Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door 364
ZeissIcon writes "Public Knowledge.org is reporting that the oft-defeated broadcast flag DRM scheme is being sneaked into Senator Steven's Telecommunications bill. Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill, and making no exceptions for fair use, this particular version calls for an Audio Broadcast Flag that would affect digital and satellite radio as well. The bill goes to committee on Thursday, so there is still time for public comment."
Obviously... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously you must be new here...
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I'm not - and I hope no one else is - surprised in the least. I'm actually surprised it's attached to a telecommunications bill at all. I expected that the oft-defeated broadcast flag would be snuck through in a farm bill, or a bill that feeds homeless children (you wouldn't vote against a bill that feeds homeless children!!)
Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Insightful)
And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. That way government is ever-shrinking instead of ever-growing.
Washington sucks big time...
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bought and paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform, line-item-veto, Congressional term limits, and (my one of my personal favorites) no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary). Then if they don't follow through, recall or vote them out in the next election.
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not only currently law, but part of the constitution. See the 27th amendment [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately they ignore this repeatedly with by calling it a cost of living adjustment, and the courts back them.
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress did enact a line-item veto, during the Clinton administration. The first time he tried to use it to get rid of some frivolous spending item, the state in question (New York I think) brought suit, and the line-item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court as violating the doctrine of separation of powers. In my opinion, that's the correct decision, since it essentially gives the President some amount of direct control over the contents of individual b
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:5, Interesting)
By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.
A fair compromise would be to limit the line item veto's power with a test of how integral the item is to the purpose of the bill. A President shouldn't use such power to redesign the main provisions of a bill, but given today's congress, I would take that defect over the current situation.
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:4, Insightful)
Any president who wasn't a spineless pawn of a political party wouldn't let himself be held hostage by that. A smart one would turn it around and hold the pork barrelers hostage.
The proper response is to have a strict policy of "Any bill with unrelated crap attached gets automatically vetoed. No exceptions.". Given the current way Congress likes to operate, that would mean that everything would be vetoed and the government would come to a screeching halt unless they shaped up.
A good speech is all it would take to have the public on the side of the ballsy president for standing up to the political machine. If somebody did that they would sure as hell have my vote...
Unfortunately in a two-party system it would never happen.
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm, you forgot (or at least didn't mention explicitly enough for my taste
And just to head it off the "why should taxpayers have to pay for lousy elections?" response
Re:Bought and paid for (Score:3, Insightful)
Campaign finance has only made it
Re:Obviously... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I mentioned this idea in another thread, but _my_ daydream proposal is to limit the total # of words in all valid laws to some maximum number N (where hopefully N is something reasonably small). When a legislator proposes a change to the laws (either by adding new ones or amending existing ones), the change would have to result in the total # of words fitting under the limit, otherwise the change wil
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Interesting)
Refer to our constitution here, specifically section 19
http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/i
SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
that's the good shit maynard, some congressman with some balls needs to make that Amendment 28 (after pinning some stupid shit to the proposed amendment, cause Washington appretiates irony)
Re:Obviously... (Score:4, Informative)
The Congress need not have anything to do with a new amendment. In fact, if the amendment is going to restrict the power of the Congress, then it is ridiculous to expect them to propose it. If you want it to happen, then talk to your state legislature. It is a lot easier to get heard by a more local representative anyway. Good luck, you will need it.
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because in a "Feeding Homeless Children Act," the broadcast flag provision wouldn't be the line veto'd.
Re:Obviously... (Score:4, Funny)
Line-item vetoes would make vetoing too easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because otherwise legislators would have no way to sneak their otherwise unpassable legislation into other bills and get it passed. It's akin to a filibuster in that it is an annoying thing to do practically, but the ability needs to be there for the rare cases when it's the only way to get something done. (I would argue, though, that filibusters are used for useful things, while sneaking unrelated amendments into bills is rarely used for anything that isn't evil.)
I agree with a sibling post that says line-item vetoes should be allowed if the line item is unrelated to the bill itself. I would go as far as to say that amendments to a bill should be required to be related. If they're not, they simply don't belong there. End of story.
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"
It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.
