Slashdot Log In
Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.
Posted by
michael
on Fri Aug 23, 2002 05:30 PM
from the have-wiki-will-travel dept.
from the have-wiki-will-travel dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The ultimate single issue candidate? (Score:3, Funny)
GeekPac (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GeekPac (Score:4, Interesting)
But I looked, and I couldn't find any contact info. Not so much as an email address. I guess we're stuck donating to the EFF [eff.org] instead.
Parent
that's a rather unfortunate name (Score:3, Insightful)
Check You Links - You make us do it (Score:3, Informative)
But, they linked to the 2nd page of the story..
For those too lazy to do it themselves or too stupid to realize it here's the link.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54693,0
Amen (Score:2, Offtopic)
Tell congress to love your kid."
Sheesh, that almost beats the Dilbert.com mission statement generator [dilbert.com] in saying nothing and sounding fancy... but sstill not quite:
"Our challenge is to proactively enhance mission-critical services as well as to seamlessly disseminate world-class data "
Grrr (Score:3, Funny)
Bootloaders don't need shells, and they certainly don't need to run for congress, damnit!
Geek spelling (Score:2, Funny)
I ask your patience, as I am developing this blog with little assistance and no very little about today's computer technology.
Hmm...I'm going to assume this was a deliberate spalling error to endear her to the
Re:Geek spelling (Score:4, Funny)
Here, Here!
Parent
Libertarian... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.
If you don't agree w/ me, reply. I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object. Something that has time and money invested to produce an item that really does have actual value. If I produced a song that I specifically did not want to give away for free, I would try to keep it off P2P networks. I would contact those who are sharing these files and explain that they don't have permission from me to distribute this.
Now, let me step back and say. I do understand fair use. If you purchase my CD and rip it to MP3 that's fine. You purchased the CD, you purchase the rights to listen to the music but, you did not purchase the rights to re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit.
OK.. Now step forward again. Why don't I like the way the MPAA/RIAA is protecting their property. There are/have been laws on the books that protect the copyright holders rights to published works. These laws explicity spelled out the fair uses of these works as well as protecting the creators. These laws worked for years on end. The change in technology didn't change the laws. The change in technology didn't make these laws less effective. You could easily still bring suit against a P2P user for sharing your music under the current legal system, it's just harder to do. So instead of attempting to protect their rights the hard way they simply bought laws to help them. These laws(DMCA, etc.) are what I have a problem with.
I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.
Re:Libertarian... (Score:2)
The government is for and by the people (or so they should be,) not for the rich and wealthy who control the people.
Current politics work by the equation:
Corporations = Money + People
And in a democracy:
People = Vote
So it gives the equation:
Vote = Corporation - Money
Vote = Corporation - Money (Score:2)
Does this equation simply mean that to get a vote, a corporation must pay some money? We already knew that!
Re:Vote = Corporation - Money (Score:2)
Re:Libertarian... (Score:2)
For what I want to do, copyrighting the material would be for protection against corporate theft, but it'd be less for the prevention of consumer theft.
The corporate example I used is an example of theft, but I do not believe somebody acquiring the images without paying for them is theft. What'd they steal? Electrons? They didn't cost me anything by taking it, they just didn't pay me. I could threaten to sue anybody who doesn't do that, but instead I'd rather appeal to people's good sense. "If you like my work, pay me so I can keep doing it." (Note: My definition of theft is solely limited to the context of my content, I do not intend to imply that I feel that way about copyrighted material across the board.)
If somebody has my work but doesn't want to pay for it, how can I assume they'd pay for it if they couldn't get it otherwise? If anything, somebody got to trial my work and develop a taste for it. At that point, it's up to me to make the service worth paying for. "Want to see it today instead of having to wait a week or two for somebody to make it available?"
I believe people are basically honest. I also believe that there'll always be a percentage of those who don't pay for the work but they should. That's called risk. The best thing I can do is figure out why they prefer not to pay for it and consider ways of making it interesting to them. Maybe I can offer a deal where they get it for half price if they agree to buy a bunch of it up front? Who knows?
I certainly think that locking up the content so they can't use it or learn from it is by far the worst thing I could do. How do I know some guy didn't by my work only because he's interested in 3d rendering?
Anyway, Im responding to the parent post not to specifically agree or disagree, I just thought I'd express my view as a potential content provider in the future.
Re:Libertarian... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Libertarian... (Score:2)
The obvious answer would be that they would do it for the same reason they did it before copyright existed. But that's not terribly realistic. The realistic answer is that the real problem here is not that copyright exists. It's that copyright has been extended and expanded beyond all recognition. Roll it back to a reasonable term (14 years was the original term, and if anything, it's more appropriate today than it was back then). Get rid of stupid laws like the DMCA. Then things will be fine. As it stands now, the public has no interest in copyright. Copyright was intended to entice people to create things that would eventually be added to the public domain for all to build upon. That doesn't happen anymore.
Re:Libertarian... (Score:2)
that doesn't work.
we must have laws thatoutline the copyright holders rights, and apply them to all copyrights.
what if you "see fit" to allow me(gee thanks) to rip mp3, but the next artists doesn't?
copy right laws need to be inplace to limit the copyright holders rights, not the rights of the people.
I say 5 year copyright restriction, and I can do anything I want with the medium, as long as I don't distribute it to likely purchasers of the product.
Of course, to date, new music that had wide p2p distribution also had higher then expected sales, and older music has only seen an increase in sale where available.
emmnemm would not sold over 1,000,000 copies if it wasn't being played by people who had ripped it before it was released.
The library analogy is flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
Well to me personally the difference is that the library has temporarily transferred the rights of listening to the music to the borrower. It can be clearly defined that when one person or entity has paid for the use of the music, and only one person or entity is using that music at any given time.
Software companies, even Microsoft, used to state in their standard EULA's that you were allowed to make several copies of their software as long as it was only being used in one location at any time. These allowances (which imho should be declared as implicit anyway) have now dissapeared from the EULA's -- possibly because the companies believe it's too hard or inefficient for them to enforce. Instead "independent" organisations like the BSA [bsa.org], the MPAA [mpaa.org] and the RIAA [riaa.org] have been formed by the corporate cartels to crack down on and frighten by legal threats anyone doing what the company decides it doesn't like, under the guise of IP law and in a way that they hope will never be decided on at a court that actually matters.
A peer-to-peer information sharing network doesn't naturally have this transferral of rights, because the information isn't moved. It's copied. Letting someone else use it doesn't prevent you from using it at the same time. If you look at a typical peer-to-peer music sharing network, this is exactly what happens. A few people buy something, and their versions of it are duplicated and shared many times between many thousands of people, all of whom are using it simultaneously and independently when often very few people have actually paid for it. Irrespective of how right or wrong anyone might believe it to be, this is nothing like how a library works.
More Background Info... (Score:5, Informative)
Repost (Score:2)
This was posted earlier today, but they reposted on the front page due to the number of submissions.
link [slashdot.org]
How to Tar a Grubb (Score:2)
tar: illegal option -- a
Try `tar --help' for more information
But hey, I got an idea:
[jukal@doh jukal]$ man -k grubb
grubb: nothing appropriate
Damn!
Refreshing (Score:4, Insightful)
more like scary.... (Score:3, Interesting)
"...with great ideas and views"
Aren't you a wee bit nervous of a politician who makes statements like "The history of the Middle East is the history of oil".?
I am really worried about a politican who thinks history = 90 years. This feels so close to the views of the European 19th Century powers that believed that African history started when they colonised the continent. Don't forget the earliest cities in the world (Ur, Akkad..) are in Iraq, the birthplace of our civilisation; there is 5000 years of history there. The foundation of the USA started there...
Hmm, just because somebody can use a weblog doesn't mean they are all right.
Re:Libertarian? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.
Capital "L" Libertarian? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are actually only 2 uses of the word libertarian on her weblog. Where did you get the idea that this woman was a Libertarian? Please!
Whoever submitted the initial post, could you please change "Libertarian" to read "libertarian"? You should know better.
A Vote For Grubb Is A Vofe For The First Amendment (Score:2, Interesting)
Vote for her because her ideas rock.
But also vote for her because she is running against Howard Coble [house.gov], who is in the back pocket [search.com] of the RIAA [riaa.org].
If you love the First Amendment and hate the DMCA [anti-dmca.org], send Grubb to Congress!
obvious (Score:2)
I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds... (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, I really think corporations should offer maternity leave, enough so that I think the government should intercede to provide tax incentives.
Hence, I am running for congress as a Libertarian, because only the Libertarians truly understand the way to deal with corporate power is to repeal every regulatory counterbalance imaginable [lp.org].
In the end, The Market will cure all our ills.
Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh? (Score:2)
Get an Interview, Slashdot ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Kook-Aid? (Score:3, Informative)
In this case I think it just means buying into something, i.e. having her own weblog.
Re:Kook-Aid? (Score:2)
Re:Kook-Aid? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, that makes sense.
It's cheaper than the name brand stuff, but just as good.
You know how churches are always on a tight budget.
Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish (Score:5, Informative)
you're thinking of anarchy. Libertarianism seeks
to reduce legislation to the origional consitutional
roles or protecting the population from force and
fraud. The gub'ment does a piss poor job of most
of the stuff it's involved in. What's needed to
prevent exploitation and toxic dumps is to make sure
that the true cost is stuck to the entity making the
purchase. If you polute, you must pay to clean it up
and pass those costs on to your customers. Then
you'll have an incentive not to polute, or at least
come up with a cheap efficient way to clean it up.
Parent
Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the Soviets had a much better idea with state control. Chernobyl was a paradise.
Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish (Score:2)
Re:Libertarian (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Libertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that's the core idea. Less Gub'ment, more liberty.
A smaller government both oppresses the people less and co$t$ less.
Of course, NO incumbent will have anything good to say about such a concept.
Unfortunately this doesn't draw much largesse from big corporations looking for favors, which is today's primary source of campaign funding, so you won't see many Libertarians on TV, or doing well in many elections, either.
Get ahold of and check out the list of contributors to both candidates of any major political campaign. SURPRISE! The _same_ companies are hedging their bets by supporting _both_ sides! No wonder there's not a gnat's ass worth of difference between their policies!
Parent
Re:Libertarian (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Libertarian (Score:2)
That's not the only issue that will do this. Ask about abortion. The Libertarian party does not take stances on many major issues, leaving individual candidates the liberty to choose whatever viewpoint they want.
This is called "Freedom(pat.pend)". Unfortunately it's too complicated and threatening to be palatable to most Americans, hence we see the domination of the Demicans and the Republicrats.
Re:Libertarian (Score:3)
Parties aren't about freedom. They're about like minds gathering to achieve goals. The idea is that if you pick the group which is the closest to your personal ideals, you'll see more things that you want happeneing and less that don't (assuming that you get them in charge.)
Until we manage to change campaign finance & how votes are counted (instant runoff, anyone?), third parites are little more than issue-raisers for the two big ones--who promptly raise up and take sides on any issues with significant debate on it.
I am free to do whatever the hell I want, and vote for whomever I want--but the only way to get someone I want in political office is to find a bunch of other free individuals and get all of us to agree on who's the best person for the job--so we can get someone we can tolerate in instead of someone we despise.
It used to not work this way--for all of eight years, until George Washington refused to run again.
Re:OK, I'm not cool... (Score:4, Informative)
Probably a bit exaggerated when it comes to weblogs, which are hardly a life-or-death proposition; but still, it shows she believes enough in the collaborative technology to use it as the centerpiece of her campaign. (Not to mention the fact that as a Libertarian, she probably has only enough funds for her 56K modem Internet account to get the campaigning done!)
Parent
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I assume you meant to be talking about Jim Jones and the People's Temple [k12.fl.us].
Of course you are completely wrong in this coloquialism. It is not a reference to the People's Temple suicide pact but Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test [dragonet.es].
How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off. [cs.ruu.nl]
Moral of this story: Do some research before making up facts.
Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office. (Score:2)
Re:Oh goodie! (Score:5, Insightful)
from dictionary.com:
metaphor Pronunciation Key (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles" or "All the world's a stage" (Shakespeare).
She is not implying that people are bought and sold. She is comparing investing money (capital gain), and investing time/money in people (Human gain). It takes time/money to create well developed people.
Do you honestly believe that she was making such a shallow comparison, or do you have odds with her political beliefs and wish to discredit her?
Parent
The reasoning behind Human Capital (Score:2)
Be Enlightened. [dilbert.com]
Re:Why is the American legal system like this? (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.
End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.
As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)
So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.
About $10,000,000 per park is the going rate... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what Bill Clinton charged the Phillipine coal producers in capmaign donations to lock up the single largest reserve of clean coal in the United States into a national park in Southern Utah, right before he shepparded legislation through congress requiring coal-fired power plants use cleaner coal.
-- Terry
Re:Question for Libertarians (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't just a libertarian idea, and not all libertarians agree with the idea.
I am an actual libertarian, and the thought of selling off prized national parks is heinous to me. It really is. I know what will happen to them, they will be harvested for valuable resources, and then developed one by one.
But what frightens me more is that idea of living in chaos, like we do now. We are no longer a nation of laws, of the Constitution.
I really recommend that sometime real soon now, you take a printed copy of the Constitution and sit down and read it, front to back. It wont take more than 30 minutes.
After you have done that you will realize that the Constitution enumerates exactly what Congress can do. After that it leaves everything up to the States, or to the people. It specifically says that any power not granted to the Congress is retained for the *states*.
Federal parks are anti-Constitutional. Therefore even if I think they are a good idea, they ought to go.
I support an amendment to allow Congress to keep, own, and pay for National parks. Until that amendment passes, we are (Congress, that is) in violation of the Constitution in a very clear, real way.
Sell them off to the states are fire sale rates. Any state that doesn't want to buy the park forfeits the right and the parks get sold to the highest corporate/individual bidder. Its just that simple. Somethings are more important than parks - namely principle.