Slashdot Log In
Congressman Boucher Responds
from the naturally-speaking- dept.
1) Protecting our rights
by techmuse
The general trend since the Internet became a mass public resource has been for government to attempt to find ways to monitor people using it (Carnivore for example), to listen in on their communications (Key escrow), or to use the Internet as a means to remove consumer rights in favor of total control by businesses (DCMA). How do you feel about these technologies and laws, and how do you propose to keep the Internet a place where ordinary citizens can communicate and conduct business without giving up the rights that they have in the physical world?
Rep. Boucher:
There is a constant need for vigilance in the protection of the rights of Internet users. Several years ago as we were debating legislation of I co-authored to permit the export of strong encryption software from the United States, the FBI proposed an amendment which would have imposed the first restriction on the use of encryption software domestically. Specifically, the FBI's amendment would have required that every encryption product contain a back door which could be opened with a key held by a third party. This so-called "key escrow" requirement posed a major threat to freedom from the prying eyes of law enforcement for all Internet users. Working with other members of the House Commerce Committee who shared my opposition to the amendment, we succeeded in defeating the measure by the impressive vote of 30 to 10. I do not anticipate the key escrow requirement, or a similar key recovery requirement, being seriously debated by the Congress again. Nevertheless, we must continually work to protect the openness of the Internet and the rights of Internet users from attacks which may come from many directions, including law-enforcement, the copyright owning community, and those who would filter the Internet because of a variety of social concerns.
2) Copyright laws
by Chakat
Let me preface this by saying that I respect copyright, and feel that creators deserve a limited period of time to enjoy sole profits from their works. However, it's become obvious that special intrests have corrupted the copyright system to insure that they can receive sole benefits for long after our founding fathers intended. My question for you is twofold: How long do you feel is an appropriate amount of time for copyright protection, and is there legislation pending to fix the problem with copyright?
Rep. Boucher:
The recent extension of the copyright term by the Congress was wholly unjustified. The United States Constitution establishes a regime of intellectual property protection and specifies that exclusive rights in original works should be preserved for the creator of the works for a "limited time". I am concerned that the very wealthy copyright owning community, including motion picture studios, recording companies and publishers have seriously unbalanced the Congressional process in the creation and amendment of intellectual property laws with the result that the "limited time" concept has largely been forgotten. I'm particularly troubled by provisions of the digital millennium copyright act which threaten the long-established fair use rights of American citizens, and I am in the process of drafting broad-based legislation which will reaffirm traditional fair use rights for the users of information.
3) Why
by SpanishInquisition
in the USA is it legal to possess a piece of equipment designed to kill a human being but it's illegal to possess a piece of software designed to copy the content of a DVD?
Rep. Boucher:
The most troublesome provision of the digital millennium copyright act is found in section 1201 (a ) (1) which makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to produce a device which is "primarily designed" for the purpose of infringing a copyright. This provision is fraught with problems, not the least of which is the impossibility of knowing at the time a device which has multiple uses is manufactured whether a judge or jury will find at a later time that the device was "primarily designed" for an infringing use. More than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court in the Betamax case held that if a device has both infringing and non infringing uses, its manufacture is lawful due to the presence of non infringing uses. Section 1201 adversely affects that long-standing doctrine and will hinder the willingness of equipment manufactures to introduce devices which could potentially be used to infringe copyrights even if the device has many helpful non infringing uses. Eventually, a modification of this section of the code will be required.
4) How do you keep up?
by wmulvihillDxR
With the recent story on the flooding of emails to representatives, I want to know how you deal with that flood? Do you rate snail mail a higher priority than email?
Rep. Boucher:
Electronic mail receives the same dignity in my office that is accorded to every other communication which we receive. We prioritize our responses to incoming information based upon the urgency of the material not based upon the medium by which the communication was received. Accordingly, electronic mail has the same dignity in my office that is accorded to paper mail, faxes and telephone calls. Unlike many congressional offices which responde to electronic mail by regular mail, we respond to electronic mail over the Internet. My staff forwards to my desktop computer incoming e-mail along with a suggested response which I then edit and approve for delivery by electronic means to the constituent.
5) Taxes and the Internet
by Aggrazel
This year, in my home state of Ohio, the legislation introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases. That is, I can tell them that I purchased X amount of books online and they'll tax me accordingly.
Even though this tax is "Voluntary" I have been informed by my accountant that I have to pay this tax, reguardless. Thereby, my state is taxing purchases that were made "out of state" as it were.
My question is, how do you feel about taxation of the internet, specifically "Voluntary" ones like the State of Ohio has implemented?
Rep. Boucher:
Most states impose a "use tax" on purchases made by residents of the state from out-of-state retailers. The use tax is at the same rate as the sales tax imposed by the state on products purchased within the state. Accordingly, we all have an obligation to pay to the state in which we reside a use tax on all the items we purchase from out-of-state. The use tax applies whether we purchase the item over the telephone, through a catelogue order or over the Web. The State of Ohio through the device mentioned in the question is attempting to assert a collection mechanism for its use tax. There are no congressional proposals pending which would prohibit states from collecting use taxes on purchases made from out-of-state retailers. In fact, I doubt that such a proposal at the federal level would be constitutional. We are presently having a debate on the extension of the moratorium which expires this coming October on the imposition of taxes on Internet service providers and the imposition of any tax which has a discriminatory effect with respect to the Internet. I support the extension of the Internet tax moratorium. Some members of Congress are now urging that legislation be adopted which would facilitate the escrow of sales taxes on all out-of-state purchases, whether the purchases are made over the Web, by telephone or by catalog order. The proposal is supported by many states and by traditional brick and mortor retailers who do not have an interstate business. I seriously doubt that the Congress will give active consideration to this proposal at the present time; however, in future years, as electronic commerce occupies a greater percentage of all commerce, the proposal may gain added currency.
