Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA 179

Posted by timothy from the commerce-meets-anti-commerce dept.
L. J. Beauregard writes: "Wired reports that the Commerce Department is not too thrilled about S.2048. Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,' a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA More

Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA

Comments Filter:
  • James Rogan is the Under Secretary of Commerce.
    A whore gets money for doing their master's bidding.
    A slut does stuff without monetary compensation.
    I propose his title be changed to Slutty UnderSecretary of Commerce or 'SUC' (ok, I'm reaching here) for short.
    Seeing as he is also the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, I'd also suggest his title to be extended to 'SUC US PTO'.
    • Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment? He was almost as abrasive as Bob Barr.
      • Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment?

        Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. (I could crack a joke about how that ought to be justification enough for his impeachment, but that would be piling on.) Think about it for a minute...how beholden do you think an administration would be to a media elite that has pretty much nothing but hostility toward it?

        Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?

        • Re:Technicalities (Score:2, Insightful)

          by idiotnot ( 302133 )
          Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment?

          That's one way of putting it, but from everything I've seen/read/heard about Rogan, he's a reasonable fellow. If I remember correctly, he was involved in the impeachment process because of his qualifications as a lawyer. It cost him his seat in Congress, if it makes you feel any better. One of those principle/duty versus practicality things. Doesn't bode well for those who think he's paid for.

          Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law.

          And Senator Foghorn Leghorn (Fritzie Hollings, the junior senator from South Carolina) is a Democrat, too. That said, there are many Republicans who support this bill. Would the president sign it if it got to his desk? Probably, unfortunately. Bill's biggest opponent in Congress? Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.

          I think a big problem we've got here is that this isn't the kind of bill that's got the run-of-the mill congressman (like my undistinguished one) interested -- they'll vote whichever way the party leadership tells them to. Letters might help, but I think this is something that somebody important is going to have to pickup on, and sway quite a few votes. I'd focus on the senators whose states have the most to lose by open source development being hurt....

          John Edwards and Jesse Helms, North Carolina
          John Warner and George Allen, Virginia
          Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, New York

          and so on....

          And I'm not a member of either party...I belong to one of those third, so-called unimportant ones. If you're interested....click here [lp.org].
        • Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. [...] Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?

          For the same reason we had 12 years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations before that [Reagan-Bush Sr] (including the sale of what were likely CIA drugs on American streets, Iran-Contra, and a war in the middle-east that was either engineered or a result of amazingly incompetent diplomacy), 4 years of the same before that [Carter], Eight years of the same before that [Nixon-Ford], etc. ad nauseum, back to probably within a generation or two of the founding of the Republic.

          The draconian controls Copyright Cartels enjoy under the current legal regime over our popular culture, the draconian laws being enacted to impose an unnatural economic regime (capitalism as envisioned through monopolistic intellectual property regimes) on a domain with no inherent scarcity (electronic media and, specifically the internet) that will likely make the old Soviet attempt at doing something similiar (trying to impose an unrealistic communisim on a world of natural scarcity) look postively liberal in comparison, and the unconstitutional precedence copyright is taking over freedom of speech (despite the fact that virtually every constitutional scholar will point out that Amendmensts, even the first one, always take precedence over their antecedents when they conflict, and thus freedom of speech should constitutionally trump copyright every time) are neither a democratic or republican issue, and attempts to argue this in those terms are bound to result in failure.

          Both parties have colluded in passing numerous extentions to the duration of copyright since the 1970s, legislatively robbing the public domain of its constitutionally guaranteed material.

          Both parties passed the Sony Bono copyright extention act, which retroactively and unconstitutionally removed material from the public domain.

          Both parties passed the DMCA, criminalizing copyright violation for the first time in American history (though not for the first time in western history ... one man was even drawn and quartered for copyright violation in merry old England back in the 17th century IIRC).

          Both parties have been in bed with the Moghuls of Old Guard Media, be they recording companies, Hollywood Studios, or television networks stealing billions in public airways for a pittance.

          Both parties have blatently accepted legalized bribes and allowed their respective interests to purchase legislation in flagrant contradiction to the public interest, and with open scorn for the same.