This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
Umm...no he didn't (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Umm...I think you missed something (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the concept. I would rather these people do the job that I'm sending them to Washington to do. Currently, there's the agreement in Washington--I'll support your pork if you'll support mine. What Congress is trying to do is make sombody else the bad guy. "Well, gosh, I tried to get everybody in America to pay for the Ball of Twine Museum in my district. Unfortunately, that mean ol' President vetoed it. Blame him, not me!"
This is their responsibility. If they abdicate it, then why the hell are they there?
Fair enough--I was going off of memory. I remember that the line-item veto was part of the Republicans' "Contract With America" back during the elections. When they passed it, I don't know.
Re:Obviously... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess at the end of the day it just depends: would you rather give more power to the President or to the Justices? Historically, the latter seems to have made a lot less total boners, but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so.
I also think that the USSC should have automatic review of all new laws passed, without having to wait for a challenge case, but that's a separate issue.
Mod Parent Up, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
One bill, one purpose. One bill should be able to do any of these things:
1. regulate one certain narrowly defined type of behavior, including punishments for it and including assigning a specified portion of tax revenues to enforcement of the regulation (or the buidget appropriation for it)
2. set up one certain narrowly defined helpful government program, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to it (or budget segment)
3. honor one person or group of people, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to cover whatever announcements, plaques, monuments, or whatever are deemed necessary
4. give Congress or other federal employees raises which come due after the end of each Congress member's respective term (No one should be able to give a raise to a buddy in some bureau while the Representative or Senator is still guaranteed access to power.)
5. Give Congress longer vacations, effective immediately. It's become obvious we're usually better off when these misanthropes aren't busy exerting their might as pocket monkeys of the big corporations, anyway.
6. ban lobbying by professional lobbyists. ban corporate-paid Congressional fact-finding trips. Ban the peddling of influence altogether, under penalties of imprisonment and fines. Imprison the Congress member along with the lobbyist if this is broken. If these yahoos start going to jail for listening to their wallets, maybe they'll start listening to their consitutents like they should be doing.
Don't Just Complain on /. - DO SOMETHING! (Score:4, Informative)
Don't just complain. Do something. It's your right, and it's your duty.
According to this article... (Score:5, Funny)
So I won't have to do laundry anymore? Why is this a bad thing?
I'm all about pushing this bill through now!
Re:According to this article... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:According to this article... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:According to this article... (Score:3, Informative)
Found it! (Score:4, Funny)
Arrr! Foiled again, mateys.
Re:give the FCC authority (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are these people you are referring to? AFAIK the net-neutrality advocates and the broadcast-flag advocates are entirely different groups.
doesn't feel like it (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't feel like it's going in the back door.
-Ben Dover
No, all seriousness aside, I see this eventually being a great bill for me as I would soon be able to divest myself of all of my technical artifacts and once again be a free human being. I can eBay my tivo (maybe), my comcast box, get rid of all of my mp3 players.
I once again spend time bike riding; canoeing; horse-back riding; picnicking; sightseeing; hiking; (starting to sound like a Tampax commercial, isn't it?)... all things I used to do in bulk and before I turned into a skinny pasty-skinned freak in front of my computer all day long.
God Bless you Senator Stevens!
Re:doesn't feel like it (Score:5, Interesting)
My solution: I bought a skin-on-aluminum frame folding kayak instead. Geek factor - high. DRM factor -low. No monthly upgrades to keep track of. I can do anything I want to modify it without any silly broadcast flags. All fun.
Congratulations media companies - you declared war on your paying customers and I surrendered. I won't buy your products any more, I'll do something else instead.
Re:doesn't feel like it (Score:3, Informative)
Don't tell them (since it's good that they're upset about DRM), but it's possible to deauthorize an old computer before getting rid of it by using the Prefernces screen in iTunes. If they no longer have access to the computers, it's also possible to reset the iTunes account to zero authorized computers and start over
Re:doesn't feel like it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:doesn't feel like it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:doesn't feel like it (Score:3, Informative)
How to tell when there is a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone contemplated legislation to stop this from happening?
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Interesting)
Eventually, Party B becomes the majority
So
A two party system sucks. This will, eventually, always happen.
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually, Party B becomes the majority
I thought you Americans had a neat system specifically designed for making laws to limit government power, whereby a law could be passed which needed more than a mere majority to overturn, making it more resilient to power shifts. It's called the Constitution.
I guess the problem there is that you need a supermajority to get an amendment made in the first place..
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you need a supermajority, but not necessarily at the federal level. If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way. This probably just requires a simple majority in at least 34 state houses. It would probably be a lot easier to conveince the state government to rein in the feds than to convince the feds to do it themselves....
Just because it hasn't ever been done doesn't mean it can't or won't be done if the federal government takes things too far....
Re:How to tell when there is a problem... (Score:4, Informative)
Sneaking? (Score:5, Interesting)
" I would like to add an amendment to the bill, 100 million dollars for the perverted arts.
I say so what, let them pass it into law. Not letting people watch TV or listen to Radio can only server to raise the average national IQ. They should tack it into the next education bill, "No Child Left To Sit On His Behind"
I don't give a fuck anymore if I can or can't Tivo "CSI: Des Moines" in 1080p resolution.
But that's just one little bear's opinion.
Re:Sneaking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, everyone was smarter back before TV and there was no such thing as thalidomide babies and lake Michigan never caught on fire. They also fought their wars like men standing in a line and marching toward the enemy firing their weapons taking the hits.
Regardless of what you think about TV/Radio stupid people have always existed and always done stupid things. People today are generally smarter than the times before tv. Look at the number of people who can read today versus the number who could read in t
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
What must happen before the people we elect realise that when a piece of legislation is slapped down as often as this one has been, that the people don't want it, and that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't be a "tough shit, we'll just try again when you look the other way" thing? (and before you answer, I already know the answer - campaign 'donations' matching those the media companies chuck at them - when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, (and I don't mean for this to become a "rah rah Canada" post) it doesn't seem to happen here, and I have to wonder what we're doing differently to make this kind of thing not happen. And why nobody in the US has ever done anything about a practice that really does smack of the worst kind of dirty and underhanded politiking.
I think getting rid of this piggybacking practice would really do wonders to start to change people's opinion of the political process. But perhaps that's just my simple-minded naivety.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, in Canada. They'd never get a bylaw through that would Ban:
Toys with electric motors
(explain THIS to a powercar kid)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Loudspeakers or other amplification devices
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Release or venting of air, steam or other high pressure noise creating material
(But that's when I have all the good fights with my wife!)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Loading or unpacking containers of materials
(You listening people who move in too late over a weekend?)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Using any power-driven device Prohibited: 7pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
(Sorry Granny, You have to walk)
Power tools, lawn mowers, (excludes snow blowers)
(WTF, you're ok with Snowblowers which are 10 times as loud, but I can't get cracking on a backyard project on the few days I get free time?)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays.
Security alarm running for more than 5 minutes.
(Crooks will LOVE this one)
Prohibited: at all times, seven days a week.
Vehicle repairs
(Sorry hobbyist, you can't work in your garage until everyone's at work. You have a job too? Oh boo-hoo)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, all day Sunday and statutory holidays.
Playing loud music
Prohibited: 11pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays
Now this is how I see it. Most people like me who have projects to do around the house and in the backyard NEED stat holidays to actually get to the projects. I can't believe the government went and snuck this into a completely separate bylaw brought up by old people who hated barking dogs.Yeah, this would NEVER happen in Canada.
Yo Grark
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because of inconsiderate yobs like you that these laws are passed in the first place. If you had an ounce of respect for anyone other than yourself, and maybe discussed or negotiated with your neighbours for the few days you felt possessed like a madman to be working on 'projects' in your yard before 7-fucking-am, then the world would be a better place with LESS restrictions.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
But they do. Big business votes for them -- assuming they push the right bills.
You don't seriously think they actually count all those ballots every four years, do you? Nah. They just invite GM and Microsoft and Exxon (etc) to the secret White House Underground Command center and discuss all nice and civilized who's turn it is in the Captain's Chair.
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them..."
You are coming from a false presumption--that the majority of their constituents do not want the broadcast flag. Many people don't even know who their elected officials are--much less what a broadcast flag is and what it means to them.
I think sometimes here on /. we assume that the stories we read have the same relevent meaning to the rest of the populace. Sure, it's news for nerds. Stuff that matters...to nerds. It's like RSS discused in the Neilsen interview today. Ask the jow blow user what RSS is and they probably don't know. Ask 'em what a news feed is and they probably still don't know, but it's more meaningful than some obscure acronym meaning Really Simple Syndication.
</Stepping off of soap box>Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing short of a revolution (Score:5, Insightful)
The revolution must be then used to dump the current laws and remove those, who are currently in power, and update the constitution to include the new realities and possibilities and to prevent as much as possible of this degradation of human rights and of this invasion into individual freedoms.
Of-course it is the most important job of the corrupt government to prevent such a shakeup by all possible means including dumbing down the population, removal of all individual rights and even responsibilities (those who understand their responsibilities also insist on their rights,) introduction of laws that take away all freedoms that really matter and nurturing the environment of conspicuous consumption, which is enough to satisfy the current bodily needs and to substitute any mental needs/activities.
As it is right now television is great for mass control and the Internet is terrible at it. What the US government doesn't understand is that by creating tight regulations around usage of the TV programs, they are just pushing people to use more of what the Internet offers. If I was the government, who wanted to keep tight control over population, I would promote more cheap and accessible TV for everyone and would discourage usage of the Internet.
Maybe the equation will balance itself out, or maybe those in power will try to control the Internet in the same manner as the TV (this will be much harder.)
The Internet can lead to organization of opposition and may even be able to provide the means to conduct something of a revolution for the future generations.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it?
I mean, sure, a few million people will have to die in the revolutionary war, and it will throw the country (and yes, the world) into a depression unlike any that has been seen before, but that's a small price to pay for my satellite radio copies.
The alternative... starving the media companies by NOT BUYING ANYTHING FROM THEM AGAIN, is too horrible to even contemplate. You can't expect me to watch PBS. I'm not an animal!
And don't even discuss the idea of voting against those senators (like Feinstein, CA) who have been the most corrupt politicians for years. I mean... VOTING?! Good God man! Don't you dare suggest it.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:4, Interesting)
So in effect, the government, in an attempt to grant a total monopoly to a floundering company, created seemingly decent legislation that didn't seem too harmful, yet people doing an illegal act started a revolution because they didn't like it. It's happened before, what's to prevent it from happening again?
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:5, Informative)
It would if it were true. Try to find "tea" and "stamps" in the Declaration. That's the half-bullshit Disney-ized version of US history.
You should really actually read it some time:
Yeah, the tea was clearly the important part. It couldn't have been the large numbers of soldiers taking over homes, and quite literally getting away with murdering anyone they chose.
And, while I'm at it, it also explicitly says: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:5, Interesting)
That is why they are working on the terrorist laws and removal of all of the Freedoms. The terrorists are a great excuse to turn an entire country into one giant prison cell.
The soldiers in the millitary of-course should be recruited from the lowest classes of the population, so that they could be controlled easier and rewarded in a cheaper kind of way.
What will bring down this government? Will it be wars with external enemy, kind of wars that the general population will not be comfortable with?
Here is one possible future of the US:
A giant WAR machine driven by corporate interests. Cannon fodder recruited from the poorest classes, easily satisfied by a few handouts and a promise of pensions. Social structure that is falling appart: growing taxes, inflation, growing oil prices, more and more expensive healthcare. The widenning of the gap between the rich and the poor.
What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the highest bidder - corporations? The country's economy will start to fail, the millitary will be used for corporation profit regardless of the concern for the country, because corporations are international and have no loyalty to any nation at the same time. The country will become one giant prison with a very powerful war machine. Where will this lead? Well, if history teaches us anything, it is that those who command the millitary have the power.
It will take one strong millitary leader, and the country will become a dictatorship that will start a war to 'improve' the declining quality of life. By then the county will lose most production capability that is not aimed at millitary purposes. Why wouldn't this country attack other successful economies? Strong millitary leaders don't last though, and this one may fall and give place to a committee of some sort, who will try to rebuild the republic. All of this will be accompanied by years of economical degradation and depression.
But the US is big and there are plenty of needs to be satisfied, and it will be small businesses that will have to satisfy them.
You can see that I believe that things happen in cycles because anything that is too linear creates great disbalance and cycles allow to balance things out on a long enough time scale.
Re:Nothing short of a revolution (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the
Re:You know... (Score:3, Funny)
Answer: July 4, 1776
US Senate is anything but for the people. (Score:3, Insightful)
You have your problems mixed up. (Score:5, Informative)
You may find it absurd that anybody would support the oil companies (THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BRIBED!), but then have you lived in an oil-rich state? Some Representatives have the fortunes of large portions of their constituency revolve around those of the oil companies.
It's called Bringing Home The Bacon. And that's exactly what most of those legislators were elected to do, and they are very, very good at it. Bring money to your district; keep money in your district; punish competitors in other districts/states/nations.
The quid pro quo game, which allows everybody to Bring Home The Bacon, is why you get stupid crap like the broadcast flag inserted everywhere. If Senator Stevens can promise an appropriate number of other Senators that he'll vote for their own Bacon, eventually it'll get passed.
Re:You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead you get the opposite, "The tragedy of the wealthy", where all those not rich gets hurt by the decisions of the few rich in power.
Gee... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't remember this from Schoolhouse Rock [schoolhouserock.tv].
Re:Gee... (Score:4, Funny)
Public Comment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, I have a strong feeling that the congresscritters probably don't even read the comments. How can we forcibly say to congress that we don't want this passed? (before anybody says writing them, etc, you really think they read the letters?)
Re:Public Comment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing says "hay guys, listen up!" like a vest that goes BOOM.
(you did specify "forcibly", which is a funny word to use. Since force is also the reason laws are obeyed.)
Re:Public Comment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get someone to write it in to enough unrelated bills, and it'll pass.
We'll never get enough interest in the issue to counter a determined, monied, well-connected foe like this one.
Honestly, 50%+ of the electorate is too dumb to understand this (or has so little understanding of the supporting concepts behind it that it'd take WAY too long to bring them up to speed), and another 48-49% just don't care, or at least they don't care enough to make it an issue in an election.
Re:Public Comment? (Score:5, Interesting)
> At this point, it looks like they're going to be tenacious enough with this thing that it'll pass eventually.
>
Well, bear in mind that the lobbyists have been trying to get this into the books for years, and still haven't succeeded. And there is a time limit for the broadcast flag law. If they can't get it passed before the analog cut-off date (or the point at which a large number of voters have broadcast flag non-compliant digital TV technology), there's simply no point in continuing to lobby for it.
In general, the longer time goes on, the harder it is to get a bill passed. You're not the only one thinking "My god, are they trying to get this through again?". Staffers in Washington feel the same way. If they can't get this through this year, in the words of one knowledgeable Washington commentator, "it'll be postponed until next year. Which is to say, never".
There's also the question of opportunity cost. The more effort the entertainment industry has to spend on each of the laws it tries to pass, the less it has to pass other, draconian bills. If the broadcast flag had passed on one of the other occasions that it was attempted, the MPAA would be free to throw all its weight on analog hole legislation by now. Politicians are waking up to the fact that these regulations are unreasonable -- and that there's more political capital lost to appearing to kowtow to special interests than they thought.
Re:Public Comment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Emailing them may work also, but I don't think it has the same significance as a letter in hand.
Sneaking in the Back Door, huh (Score:5, Funny)
I tried that once. My girlfriend didn't appreciate it.
Re:Sneaking in the Back Door, huh (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks! And keep the alerts coming! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe all of congress and the senate need a wake-up call when it comes to these practices. They should all be put on notice that there are people who are watching, and the numbers are growing.
Re:Thanks! And keep the alerts coming! (Score:5, Funny)
Screw that, I'm sending a horse's head.
You know what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for some civil disobedience. The jails can't hold all of us if we break this crap. Courts would be tied up for eons, putting precious patent cases on the back burner even if they DID start waving jail time. Citizens that actually have clout would get burned eventually.
I'm getting very comfortable with the idea of letting Congress passing whatever crap the corporate culture pushes under their noses because eventually a substantial portion of the public will get pissed off and force them to change.
To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They can if they have control over a modern military with a few hundred thousand troops and lots of big guns.
And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.
Re:You know what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll admit that I really have no idea about the training of the average Iraqi, but I'd be willing to bet that more Texan women can use a gun than Iraqi women due to religious practices. Texas is also larger than the whole of Iraq by a good 100,000 km^2 or so.
Just chalk this whole post up to statist pride
Please Do Something About This Right Now! (Score:5, Informative)
Senator is on the Commerce Committee. One last push from
you could get Congress to remove the entertainment industry
mandates from the bill.
IF YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
Please call your Senator (numbers below). Here's a sample
script:
STAFFER:
Hello, Senator Lastname's office.
YOU:
Hi, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to let the Senator know
that I don't think the broadcast and audio flag provisions
belong in S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers Choice and
Broadband Deployment Act. These are anti-consumer
provisions, which would give the FCC far-reaching powers,
and give the entertainment industry a dangerous veto over
new technologies. I hope the Senator will insist on
excluding these provisions on Thursday.
STAFFER:
Okay, I'll let the Senator know. Thanks.
Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353
IF YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE:
Go to our Action Center, and send a letter to your Senator
explaining why he or she should insist on the removal of the
flags:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=223> [eff.org]
Text of the Bill:
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s1
To learn more about the broadcast flag:
<http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag> [eff.org]
To learn more about the audio flag:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/digitalradio> [eff.org]
From EFF
Politicians must hate the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why they want to kill net neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this help Alaska? (Score:5, Informative)
What a corporate tool.
Quid pro quo for the bridge to nowhere (Score:3, Informative)
Blame Alaska (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you; like I said, he gets the bridge to nowhere, he sneaks in the broadcast flag for someone else. It's the pork fat that greases the engines of democracy.
What I find even weirder (trans: more hypocritical) about this is that Stevens dissed on the broadcast flag [boingboing.net] in the January hearings. Stevens, we h
Worst Congress Ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously I know the Dems aren't much better but the only other alternative is to lynch them all. Which is getting more appealing everyday. Yeah.. yeah 3rd parties, well I wish getting voted in America had nothing to do with money but it does. 3rd parties will never succeed until either the average US citizen gives a crap or we publically finance campaign elections. Both will never happen. Maybe I'll just move to Sweden.
Re:Worst Congress Ever (Score:5, Interesting)
Reform the process:
Re:Worst Congress Ever (Score:3)
This won't work - it means they'll bring home more bacon to pad their consituents, or they'll bail to the private sector sooner / for less. Seriously, it isn't easy to be elected if you aren't independently wealthy or in a job you ca
if you'd like to contact them on-line: (Score:5, Informative)
For those who would like to contact these people on-line:
Re:if you'd like to contact them on-line: (Score:4, Informative)
The whole bill stinks (Score:3, Informative)
If you have senators on the comittee don't just tell them about your dislike for the broadcast flag, tell them the whole bill needs to be scrapped.
Bart's Comet (Score:3, Funny)
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
HOWTO: Call your Senator (Score:5, Informative)
Step 1: Go to www.senate.gov and look up your 2 senators. There are 2, and you need to contact both of them.
Step 2: I like to prepare for an important call by taking 3 deep breaths and reminding myself that I am in control. Sometimes I drink a shot of vodka, because I know I am little more loudmouthed that way, and in this case that is a good thing. (Trust me, my brother was a Senatorial aid for a long time. Loudmouths get attention.) These calls are actually extremely easy to make -- the aids get these kinds of calls all the time -- so there is really nothing to worry about, but I prepare anyway to make sure I am a calmer and/or prepared to be loudmouthed.
Step 3: Make a note of the bill. In this case, it is S.2686. This is very important.
Step 4: Make a note of why you are objecting/agreeing to the bill. In this case, you are objecting because there is a rider regarding the broadcast flag. That is all you need to say: "I object to this bill because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag." The good Senator will do the rest.
Step 5: Dial the number of each Senator and an aid will answer, e.g., "Hello! Senator Kohl's office!" they will say in an alert-sounding voice. Your immediate response should be: "I am a long-time supporter of Senator X, but I would like to voice my objection to a bill that is before the Senate." It doesn't matter whether you have supported this Senator or not, just say that you did. Nobody knows -- it's an anonymous system.
Step 6: State the name of the bill you are objecting to: "I am opposed to bill S.2686, because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag. I am very much opposed to that."
Step 7: The aid will ask you for your name and address. The reason they do that is to verify whether you can actually vote for the good Senator or not (oddly Senate offices from, say, Texas get calls from Idaho, so they want to filter that). Give them accurate information. It's not a harm in this case.
Step 8: Thank the aid for their help. They will probably thank you too.*
Step 9: Bask in the knowledge that you helped democracy.
*Despite the fact that the aids get 2,000 calls per day voicing all kinds of f'd up opinions, as long as yours is stated clearly and has specifically to do with a certain bill and this specific Senator, the aid will form an opinion about that bill, and will communicate that opinion to the Senator. I kid you not, this system works, just pick up the phone and call.
Re:HOWTO: Call your Senator (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically section 454.c.1.B which requires that a review board create regulations that respect fair use for audio broadcasts. I don't see a reference to a video broadcast flag being enacted by the bill, just a requirement for commissions to make some more rules. It also recommends that the commission investigate abuses of Internet routing under Title 9: "Net Neutrality". The commission will be composed of IT, software, recording, broadcasting, satellite, and consumer electro
Already There? (Score:5, Interesting)
I regularly use XP/MCE to record StarGate and DrWho on SciFi channel with no problem. A few weeks ago, Media Center stopped recording the first half of the DrWho season finale about 30 minutes into the episode. XP/MCE logged a reason of:
So far, that was the only episode this has happened with, but XP/MCE flatly refused to record the episode on any of its repeat airings, citing the same reason. Since then, XP/MCE has recorded the second half episode and some repeats without a problem. I'm wondering if this might've been a test of the infamous broadcast flag or if there's something worse afoot in the part of Microsoft that is beholden to the Hollywood Nazis.
Broadcast flag. (Score:3, Insightful)
Futile. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's important to internalize that enough to prepare ahead of time for when whatever you want to do ("X"; it doesn't matter what "X" is) becomes illegal.
Sununu Ammendment to strike flag! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/479 [publicknowledge.org]
Re:Power Sucks (Score:3, Informative)
This must be why Republican Senator John Sununu [wikipedia.org] is our avatar on the committee for removing the broadcast/audio flags [eff.org] from this legislation.
You have to understand that copyright is not a partisan issue. This is why no openly partisan organization should get involved in the debate over these matters (such as MoveOn.org did with network neutrality, killing any chance of Republic
Re:Power Sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
Sununu is defending his "constituent" (briber^Wcontributor) telco corporations from liability for the broadcast flag. That doesn't make him wrong to oppose the flag, it just makes it less obvious which corporate legislation he insists on. If he insisted on copyright holder laws, he'd get less "support" from telcos. If he really protected consumers, he'd replace the broadcast flag legislation with other legislation that blocks it, rather than leave the vacuum. The vac
Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers (Score:5, Informative)
She was taking our kids to a "Mad Science" event held at the local library. We like to do these kinds of things for the kids, to get them out and doing fun/educational things during the summer.
All over the library were signs that read "You MUST have a library card to enter these premises" "All children MUST have a library card to attend the event" etc...
Then there was this long line where in order to go into the room where the guy was giving the show, you had to present your card to a clerk. They were *literally* turning away six year old kids who were crying, whose parents had driven them all the way out to attend a *public* event.
What kind of post-911 society are we living in where you must present "papers" to attend a public event? And before you say "its only a library card", understand that you can't get a library card without giving all sorts of personal information, including address and identification/drivers license etc...
The librarians (in that library) have completely forgotten about what the purpose of a library is... and are more concerned with budget and control and policing than the free distribution of information.
Why even have the event? What sort of twisted person decides to turn away crying children from a public educational event because they can't show ID? Its not like they were giving away prizes or anything, it was just a bunch of kids sitting in a room watching a guy give a show on science.
Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of a much larger problem. Today, it seems that every low level beaurocrat or middle manager has taken it upon themselves to be the enforcing arm of our post-911 fear-thy-neighbor police state.
Why is it so important that the kids show ID? Is it because the library is funded based on how many library cards are issued? Or are they trying to prevent a terrorist from sneaking in to the mad science show disguised as a six year old child? I can see the latter point, I mean, I think the guy did do an simulation of an erupting volcano as part of the show, and we wouldn't want to give the TERRORISTS any ideas would we? I mean, imagine what could happen if we gave them unfettered access to Alka-Seltzer. It would be chaos.
I think the reason that this bothers me so much is because it is such a strong indication of how sick our society has become.
I mean, hell, librarians are supposed to be our first line of defense against this sort of stuff.