6) Taking back the 'Net
by RareHeintz
Much recent technology legislation - most notably the DMCA and UCITA - seem unreasonably skewed toward large corporate interests seeking copyright, patent, and licensing protections in the digital world they don't enjoy in the analog world. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that such legislation is all but purchased outright through campaign contributions and soft-money party donations.
Many American citizens, unfortunately, don't have sufficient education or interest to be able to assess how technology legislation affects them, their wallets, and the media they consume, and the mainstream media don't help them understand the technical issues, the legislative process, or the influence of money in politics any better.
My question related to this is: What can the more technically-aware citizenry do to steer the law back to a more reasonable course? How can we convince or coerce our elected representatives into replacing sane limits on copyright, sane policy toward retail taxation in digital markets, and a sane approach to regulating the Internet that recoginizes the opportunites and limitations inherent in the medium?
Rep. Boucher:
I am in the process of drafting comprehensive legislation which will reaffirm the fair use rights of the users of information and create a better balance between the copyright owners, who currently dominate the Congressional debates on intellectual property measures, and the users of copyrighted information. My measure will be strongly supported by universities and libraries throughout the nation. It will be strongly opposed by motion picture companies, the recording industry and book publishers. Our only chance of enacting our proposal into law will be through the formation of a broad grassroots effort nationwide. As a part of our grassroots effort, I am collecting the electronic mail addresses of individuals who will serve as "activists" on behalf of our measure. From time to time, we will call on these individuals to contact their member of Congress and encourage the legislator to support the passage of our bill or to assist us in defeating hostile amendments which are being offered by those who oppose us. I would encourage anyone interested in assisting our effort to send their electronic mail address to jody.olson @mail.house.gov
Jody is one of my staff members, and he will treat all information we receive in accordance with the privacy policy posted on my WebSite. I would also encourage interested individuals to contact their friends who share our goals and encourage them to forward their electronic mail addresses to Jody.
7) Overall cluefulness?
by update()
A few years ago, it seemed like legislation was being passed to regulate the Inetrnet without the most basic knowledge of how it works. One got the impression that legislators thought the Net is like television and that it would be straightforward for US laws to control its content.
Today, people may argue with a lot of the laws being passed but it seems to me that at least lawmakers now understand what it is that they're trying to control - that it's not television and that it's not inside the United States. Is that perception correct? Do most members of the House and Senate at least have a rough idea of what the internet is? Do all of them at least have a high-ranking staffer who does?
Rep. Boucher:
In 1996, I was one of two cofounders of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We founded the Caucus in the wake of the disastrous debate on the so-called communications decency act which was made a part of the telecommunications act of 1996. Those of us who opposed the communications decency act argued that it was impossible to implement given the architecture of the Internet and that it was unconstitutional on its face as an abridgment of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech. By a very narrow vote, the communications decency act was approved, and predictably the United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional by a unanimous vote of 9 -- 0. It was apparent from an observation of the debate on the communications decency act that most members of Congress did not understand the fundamental structure of the Internet and its capabilities and limitations. Accordingly, we formed the Internet Caucus as an educational forum to provide information about Internet functionality to members. We wanted to make sure that when future policy debates affecting the Internet are before the Congress that members would make their decisions with a sound foundation of knowledge about the Internet's capabilities and limitations. Today, the Internet Caucus has more than 145 members. It is the largest and most active Caucus in the Congress, and I am pleased to serve as one of two House cochairs of the Caucus. Each year, we host a variety of seminars on the current policy challenges affecting the Internet, and we present knowledgeable speakers who offer views, both pro and con, on the most important information technology policy matters we are considering. Our sessions well attended by members of Congress , and I believe that we have achieved the goal of ensuring that members make their decisions with adequate knowledge about the Internet's functionality.
8) Free Speech and Computer Code by IanCarlson
Congressman Boucher--
I applaude your questioning of some of the facets of the DMCA, and as a resident of Virginia, I am quite proud that an elected official from my state is one of the first to question these overly restrictive copyright laws. Your fight for the people will not go unnoticed.
I have a question pertaining to uncompiled code and freedom of speech. My understanding is that source code is just language, like that of an essay or poem. Essays and poems cannot (for the most part) be "banned" by the government as they are First Amendment protected speech.
How is it that high-powered organizations like the MPAA have won lawsuits against web sites that have done nothing more than make a link to uncompiled code? Aren't these sites and the programmers that wrote the code protected under First Amendment free speech?
Rep. Boucher:
I need to learn more about the precise circumstance in which links to Web sites that contain uncompiled code have been taken down pursuant to requests from the copyright owners. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient information to answer this question of the present time.