          In short, politicians in both parties have earned the moniker of "whore" quite publicly, and the only real criticism of the term that is warrented is the lack of the adjective "cheap." How else can one describe selling out one's multi-trillion dollar nation, and multi-billion dollar growth industries, for a few hundred thousand in campagin donations (a total of a few tens of millions for the party, including all soft monies). These people, democrats and republicans alike, are not just whores, nor are they just "corporate" whores, they are cheap whores, who have sold every American man, woman, and child down the river for a pittance.

          That all having been said, may I suggest you concentrate on fighting together to prevent further ravagement of our freedoms by both parties. The struggle for freedom of thought and expression, against the copyright and intellectual property regimes being forced down our throats by a particular, concentrated special interest, is a non-partison one, and the enemies to the same are most emphatically non-partison, for they encompass many in BOTH parties. This partisan bickering of conservatives vs. liberals misses the whole point, is divisive and hell, and quite frankly undermines your ability to act effectively in countering these attacks.

          In other words, if you remain partisan and distracted from the issues you will have not only been divided, but very effectively conquered, before the battle is even joined.
      • Here's more to think about when you wonder who your friends are...it was linked at the bottom of the article:

        http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50754,00 . tml [wired.com]

        Selected paragraphs from the article:

        During a packed hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Democrats appeared far more eager for the government to intervene in what has become a highly visible tussle between Silicon Valley, which advocates a laissez-faire approach, and the Hollywood firms lobbying Congress to step in to prevent piracy....

        Republicans appeared much more skeptical of the SSSCA -- which is, after all, championed by a Democratic committee chairman -- and argued legislation would be too interventionist.

        In the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans, according to figures compiled by opensecrets.org....

  • Legislative Agenda (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrBrklyn ( 4775 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:07AM (#3423608) Homepage Journal
    This is really not as bad news as it might seems, and it gives those of us main stream advocates a chance to expose just how radical the position of the MPAA is.

    What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.

    NY Fairuse [nyfairuse.org] is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS [nylxs.com], and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.

    The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.

    The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:

    All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.

    No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.

    All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.

    Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.

    No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.

    Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.

    Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.

    We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings

    WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.

    Ruben

    • Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well

      I just rattled everyone I could in DC.

      kevin.a.ryan@mail.house.gov is the Weiner Cheif of staff
      and they are going to send a representitive tomorrow to
      sit in on the committee, which is not their committee. Weiner is in
      the IP subcommittee in the house of the Judiciary Committee, and this
      committee in telecom of the commerce sub committtee.

      I'm sending him an email with our position on DRM.

      Our position on the Digital Rights Managment on the net is that

      First, the government should not mandate any technological means of
      assuring Digital Rights Management, and as INTEL said, this is the
      problem of the MPIAA, and Music Publishers, and not an issue of the internet.

      Secondly, all proposals of Rights management interfer with free competition in
      the computer industry, and is contributing to the economic downturn of the internet
      by preventing the use of Free Software and ordinary research and developement of
      software to expand the use of media in the public at large.

      Additionally, DRM, by it's nature, infringes on the 4th Amendment rights of the consumers who
      own the media which they buy, and prevent it's normal enjoyment. All DRM schemes require prior
      consent to use the property after a cpommon purchase. That is cpmpletely unexceptable.

      DRM is an assualt on the educational system and public libraries, by preventing the free
      disemination of information to the general public, stifling broad education, and further
      disenfranchisong minorities which depend on public education for advancement into the society
      at large.

      DRM is an extortion racket....PERIOD

      We have no use for it and will vote on this issue.
      It's destroying the economy, disenranchising our children, crippling our tax base, preventing
      competition, worsening the recesssion and targets Free Software, which was the engine which
      propelled our economy all throughout the 1990's by making the internet possible.

      If DRM is forced on us, and we can't use digital media for expression and education, and after
      buying something, you find you can't read something after a limited time, or without an approved
      hardware or software device, it is same as if someone banged down my door and stole my whole
      CD collection and my Newspaper archive. It prevents me from using MY property and it destroys MY
      business. My business is designing systems to read media and productively use information.

      Lastly, the Telecom subcommittee should not even be conducting this session since the proper place
      for this the IP subcommittee since this is an IP issue.

      • Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The legisitlative assitiants have their own club in DC and Lamar Robertson has been in constact with a number
        of the best people working on this agenda. We need to get people in DC to be available to testify at these
        conference meetings because what we've learned is that the participants have NO IDEA about details of Copyright
        Law and digital property rights, and they would LOVE to have our input, if it's done intelligently.

        We need to also campain to defeat Hollings and make an example of what what happens to elected officials
        who oppose private ownership of digital media and trample on our 4th Amendment rights.
    • Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form.
      • If this sort of thing of thing was taken up by someone like the EFF and then if the fair use equivalent of the 'blue-ribbon' campaign was started, then it would show how people felt about things.

        This time though we should be producing 'stickers' , 't-shirts' and stuff that people can show and wear in the real world where it will get off-line people taking notice.

        Any ideas for a mascot or a logo?

      • " Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form."

        Which is what pisses me off about the so-called "campaign finance reform". It does nothing to address the existance of industry-wide "cartels" like the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Who even if not allowed to give money to a candidate, will still get their ear, BECAUSE they are an industry cartel.

        Maybe the MPAA/RIAA's memberships are of multiple companies, but when it comes to setting prices and policies, and lobbying, they act as ONE... That can't be legal under the Sherman act.

        Indeed, the RIAA has been found to be guilty of price fixing the cost of CD's... Punishment? none that matters.

        When such a group has been found to break the law in that way, it should be dissolved.
    • Ok, maybe I'm being a little thickheaded, but why do we need more legislation to keep government from doing things that the Constitution says it can't do through legislation in the first place?

      *sigh* Although if I had to take a guess, it'd be that the folks on the Hill don't give a crap about constitutionality in the first place.

      • Re:Legislative Agenda (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MrBrklyn ( 4775 )
        That's a good question.

        The reason for this istwo fold:

        First, the courts can not be depended upon to uphold
        the constitution.

        Secondly, the bulk of the common law and case law uses language which disadvantages the property rights of
        individuals in regard to copyright, and considers fair use
        ONLY as a defense against copyright violation. A statute
        which reverses this language will affect every court case
        by giving new language to work with.

        Ruben
  • What the really want is MORE money, lots more...." William S Burroughs.

  • Corporate whore? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:08AM (#3423612)
    I think the use of that word shows more bias than any statements this guy possibly could have made.

  • Bout damn time (Score:3, Funny)

    by Brightest Light ( 552357 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:08AM (#3423614) Journal

    "Before Congress rushes into the imposition of a legislative solution," Rogan said, "I hope its members will grant more time for the free market to find its own middle ground."

    Thank the gods for that. Its about time somebody stands up and says "Hold on a second, lets give business the chance to make their own decisions,
    before we step in and legislate for them." I hope that more of this sort of thing happens in the future. I sincerely hope that those in congress decide
    to heed Mr.Rogan's words, and their voing reflects it.

    • i really wish i saw more of a positive angle from this statement, however this line makes me wonder

      In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.


      sounds to me basically like he's saying "it's too soon to pass it", lets just warn the hardware people that they better do something soon, before we do pass it.

      1 more session of Congress without it being passed is a start, it gives us more time to rally more support, but this certainly doesn't look like the time to back off on applying pressure on the lawmakers

  • typo in article (Score:3, Funny)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:14AM (#3423625) Homepage
    the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all
    stakeholders
    I think that's a type. It should be shareholders, as in shareholdings in the stock of Sen. Ernst Hollings, which is going rather cheaply these days. It carefully balances the interests of shareholders such as Disney with those of the RIAA and MPAA, who hold many shares in other political conglomerations.
    • New job title. Legislative broker. The stock market, the currency market, and yes, the legislative interest market.

      "And today at the NYSE opening, Sen. Hollings was trading at $17.55 per share, but sharply dropped after a Reuters poll indicates that his election campaign might not go as smoothly as he had hoped. Analysts feel however, that this is only a temporary downturn, and that the stock will rebound by the end of the week..."

      Hey, maybe we could use this for campaign finance reform.

      "In other news, every major mutual fund has downgraded Pres. Candidate Perot stocks to junk bond status...."

  • Corporate whores? Indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AntiNorm ( 155641 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:19AM (#3423639)
    Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,'

    Of course it carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders. Thing is, they don't see customers as stakeholders. An argument could be made that customers aren't stakeholders in this sense -- after all, they have no financial stake in whether most CBDTPA-protected works succeed or fail. Never mind the principles that are involved, it's all about money to corporations and to Congress.

    a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do

    Like pay any attention to whether their customers care about what they're being exposed to? You could make some interesting comparisons here. The corporate whores are exposing their customers to CBDTPA; the rest of the analogy is left to the reader's imagination.
    • Replace "customers" with "citizens". The DMCA is not just anti-consumer (which some could legitimately debate), but removes rights that citizens previously had (reverse engineering, study, personal use, etc.) You can infringe and be guilty, even without ever having a "customer" relationship with the sellers (you may just be curious).
    • This is highly speculative and relates to economic science, so please disregard the comment if you don't see my point. Here it is...

      I think the US economy needs it's people to pay $20 for 1 or 2 songs on each almbum that they like. They need you to spent $600 on office. In fact, they need you to spend most of your money on high profit consumer goods.

      Why? You that you can earn such a high income as a society. Because they can sell you 100^20 copies of office, 100^20 madonna CDs, and 100^20 CPUs without pushing the real sources much. On the other hand, real resources (food, houses, cars) can't grow much easily. They have a lower profit and really limited resources.

      So you can earn $20.000 a month, but if you don't spend much of it in stupid stuff (high profit = low marginal cost) then prices of real stuff would LIKE IT OR NOT, skyrocket. And you'll find you are all poor guys like in many countries. So to be rich, you need to HAVE TO PAY $20 a CD, $600 for office, $500 for photoshop and $20 a DVD. Then that money goes back to some coporations that buy REAL resources aboard. And you can then dominate.

      So my conclusion is that people in the US are better off buying CDs at $15 or $20 a piece, and paying a lot for software and anything that has huge profit margins. That dilutes the REAL spendings (low profit stuff, pushing resource limits) and allows the dolar and the US to "_expect_ this and that" from the rest of the world "or face the consecuences".

      Bottom line: don't complain, it's in your best interest to pay a lot for what IS CHEAP.
  • Maybe he's honest. You know, an honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.

  • Still not safe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NickRob ( 575331 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:30AM (#3423669)
    This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.

    We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works.
    • This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.


      Not to be a nitpicker, but the USA Patriot Act was far from unpopular, the public swallowed up all the rhetoric of it, and it flew through congress like greased lightning. It's a poor example. The thing passed with like a 7-1 ratio in the house, and there was a grand total of one vote against it in the senate.

      I agree that now is not the time to back off on the Hollings bill, on the contrary i believe that now is the time to turn up the heat in every way we can... but frankly thoose of us who value personal freedoms were definitely in the minority in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 when the Patriot Act passed.

    • " This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.

      We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works."

      We shouldn't feel SAFE at all... Remember, it was only 1998 when Congress, by a UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE passed DMCA.

      I don't belive that 535 members of Congress have been replaced in the last 4 years. That means, obviously, there is still a huge majority, a Veto-proof majority, that is still there who voted in DMCA.

      Until people start changing their politicians like they do underwear (for the same reason), this kind of power and influence by industry cartels will continue to write the laws.

  • Restrictions on consumers OK, on business not-OK (Score:4, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:31AM (#3423670) Homepage Journal
    The view is that the DMCA is considered OK, because that's a restriction on comsumer's rights for the benefit of businesses. But S.2048 is a restriction on some businesses for the benefit of other businesses. That's another matter entirely.

    Take a look at:
    http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_ao l-intel_critique.html [eff.org]
    [my comments in brackets]

    In his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Intel Executive Vice President Leslie Vadasz courageously spoke out against the Hollywood moguls who are asking Congress make copy controls mandatory in all new technologies. Vadasz expressed skepticism of the demands of copyright industries, which he said "historically feared technology -- from the advent of sound recording, to the development of the VCR, the DVD, the PC, and other digital devices". He explained that innovation must not be sacrificed in an impossible quest to lock down every tool that might be used for infringement.

    [Note this is a restriction on some businesses for the benefit of OTHER BUSINESSES. The businesses who would be subject to this restriction obviously don't like that]

    By contrast, a March 19 joint statement by Intel Corporation and AOL Time Warner suggests a disappointing change of heart by Intel. The "AOL Time Warner -- Intel Joint Statement of Principles" envisions a world in which corporate negotiations decide consumers' rights, and government outlaws devices falling outside a "consensus" imposed by Hollywood at lawyer-point. According to the joint statement, "The goal of these efforts is to create an overall architecture for protecting digital content throughout its distribution life so that it does not 'leak' out in an unprotected manner" -- with the result that copyright holders shape the digital architecture of the future, retaining the power to control your use of the movies, music and books you buy.

    [Note this is a restriction on consumer's right for the benefit of businesses. The businesses love that.]

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • This shows (again) that the political system called by Americans as Democracy is not that democratic. Where is the statement "From the people, for the people"?

      The representatie system the way it is implemented today only represents big corporations and business associations, both capable of keeping expensive lobbies so the legislators can legislate as their will, not as the people needs.

      The status quo are supported including for those who controls the media. Ideas like this will never become popular. Don't let them control your opinion, think for yourselves.

  • Little Excessive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ender81b ( 520454 ) <wdinger@@@gmail...com> on Sunday April 28, 2002 @02:31AM (#3423671) Homepage Journal
    a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do

    Allright, now listen - I hate the CBBLAH & DMCA, etc like everyone else. But, come on now, is it REALLY necassary to call them whores when posting this news to the site? ATTENTION SLASHDOT EDITORS: it doesn't make you look very professional or worthy of respect when you result to cheap tactics like this.

    Leave it to people like ME to call them whores but please not on the main page. it just doesn't give us a very solid position to argue from if you result to name-calling on the main page.

    • You should note that the 'whore' comment was, in fact, in italics. This indicates that it was written by the submitter, not the editor.
      • Yes. But the editor was the one who decided to put that on the front page.
        • And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?

          The editor was submitted a story that should appeal to the editor's intended audience. The submitter made statements that the editor may or may not disagree with. The editor approved the story as it was, as opposed to censoring it in any way.

          It's my humble opinion that the editor did right by the submitter, and right by the audience.

          -9mm-
          • There are tons of duplicate submissions for things like this. The editor could use a little common sense and pick one that is reasonable.

          • And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?

            It's not that it was offensive, it's that it was childish and useless. What would be preferred is someone like timothy actually putting a little work into his job, and maybe writing his own summary if there were none handy.

            But why bother? Ultimately as long as we keep bringing in the ad revenue, slashdot doesn't have any incentive to grow the fuck up.

    • Well, I see your point.

      But would it be OK to call them "those who, for apparent compensation of fiscal cash contributions, perform in return a service, said service being analogized to that of a sexual nature, due to the presumed pleasure obtained by the servicee, and also in part due to the negative, dominance, connotation of the sale of the service"?

      I once was chastized using a phrase involving pimping for censorware. The objection was that this terminology was unfair to pimps :-).

      Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

    • Re:Little Excessive (Score:2, Insightful)

      by xenoweeno ( 246136 )
      The editors didn't call him a corporate whore. The person who submitted the story, L. J. Beauregard, did. Note the quotation marks.
      • But the editors are the ones who posted that on the front page. Ergo..
    • In regards to it doesn't make you look very professional or worthy of respect when you result to cheap tactics like this.
      If you checked the definition of whore you see that it is valid to represent a whore as:
      A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. which is obviously what Sen. Hollings is out for with his bill.

      Ignorance is something stupid people use often

    • Re:Little Excessive (Score:2, Insightful)

      by vvikram ( 260064 )
      i totally agree with you. it IS excessive.

      when i read it first i was pretty shocked as to whether this was slashdot or some other web-crap.

      1) let another person be in the wrong. i think it doesnt behoove us [submitter, editor , whoever] to react like that.

      2) dont put yourself in the slime just because the other party is slime.

      3) also remember responsibility is something that is proportional to the number of people involved. when you have thousands of people it really isnt nice to air sentiments like this publically.

      4) it also dilutes the point. here we are discussing something totally different from the actual post which was relevant, important and DOES constitute news but delivered wrong.

      5) i say my share of swear words but yes it _is_ relative and idealism doesnt hold water here. imagine the president standing up and swearing like hell in the speech or your parents doing that while they talk. you have to look a little further than your freedom if its going to turn a public nuisance

      my sincere opinion. thanks.

      V
  • It's becoming very fashionable to bash Senator Hollings "brain"-child. It's was so outragous a proposal that anything less(no matter how badly it bodes for us) would seem "reasonable" by comparison.

    I wouldn't fear the current legislation, I'd watch out for the seemingly more moderate bills that are sure to follow. If our beloved under-secretary of commerce (or whatever) thinks the DMCA is well-balanced, then we're sure to see more of the same in coming days.

    Be on your toes and don't let down your guard.

    Remember: when they want you to "comprimise" it really means they want you to give up half of what you have. All they need is a few cycles of that, and pretty soon, you have nothing.

    The anti-gun crowd has been using that tact for quite a while and painting those who refuse to play the game as unreasonable. Expect the same treatment.

    They'll get my Linux Distro when they pry it from my cold, dead disk drive!

  • Corporate whore? (Score:2, Informative)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 )
    Oh, I see, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a whore. That's a great way to win over people's minds. yup.
    • The slashdot editors aren't rich. How could they ever hope to win over this guy?
      • No, but saying things like that helps divide the gap. So it ends up being us and them. Then we both just wage war becacuse they're the enemy, and not because we're trying to change something.
        Also, they will probably never win this guy over. But they could have put-off 100 other people who were still deciding where they stand.

        If you want to fight for a cause, you don't call people names and act like they are some evil enemy.

        • Man, we're on the same side. Even if I am a sarcastic asshole.

          But honest to god, the gap was already there, if not quite public. Besides, for every person that was turned off by the namecalling, there was another person impressed by the truth in it. This is a situation where there aren't any rewards worth having forr pulling punches.
    • Read the definition of a whore:
      A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
      Thus the definition is valid and you are an idiot. Enough said.

      • A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

        What makes you think the commerce secretary doesn't legitimately hold the values he's expressing?

  • Club Fed for life: A vote on life imprisonment for malicious hackers has been postponed. The House Judiciary committee was supposed to consider the Cyber Security Enhancement Act this week, but postponed a vote until next week because of a full schedule. A subcommittee has already approved the bill, after rewriting it to cover more types of computer intrusions.
    Err.. This seems a little bit on the harsh side.. what so they plan on doing with said criminals... put em in with the murderers and rapists in a maximum security prison.. hell while there at it.. why not go for the death penalty... This really does suck.. and people wonder why I.. as an American, and sometimes proud to be one, am applying for my citizenship in a European country. Uggg
    • Just wait till the apply it to portscans. But hey, there's a war against terror! You can be an Enron exec and squander the life savings of thousands of employees away, but I doubt that there will be more than 10 years of jail time done between the lot of them. However, a 19 year old script-kiddie gets a little full of beans and brings down a couple Exchange servers, and it's a lifetime of forced sodomy for him. Yet people still believe in the "justice" system - why the hell not, we get the best justice money can buy!
    • Don't threaten doing a "Alec Balwin" and move away without fighting. At the risk of sounding like a rah-rah flag-waver, this is still the best country on the planet(although there might be an intelligent civilization elsewhere in the galaxy).

      Running away means you're taking yourself out of the fight (sheep-like behavior at best).

      The only way to beat these idiots and corporate whores is to become very vocal and present a well-reasoned arguement against these encroachments.

      If we act like immature jerks, we invalidate our own arguements and give the win to them.
      • Actually, it goes something like this...if you have enough $$$ in the US, then you can enjoy such elite privledges as free-speech, a vaction once a year, and maybe even pay off your own home before you die. However, if you're one of the working-poor, doing a "hand-to-mouth" monthly shuffle and clinging to a lower-middle-class life with the wife and kids then activism is a fantasy. <p>Refugees exist because smart people know when to get the hell out of the way. You don't call a smart pesant a coward because they managed to get out while the rest of the village has been neatly killed and buried. You call them smart. Smart AND lucky.<p>
      • Nice try, thanks for playing.

        I wasn't born with privledge, nor was my family wealthy. I earned my own way. In this country such things are possible and happen every day.

        All that it takes is the will and to refuse to play the victim. With your defeatist attitude, you've lost before you even begin to compete. Don't think like a sheep. Be a wolf. survive. win. sheesh.

        And on that note, Welcome to /., Mr. Baldwin.
  • The comic strip User Friendly [userfriendly.org] has a great strip today [userfriendly.org] about the DMCA..

    Spoiler: It is 'violate the DMCA' sung to the theme song of YMCA...(Muh haw-hahaha) :-P

  • This just strikes me as more of the predictable political stances we've come to expect over the last two decades or so. Let's see... a Republican president/administration voicing concern about a bill that is headed up by a Democrat.

    I don't give any single politician points for standing on principle here or an iota of credibility. IMO, it's more of the standard attitude, that "it's coming from the other guys so we're suspicious of it" posturing that is so typical.

    Just be thankful for now that a Democrat is the one behind this bill (gah... never thought I'd hear myself say that!) If this were a bill being pushed by a Republican, we'd be in deep shit right now.

    --Rick
  • I loaded up slashdot, and at the top it said...

    This page was generated by a Squad of RIAA Goons for NoMoreNicksLeft (516230).

    It's too late, they've already taken over.
  • Supposing that this legislation did pass, how the hell would you enforce it. Obviously it would push many legitimate programmers "underground" but isn't the underground big enough already?

    An whats to stop someone from opening a shell account offshore and building their software on that server. Can they legally restrict telecommunications to such a server? If not maybe I should invest in off shore shell accounts for development...
  • /me prepares to get modded to -infinity....

    I should start by saying that I loathe the idea of the SSSCA/CBDTPA totally, since it would kill open source, and grant MS a monopoly as they
    own the patent on DRM tech in computers. Well, more of a monopoly than they already have =)

    But really, how bad is the DMCA (not CBDTPA)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the DMCA affects me personally, and
    doesn't have to affect most GNU/Linux users.

    It seems to me that most posters here talk of the DMCA as if it is something which is impossible to escape. Its not. No one here relies
    on DVD movies, or the latest tasteless music from the record companies FOR THEIR SURVIVAL. There are alternatives. There is genuinely
    free music from the 'net (mp3.com, etc), or an indie movie festival. Maybe ifilm.com. You can avoid being affected by the DMCA simply
    by refusing to make use of protected content.

    So, the movie studios and recording industry want the DMCA to protect their content.... Blizzard wants to protected their game server....
    So what? Don't like it? Don't buy it, don't pirate it, and DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH IT. You DO have a choice. Yes, that may mean not having
    Tron 2 (when its out) or LOTR, or Warcraft 3 or whatever the latest fad is, but if you really want to take the moral high ground with
    these people (media industry), simply crying "I like shiny things" wont help.

    For the record, I do think changes need to be made to the DMCA to prevent future cases like the Skyralov case or the Felten case. These
    are quite franly sickening; you should not be on dodgy legal ground just for doing encryption research. Some provisions need to be made
    for this.

    Otherwise, let them keep their stupid DMCA. =) It doesn't affect me, and it WONT AFFECT YOU IF YOU DON'T LET IT. =) The DMCA can ONLY be
    applied to specific works, unlike say software patents for instance.

    - MrMeanie

    P.S. Personally, I use GNU/Linux almost exclusively. I am currently coding an open source program. (not affected at all) I don't have
    any illegal MP3s on my system. (I like to take the moral highground and criticise the music recording industry :-P, and I think it
    would be hypocritical of me to complain about their efforts to 'protect' their content if I had illegal music on my system) Despite
    having a DVD drive in my computer, the only DVDs I have are cover discs from Linux format magazine. I have no DVD movies, because of
    the DMCA and lack of fair use rights; to play a DVD any way I want (ie on Linux) I would have to break the law, therefore I boycott
    them. I will continue to boycott any medium which disallows what is commonly called fair use. As far as I can see, I make use of NO
    protected content, therefore the DMCA has NO effect.
  • More evidence that the Hollings Bill [wired.com] (CBDTPA: Consume, But Don't Try Programming Anything) isn't going to pass this year, if at all. As I suspected, this bill is a smokescreen for the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group [eff.org] in Hollywood. Check this out:


    In a speech last week, [Commerce Department undersecretary for intellectual property] Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.


    "Before Congress rushes into the imposition of a legislative solution," Rogan said, "I hope its members will grant more time for the free market to find its own middle ground."



    Those negotiations are the BPDG, a consipiracy of 15-some tech and entertainment companies. They're writing a "standard" that they've asked Hollings to give the FCC the power to give the force of law to. It will be illegal to manufacture or distribute any device or software that can access digital broadcast TV if it doesn't meet the "standard."


    And what will the "standard" require? Well, for starters, all tech will have to be "tamper-resistant," which means that you won't be able to tinker with the hardware and software you own. Open source will be illegal.


    Those devices that are allowed will only be permitted to incorporate cables and media that limit copying. And new technologies will only be added to the list of permitted tech if Hollywood says so (the standard that the studios have proposed for evaluating new tech is "We'll know it when we see it").


    Imagine it: HDTV devices and computers that interface with them will only be allowed to incorporate broken technologies that Hollywood permits. If your computer monitor doesn't include the "approved" inputs, it will be against the law for your computer to output a digital video stream to it. The manufacturer will have two choices:

    1. Add a second input that uses a "protected" method (you'll need two wires to connect your computer to your monitor)
    2. Take away the "unprotected" input and just use one, "protected" wire, which means that you won't be able to buy a computer that allows you to do anything you want with the video that you make on your own

    We all got upset about the Hollings Bill because it would use the force of law to control how a computer could be made. The BPDG will do exactly that -- it's not a "free market middle-ground," it's Hollywood's absolute dominion over your machine.


    Don't let 'em fool you -- CBDTPA is just another way of spelling BPDG, and it's a-comin' soon. The BPDG says it'll have its standard finalized by May 17, and no one's even noticing. The BPDG meetings are public (though they cost $100 to attend). There's one coming up in LA on Monday, and wouldn't it be sweet if a couple hundred of us showed up to tell 'em what we think?

  • If they think the DMCA is "balanced" and that CBDTPA isn't...

    Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.

    The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.

    Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.

    It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...

    It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.

    Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.

    Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:

    1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.

    2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...

    Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.

    3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.

    The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.

  • Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair&NOwcmifm,comSPAM> on Sunday April 28, 2002 @11:58AM (#3424767) Homepage
    That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:

    "Congress shall make no law"...

    Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?

    With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...

    Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.

    We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?
    • (I don't normally post this kind of thing so bare with me this time...)

      That's the most intelligent piece of political commentary I've ever seen on the Net. Send it to 5!

      Especially: The law should be simple, and understandable by all. Is that not the truth?
    • So when are you starting your own grass-roots lobbying organization? Or when are you running for Congress or a legislature ? Like it or not, laws are created in response to requests, these typically come from interest groups and lobbyists. If counter-requests and information aren't available to legislators in a format they can understand, they aren't going to know that there is another set of needs out there.

      Furthermore, not all laws "create crimes." Some laws are there to protect my (and your) rights - like those that prevent the government from prosecuting me just because I think the DMCA is bad legislation.

  • The CBDTPA essentially says: The RIAA and MPAA are good entities, and are being ripped off by the Internet, that was solely created for piracy. So, the only real solution is to turn the computer in to an expensive TV, and making anything that COULD be used for piracy, but probably isn't, illegal. Sad, but thats how the bill reads to me. THe average American would probably say the same thing. But guess what? Most don't even know what the CBDTPA is. FoxNEWS, CNN, and ABC are all owned by companies that back the CBDTPA. Its not going to get reported, and when geeks like us blast this bill after it passes(God Forbid), the news will tell people that piracy is a massive problem and that this bill doesn't do anything but eliminate it. If it passes, I'm convincing all my friends and family to buy brand-new state of the art systems that will last for many years and installing all the software I can get my hands on on these PCs. They can't take away those rights, can they? Then, when the bill becomes active, I'm sitting pretty with high-tech hardware, a DVD burner, Linux and many bits of software that the CBDTPA would outlaw. Of course, it may effect OSS, but since the code is available, you can just remove the offending code. Is it even enforcable? There are thousands of programs available at Sourceforge alone. Come on, the CBDTPA would require TETRIS games to have copy protection inside. If the bill passes, stock up on software and hardware. I mean, get a 1/2 terabyte RAID 0 array. Use Sorcerer/Gentoo and make a 100% updated version of Linux. Buy hundreds of CD-Rs. