I'm just trying to record telvision shows when I'm not home, and sometimes watch my DVDs or store my CDs on my computer. I'm not harming anybody, I'm not not paying someone when I should, and so it should. not. be. illegal.
Re:We still can use our VCR (Score:3, Funny)
Oh? And what if when you get back home you watch that recorded show and skip the commercials? Or what about if you watch it TWICE and then DON'T watch it (or the commercials) when the station reruns the show? That's clearly not how the content providers would like you to watch those shows - how is that not ste
Re:Don't think! Just do!!! NOW NOW NOW!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, would you rather be manipulated by corporations who suck you dry, or Slashdot which, for whatever reason, is manipulating you to seek something that will benefit you (the stopping the Broadcast
Re:Legalese to english translation algorithm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Real American Comanies Innovate, not Legislate (Score:3, Interesting)
Next they void their retiree health benefits and offload employee pensions to the government.
High-paying jobs remaining in the reorganized company are then sent off to another country where labor costs are lower.
Finally, they give their CEO and Chairmen multimillion dollar golden parachutes.
The CEOs ride off into the sunset as rich as can be. The employees are then sent off to work at fast food restaura