9) Government playing catch-up, and losing.
by plastickiwi
DISCLAIMER: I am one of Rep. Boucher's constituents here in the ninth congressional district of Virginia. I've also voted for him five times. Consume the appropriate volume of NaCl.
Rep. Boucher,
Professor Clay Shirky spoke at length in a recent Slashdot interview about the desperate efforts being made by corporate interests to hobble the Internet. He noted that companies are so loathe to change their business models that they would rather bolt the existing business infrastructure onto the Internet than create a new business environment better suited to the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the online world. For example, Napster sent the recording industry into a tailspin because, despite billions in "e-tailing" investment, that industry still deals primarily in physical artifacts (i.e. compact discs) instead of pure data.
What, if anything, should the federal government be doing to assist the transition from "meatspace" business models to networked models? Should Congress, as Senator Hatch recently mused in the Napster hearings, actually go so far as to compel this transition through legislation (e.g. mandatory licensing of intellectual property)?
Rep. Boucher:
Every farsighted business will adopt a Web strategy both to enhance its own profitability and to assure its survival. The question relates to the music industry, and I will offer my views regarding the much-publicized debate about the availability of music over the Internet. I have long urged the recording industry to create its own Web sites upon which the most popular music will be made available for download over the Internet for a reasonable fee. Today, most of the music that is available for a fee on line is exotic. The popular songs are generally not available. The recording industry is still clinging to its traditional practice of selling music as a part of an album and making the CD which contains the album available through physical record stores or by mail delivery. The industry's strategy of attempting to sue out of existence every Web based music delivery service is doomed to long-term failure. The industry is simply going to have to go beyond its traditional practices and start making its highest value music available over the Internet. The failure of the record labels to do so has driven millions of American music lovers to Napster. When the music industry makes its most popular music available over the Internet for download for a reasonable fee, either through its own sites or by a licensing of Napster, it will enjoy a dramatic expansion in the market for music. The industry will be significantly enriched, and Internet users will have the convenience of being able to obtain immediately the most popular music for a reasonable fee. It is too early to predict the response the Congress may provide if the music industry continues to resist the Internet as a delivery mechanism. I can say however, with certainty that there are a number of members of Congress who share my view that the music industry whas been shortsighted in failing to realize the many benefits of the Internet as a delivery mechanism for music.
10) Just who is answering these questions?
by washirv
Rep Boucher,
I am interested in knowing who the actual person replying to these questions is. Does the representative answer the questions? Or does it go to his staff and come back with canned answers from his staff? Does Rep Boucher at least read the questions so he knows what Slashdotters want to know? Thanks
Rep. Boucher:
I have personally answered these questions through the use of the Dragon NaturallySpeaking software which I use on the computer at my home when composing text.
you think that wasn't intentional? (Score:2)
Re:Okay, I'll be the bad guy... (Score:2)
Congress didn't pass UCITA. UCITA has been presented to state legislatures, and two of them -- Virginia and Maryland -- have passed it. As awful as UCITA is, states are almost certainly within their rights to pass it, as it's really just a clarification of contract law. (In short, the UCITA states that several specific provisions found in click-wrap contracts are enforceable under contract law, even without any signed or notarized agreement taking place.)
Congress had no right to pass these laws in the first place, except for the occasional 10th Amendment nut.
The tenth amendment neither expands nor contracts federal (congressional) or state powers. It just says that governmental privileges not explicitly granted to the federal congress and not explicitly denied the states, is granted to the states. Thus, it certainly doesn't expand the powers of the federal congress, as you suggest.
"Don't worry, I'm writing a NEW law that sucks differently!"
Rep. Boucher actually does want to amend the DMCA and reaffirm the fact that fair use trumps DMCA protections. Give him some credit -- what he suggests is a significant improvement over the status quo.
Way to go for the Congressman Boucher (Score:2)
And thank you Congresman Boucher for taking the time to talk to us here!
Re:Way to go for the Congressman Boucher (Score:2)
Re:Way to go for the Congressman Boucher (Score:2)
Re:Death to the current geographical political sys (Score:2)
In the UK and many commonwealth countries the commons has more or less total control of the goverment policy with very few check on it. If Tony Blair wants to do something there is not a lot that can really stop him. In Israel and many of the EU countries the need to keep a governing coalition together often results in small parties having power all out of perportaion to their size.
Japan and Mexico have for many years been de-facto 1 party states. (Mexico seems to be getting over it). Much of the 3rd world is run by thugs and dictators who have managed to skim billions while their countries go to hell.
So yes the US system has issues, but I'll stand by my assertion that its better than most of the others out there.
Re:Death to the current geographical political sys (Score:3)
I'll take our (the US) system. Its not perfect but its the best I've seen so far. (And I've looked)
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:2)
So the recording industry jumped headfirst into CD's - cheaper to produce, but able to command a higher price because of supposed higher audio quality (than Vinyl). Pure profit was the lure, but they didn't know that they were letting the genie out of the bottle.
So THEY say that nobody's forcing us to buy their CD's, nobody puts a gun to our head, so if we don't like the price, don't buy the music and shut up.
I say, nobody put a gun to their heads and made them switch to digital technology. The unfortunate (for them) reality is, once data is digital, you can try to control it, but ultimately, authoritarianism loses in the end. Or hasn't anyone noticed how often drivers obey speed limits?
clue stick (Score:3)
I guess we missed another very important question. For US, the problem is, finding like-minded politicians to support. If Rep. Boucher is the ONLY one, well, that's kind of a desperate situation. We need to find or sway others. But if there ARE others, it would be nice to know who they are, so we know to whom we should lend our support.
Semantics ARE important. (Score:2)
1.Robbery committed at sea.
1.A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2.The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material.
3.The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
I reject those second and third definitions. What people are really talking about when they use those definitions is better described as 'copyright infringement' or 'violation of the FDAs guidelines'.
There's another word in common use that I particularly dislike, which is 'racism'. Again from dictionary.com,
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I prefer to call this 'ethnic bigotry'. One reason is that it is more clear what is meant, but another is that it focuses attention on the fact that the bigotry is about ethnic differences. This is important to me because I believe that one of the things that makes ethnic bigotry possible is a deep-rooted belief that we are somehow significantly different from other humans.
The word 'racism' helps promotes the idea that different ethnic groups are somehow different subspecies or even a different species altogether. This in turn can promote the very 'racism' that people are using the word 'racism' to discuss.
It is my belief that there would be less 'racism' if we would stop calling it 'racism'. That is why the semantics are important to me. That is why I call it ethnic bigotry.
We've seen another word widely misused: Hackers.
'Piracy' is another such word. Accepting their use of the word empowers their agenda by promoting calculated emotional responses. Calling it 'copyright infringement' [or whatever is most appropriate for the particulars of the case being discussed] focuses the attention on the proper issues: the alleged crime of infringement and the relevant copyright law.
Anyway, you are certainly correct. Words often have multiple meanings. That doesn't mean that we should accept the semantic manipulations of others without thinking about them.
Memes are important. Know which memes you are spreading. Only share memes you agree with.
Re:Death to the current geographical political sys (Score:2)
Do you think the US system is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same.
Many of the complaints of people who live in the US are based on a perception that the US system is getting worse, that they had a good system and it is being damaged as they watch.
You've looked, have you? Are you sure you aren't just jingoisticly assuming that your country has the best system?
Re:Campaign finance reform. (Score:2)
I have heard this excuse used repeatedly, but unfortunately doesn't hold water on multiple levels.
One, political speech is a sacred and protected right in our Constitution. The donation of money has been upheld as a form of speech. It is protected speech.
Two, politics is one place where idealism can hold sway. A person or party who believes in something should stand on that platform and demonstrate a little leadership. In your child labor example, the factory owners can most certainly hire non-child labor. They use the "I gotta compete" excuse as just that: an excuse.
Three, the flavor of campaign finance reform changed radically this election cycle as the Democrats raised as much "soft" money as the Republicans. Suddenly, Dems aren't the Finance Reform Firebrands they were a year ago.
Four, if you think that our Congress REALLY wants less money to play with, try talking to them about tax cuts.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Money == speech? (Score:2)
Money given to a person for political ends is political speech. Like it or not, that's what the courts have ruled. Money given to, say, a judge to make them rule in your favor is bribery. It is not political speech.
I happen to also think campaign donations are tantemount to bribery, but that is because of the power that is ascribed to Congress. Take away the power for Congress to control so many aspects of our lives and business, the campaign contributions would dry up pretty quickly.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's protected, as protected as flag-burning and other forms of non-verbal speech.
If I wanted to give $10 million to the Libertarian party so they could run a proper campaign, why shouldn't I be able to do that? You're going to tell me a) how I can spend my money, and b) what forms of political thought I can support with it? No offense, but who are you to say?
As for your second point, I think we've been derailed -- I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're complaing about "it's an excuse", I answer that here [slashdot.org].
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Fallacies. (Score:2)
I argue that my "best of all possible worlds" is just as valid as your "best of all possible worlds" where legislative fiat is always done in the best interest of all (which is provably wrong). The free market works because it takes into account the nature of man (inherent selfishness and self-interest), whereas legislation tends to not work because it assumes that the legislators are working for the public good. This is sometimes true, sometimes not, and is where we get things such as the DMCA.
The free market does not promise success nor solvency, and I never claim that it did. Government control does claim that and it does not fulfill its promise.
Which wireless market are you talking about? Cell phones, wireless data, pagers, 2.4 gigahertz? You give a too general example without specifics.
... and also makes the black market trading of whale oil highly profitable. Go find a cocaine dealer and ask if he has a hard time finding buyers for his product.
First, I'm not talking theory, but practice. In practice, market forces are more effective than legislation.
Let's take your ivory example. Yes, I do believe that deregulating the ivory market will result in the protection of the elephant. First, to quote you, "*scarcity creates value*". Illegal ivory is scarce, thus valuable. *Legal* ivory (grown for the purpose, just like cattle for beef) is not nearly as scarce, and thus less valuable.
If ivory is deregulated, there will be ranchers in Africa breeding elephants for their ivory. (Breeding them, I might add, to increase the size of their tusks and decrease their overall size (increasing elephant density))
You might think my belief is "religious", but I can only ascribe your belief as "insane, possibly clinically retarded", because trading in ivory *is* illegal -- and yet poaching continues, and the elephant population continues to decline. To continue to believe in the power of legislation is moronic.
To call the Third World unregulated is also intellectually devoid. The Third World has nothing BUT regulation, by the government or the army (frequently these are one and the same).
You're creating a philosophy around a bumper sticker (one dollar, one vote). If we banned ALL money from the political process, do you think that will eliminate the influence of the monied from the political process? The exchange of money just changes location.
For proof, I offer "soft" money itself. The "campaign finance reform" of the Nixon era (where they capped personal contributions as $1000) forced the "special interests" to contribute to the general party fund instead of individual candidates, creating the "soft" money problem we have today.
Suddenly, rather than buying Senators and congressmen individually, the "special interests" could buy the Democratic and Republican parties both by contributing to the parties rather than individual candidates.
So, you ban "soft" money. You just move the "special interest" influence even deeper underground -- lobbyists going to Senators and offering lucrative speaking fees after they retire, for example, or offering to build offices in the representative's district -- not eliminate it. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Whereas I have NO faith in the inherent goodness of man, I say "make Phillip-Morris succeed in the marketplace, where at least they have to *convice* me to smoke Camels".
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Fallacies. (Score:2)
Hrumph. I stand by my words, and your subtle attack on my character doesn't concern me. You should strengthen your argument instead.
And you've just constructed a man of straw yourself. I do not argue that a law must be 100% effective. I argue that market forces produce the same effects as legislation (in certain situations -- your laws against murder are an excellent example of an exception), only with quicker, cleaner and longer lasting results, with less intrusion on our freedoms.
Wrong. There are laws against poaching because there are people who don't like the idea of hunting elephants for sport and genuinely believe in the power of legislation to stop unwanted actions. The fact that the laws against poaching don't stop it, whereas free and full trade in ivory WOULD mean nothing to you, apparently.
There is some legal harvesting of ivory. This is NOT the same as full and free trade. There is legal harvesting of marijuana at the University of Mississippi (or, there used to be, some years ago). This does not alter the market forces, because it is legislatively limited harvesting. Try again.
And you didn't read my post. Granted it was long winded, but you can't just read a couple of paragraphs and think you know what I said.
The African elephant is an ecological nightmare -- you are right in that they need a lot of land, because they leave a path of destruction behind them. A herd of elephants is a real problem on the African savannah. However, if ivory is desired, and the trade in ivory was not restricted, Africans could "grow" ivory through the selective breeding process, where the elephant gets smaller, but the tusks are larger. The wild elephant is left alone, as there is a ready supply of ivory at competitive market prices.
I'll explain it again, if you still don't understand. You may not like the fact that elephants would be raised for their ivory (as cattle are raised for their meat), but that's irrelavant. I don't like Mara Liasson's opinions, but that doesn't give me the right to stop her from speaking.
We're so close to agreement here -- are campaign contributions basically legalized bribery? I'm hard pressed to disagree with that. How do we change that?
You say, make the contributions illegal. I say, take the power to legislate outside of constitutional boundaries away from the legislators.
You didn't answer my point about the money going underground in other, less obvious ways (such as speaking fees or book deals). Your plan to make the contributions does not solve the problem of influence peddling. My plan does. Which is the better plan?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Poaching (Score:2)
Whew -- I'm getting the idea that you're as worn out with this as I am... tell ya what, you can have the last word, if ya want. I've really enjoyed this thread (tho, I'll bet other /. readers have long ago skipped it...)
To summarize: in all honesty, I dunno about poaching. In the past, yes species were hunted to extiction. It is likely that we won't do so now, since we've had some 50-100 years of conservationist thought cultivated. I leave that as an excercise for the reader.
I disagree with your giving ANY animal "rights". I have no quarrells with your giving them deferential treatment based on some sliding-scale, but, in my world view, animals can't have Rights any more than they have Responsibilties. But that's an entirely separate argument.
Stigmatizing the accepting of campaign contributions does not work either. If you'll remember, John McCain, the Campaign Finance Reform poster boy, was a member of the Keating Five (w-a-y back in the S&L bailout). The Keating Five were spanked pretty darn well. Who remembers that John McCain was one of them? I guess I'm the only one who remembers. I've never heard the media mention that fact.
I believe McCain's reform platform is an attempt to re-badge himself as a reformer and not out of any idealism: but, then, I'm a die hard cynic.
But, here again is a place where we'll agree to disagree. The important thing is that we do agree that there is too much money in politics. We disagree on the way to eliminate it.
Maybe we can let the market sort it out? :)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:Okay, I'll be the bad guy... (Score:2)
Okay, better way of saying it -- Congress has no right to *regulate* these, based on my reading of the Constitution.
Congress has a few, well defined functions. Beyond those, it is encroachment upon the States, or the people.
The reason we have a Constitution is to prevent the "law-making body of my/our land" from declaring themselves God/King-For-Life (or other silliness).
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Okay, I'll be the bad guy... (Score:5)
Let me summarize -- "This law sucks." "Don't worry, I'm writing a NEW law that sucks differently!"
I must say, I wasn't terribly impressed with the Rep's answers, and I understood when I read the last question's answer. I wondered why the pablum I was reading sounds so much like the junk I hear from Washington, and now I know why -- Boucher was giving a campaign speech, as if he forgot that Slashdot is read by an international audience and not by constituents.
Don't get me wrong -- every now and then there was a nugget of clue found in his answers, but for the most part I was not filled with confidence.
Let me tie this in to the current D.C. obsession, Campaign Finance Reform. Our jackleg elected representatives in the Senate are arguing over who gets to give money to political candidates. They have successfully dodged the question of "Wait a minute. Big corporations may be giving you guys money, but I don't see you people turning it down. Mostly, I see you standing around like toilets with the lid up!"
Let me tie this back to the DMCA and UCITA -- Congress passed these abortions and certain groups caught on fire over it. Now, we've got people like Boucher saying that they'll pass new laws to make it better. What I don't hear, though, are people saying that Congress had no right to pass these laws in the first place, except for the occasional 10th Amendment nut.
Fixing bad legislation with more legislation is as stupid (and backward) as, oh, I dunno... letting lawyers make laws?
Please remember this: When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:4)
Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? Do you know how recently the last 2 definitions came into use and who coined the usage?
My point being that "piracy" is a propagandist's term that is used to subconciously influence a person's thinking about copyrights and fair use. Likening the sharing of copyrighted information to murder, rape, and armed robbery is just a little over the top, IMHO. I'm trying to undo some of that damage. With the short absurdist rant I hope to awaken readers into questioning the usage of the term piracy in the context of sharing information. It probably doesn't work but it serves to amuse me (I'm easily amused).
Carry on.
Campaign finance reform. (Score:2)
Regulations against behavior such as this are needed when there is no incentive for voluntarily restraining oneself from that behavior, and in fact such restraint puts one in a competitive disadvantage. Viz: the original English child labor laws, which were put into effect at the behest of factory owners who wanted to end their practice of child labor, but simply could not afford to do so as long as thier competitors continued to use child labor.
Money == speech? (Score:2)
As far as the "gotta compete" excuse, it isn't an excuse: it's a fact of the market. If campaign spending didn't work, people wouldn't do it.
Fallacies. (Score:2)
Like J.M. Keynes said, "in the long run, we're all dead. Or as he also said, "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." The current wireless technology environment is a crystal-clear example of the problems of a completely bottom-up approach towards regulatory mechanisms, and it's one of the least damaging ones.
The fact is that banning whale oil makes whale oil more expensive, which incentivizes alternatives. Again, from a game theory perspective alone, it will be more beneficial to kill the whale (remembering that careers and lifetimes are finite, and that *scarcity creates value*) unless that cost is made greater than the cost of developing alternatives. It just *happened* that alternatives were developed to whale oil, there was nothing necessary about human history that made it necessarily the case, and it is only laws against poaching ivory that keep the market for ivory for exploding to such an extent that only the most desparate are willing to poach. (Do you think that deregulating the market for elephant ivory will result in an protecting the elephant? If so, you are possessed of a faith that I can only describe as religious.)
I invite you to spend time in a truly unregulated society, like many in the third world, before you wax too enthusiastically about it.
Going back to the original point, campaign finance reform essentially removes the inflationary pressures on the political process, because in any market where there is a competition between different agents for a limited resource (political loyalty), the agent that has more to offer will win. To turn an old phrase, one person/one vote has been supplanted by one dollar/one vote, and dollars are not distributed evenly or fairly.
One thing ... (Score:4)
I was also very pleased by his statements about needing to educate other congressmen about the internet and technology. I get the impression that a lot of politicians gain support for their measures either by PR manuevering or by interesting backroom tactics (witness some of the trickery surrounding campaign finance reform [cnn.com]). Education is power, especially in issues surrounding technology. We just need to "empower" more reps.
Even though he may be a politician, I get the impression there's at least one person on the Hill that's slightly clued in. Good luck, Congressman.
-jdm
Re:Maybe it's just me (Score:4)
That's because that's what he does. People are asking questions about political topics, and about how the internet and the law intersect. It's one thing for me or you or T. J. Rodgers or George Gilder to say "the law should say this". Rep. Boucher ought to be telling us what he's done about it, not just what he thinks about it. Otherwise, he's just another pundit. He's authored this bill, gotten that one passed, and educated a bunch of his fellow Representatives about the internet. Gosh, that's pretty useful stuff to know, and it's what I'd want to hear from a Congressman in this forum.
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:3)
Piracy is only piracy if copying is necessarily stealing. I have no time for arguing with people of the gimme gimme gimme generation who believe everything should be cost-free, but it's so easy to see how you could solve the on-line music distribution problem that it's frankly not funny. In a recent column, [pbs.org] Robert X. Cringely pointed out that it would be a comparatively trivial matter to end up charging for music copying by just slapping a tax onto every blank CD-R and CD-RW sold that could be distributed to artists and recording labels according to their total "burning share", which you could estimate via reasonable statistical sampling of on-line traffic or polling. Yes, there are always weirdos who will buy an extra 80 gig of disk just for the sheer thrill of not paying for what they use, but they aren't going away in any event.
But for the vast majority of cases, everybody can get paid, if everybody agreed to do this. The problem, of course, is that record labels probably have zero long-term incentive to participate in this, since a world that distributes music primarily on-line is a world that really doesn't need the value-added services of record companies. Music retailers could be in an even worse bind.
And I don't know how you solve the political problem to get the recordables tax passed in the first place.
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:3)
Actually, I don't give a shit about music. I have about 20 MP3s.
This system is obviously designed to enrich the already wealthy, the musicians who are easy to find in the stores. The payments (in countries where this is already in place) are based on the number of CDs sold. This doesn't help the small artists whose CDs aren't available and whose fans often turn to piracy from lack of decent alternative.
If the music-centered assholes would pull their heads out of their butts for a minute, they'd realize that not much of the copyrighted material being burned to CDs is music. Most, I'd imagine, because CD burners work on computers, is computer software. Certainly, when I look at my circle of friends 90% of the copied CDs are software, 80% games, 20% OSes and Apps. Maybe 5-6 CDs each are music, tops. (With MP3s so small, a person can have their whole collection on a few CDs and still have 100 CDs worth of music.)
So for this system to even begin to be fair, it'd have to pay producers of software, of clip-art CDs, etc. Music is such a small part of it that I'd be tempted to leave them out of it.
And even if we did do this system, the 'obvious' answer would be to just give all this money to Microsoft. After all, they claim more in losses to piracy each year than any other software company makes.
But that doesn't help any of the companies actually hurt by piracy. Microsoft makes $900 office suites, no kid I know if going to buy one, if they copy MS Office it doesn't cost MS a potential sale. But small companies sell software from $10 to $50, the range where unauthorized copying could replace a sale, even for starving students.
So these systems are fatally flawed because they measure losses by CD sales. I know six people who have unpayed copies of 4Dos, a shareware util than afaik you can't even buy on CD; the company wouldn't make a dime from this scheme. Ditto with music. B. Spears would get a bit richer, nobody else except the RIAA would see a dime.
And this would all be subsidised by people like you who write your own data to CDs. I wonder if the people who advocate this idea would support you sending in a directory listing (to show that it's your content on the CD) and sending you a check for the CD-tax that you're entitled to...
Re:Followup (Score:3)
--
Followup (Score:5)
Could the interview organizer please send Rep. Boucher some links to the MPAA vs. 2600 case? Given the high level of clue he displayed in his other answers, I would like to hear his informed opinion on this one.
--
Re:Death to the current geographical political sys (Score:3)
Iceland had a similar system in the middle ages. Citizens were able to choose their chieftain (gothar). Gothar were able to vote in the council, and could transfer their authority as they wished. Citizens were able to choose the gothar they were allied to with few obligations. For more on Medieval Iceland, see David Friedman's writings. His article Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: a Historical Case is a little dense (as a journal article) but readable. You can also check out some usenet responses he wrote at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ice land_Anarch_FAQ1_reply.html [best.com]. Also, Danny Yee has a review of the book Medieval Iceland [dannyreviews.com].
P. E. de Puydt suggested a similar system of government in the 1800s, which he called "panarchy". De Puydt envisioned a system of non-physical political divisions which people could "emigrate" between without changing physical location. De Puydt was suggesting a blueprint for the government of Belgium. You can read his tract "Panarchy" online [freenation.org] (also here [optionality.net]. You can read introductions by contemporary authors here [freenation.org] and here [optionality.net]. Roderick Long of the Free Nation Foundation [freenation.org] wrote a piece on Virtual Cantons [freenation.org] influenced by panarchy and the Swiss government.
In case you're wondering, I would love such a system! I wish I could vote for Mr. Boucher.
Re:A little biased, unfortunately (Score:3)
Take a look at the roll calls for the DMCA. There really are no "typical politicians" taking the view Boucher espoused.
Before you can make a change in the Congress, you need to get some foothold, any foothold for your ideas. Kudos and hats off to Rep. Boucher, who not only seems to espouse the correct view, but is already taking meaningful action in support of those views.
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:5)
Funny, when I'm in Chinatown, I see no black market CDs that are also available in stores. Most of the "piracy" is movies not on video yet, and a few grey market DVDs (i.e. legally released elsewhere, legal to resell here, even if they don't like it, e.g. Crouching Tiger). To me this is perfect proof that the best defense against "piracy" is value.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Re:The music industry has realized the potential (Score:3)
Here's some ideas I'd like to add to this:
- The music industry is all about making money - too much money. The reason why they won't put music on the Internet isn't that they were waiting for a control system for what would be a profitable distribution method... it's because it would turn upside down their entire system of ripping off everyone. First of all, too many middlemen in the business would be left out of the picture with Internet sales, and if they ever took off, there would be murder among current bedfellows. Second, considering the ways that the money is currently distributed to certain parties, it would be ultimately very hard to replicate that with MP3 downloads: let's assume that you're cutting out the unnecessary middlemen and that only the people who are actually involved in every step of the recording and distribution process are getting paid. There's still a lot of pieces of the pie to cut up, and it would be more difficult to do it with MP3s - considering that now we have downloads tracked, transactions recorded, and people to be paid. The math is the same, but the payments are more difficult to make. Third, the market for online downloads is smaller than you think. All those people on Napster who say "Well, I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway" wouldn't be buying it for cheap online either. Piracy is still a tiny fraction of real-life sales, but that means so would be online purchases - so they haven't been missing out on a big market, but they're trying to squash out anything that might be up and coming. And finally... they charge so friggen much for a CD nowadays, that to match the profitability of real-life sales, MP3's would be ridiculously expensive. And that's for something that's of lesser quality, of less convenience (you need to sit at your computer and play them on crummy speakers... and MP3 portable/car players are not ubiquitous or cheap like CD and cassette players are), and that has less added value (a CD has liner notes and a case, at least).
- In terms of the business, the music industry is a very slow moving beast... and a very willful one at that. They already have a successful (albeit highly immoral) distribution system, they do have complete control, and their main business is their PROMOTION monopoly as well as their distribution monopoly. Online downloads are very bad for them in a number of ways. First of all, yes they would lose control... but as long as you make money, that's okay I guess. That's what the movie industry had to settle for, and although they profited greatly from more convenient content distribution methods (VHS, DVD, even television), they still fight those battles every step of the way. Remember, they tried to sue VCRs out of existence... half the studios wanted to go with DiVX instead of DVD... and they fought television with a number of technical methods (widescreen, 3D, giant rumbling theaters, etc.). Next, if the current distribution system (of price gouging) is doing great for them, not only would they not do anything to defeat it (offer MP3s as well), but they'll fight anything on the outside that tries to. That's good business, except when you're paying off Congress to pass laws to kill off competitors... which has been happening since the days of payola and the beginning of rock and roll. However, assuming they sucked it up and assumed loss of control a bit, and if they found out that they would make more money with MP3s... here's where they get killed. The record industry is all about promotion. They do not just sit there and press CDs all day and sell them to the stores... the clothing industry does that. The record industry, however, takes someone like Britney Spears and puts her on billboards, on the radio, in magazine articles, on MTV, on Saturday Night Live, etc. It's what they offer in exchange for being a slimy business. Online distribution methods may lead to mass online promotions, however... and there's nothing that kicks them in the gut more than to see N'Sync lose sales to a talented artist on an indie label. What they really want to do is keep people offline altogether... I mean, the porn industry is massively available and present online, and they've embraced computers every step of the way. The music industry? Well, unless the artist knows enough about the web to insist on a really good website, all you'll get is a fluff homepage with a few images and tour dates for any given artist. Usually such sites are way out of date, as well. They can't control online promotions like they can in real-life (cause Joe Shmoe can't build anything like the Virgin Megastore, but he can make an online store and info site that looks and feels much better than anything the record industry can cook up) and they'd rather not see people get into the act of getting online for any aspect of music.
The problem now is that they control the distribution by law, they control the music by contract, and they control promotions through massive amounts of money and ability. If the general public really catches onto digital online music, they lose distribution control, they may not be the promotions juggernaut that they are currently, and subsequently no one will want to sign recording contracts with them because it would be better for artists and consumers alike to distribute and promote the music online. Therefore, their entire business would collapse, and either they would have to change their business or get out of business. You think any of those fat cats want to risk that?
Granted, it's a risk, not a certainty. Online movie distribution isn't taking off anytime soon... it's not feasible. The movie industry has a very strong prescence online (better than the music industry anyway) and they're making more money from it. But they can't sell movies online because no one can download them.
Then again, at this point we definitely have proof-of-concept. Music is feasible to pass around online... look at Napster... and the value of real-life legit music distribution products just plain sucks. It costs more to listen to a one-hour CD than it does to go see a two-hour movie in a theatre (or similarly, for two times the price of a CD, you get a DVD movie that is twice as long, has pictures and sound, is of high quality, and has extra features - deleted scenes, director commentary, trailers, soundtrack videos, etc. That's still a better value). Never mind if you buy something that sucks... the fact that you paid for it at all is still frustrating. Thinking about what you enjoy alone, the value is always greater. Having "American Beauty" (favorite movie released last year) on DVD is still ultimately more satisfying for me than having "The Marshall Mathers LP" (favorite album released last year). And I paid the same amount for both. In comparison, downloading "The Marshall Mathers LP" on MP3 (about a week before it came out, might I add) was great for me; downloading a VCD rip of "American Beauty" (which took HOURS) wasn't really worth it at all, and I deleted it. For the record, I downloaded BOTH before I owned either one; but I still have the MP3s for "The Marshall Mathers LP", which shows you how the legit copy/online value ratio is tremendously greater for full albums than movies. Don't get me started on singles, even...
Anyway, one day I'll have a DVD burner and a OC-3 connection to the Net, and things may change. But not greatly so. Assuming I had that now, and I downloaded "American Beauty" in 20 minutes in DVD format before it came out in theaters, and burned to DVD... I believe I still would have bought the DVD as well. Because I did that with "Marshall Mathers", and no one got screwed. But the point is, I still would have gotten more for my money in that situation. Which is why the movie industry won't really be in trouble... but the record industry is in BIG trouble if anyone gets a leg up on them in any way.
And I think that time has almost come... the revolution isn't too far away, condsidering once they shed some blood, it'll stir up the appetites of the artists (who hate them), the consumers (who hate them passionately), the lawmakers (who are annoyed with them), and their business competitors (who REALLY want them DEAD, considering all the shit they've had to deal with for the last century). Once it starts, it'll be over pretty quickly. And, everyone else will be left standing, but they won't be. Everyone's had enough of them.
Re:A little biased, unfortunately (Score:3)
Would *you* vote for an ambivalent politician? "Every day I will fight for you, unless of course somebody persuades me not to!"
Re:Every videotape sold is taxed. (Score:3)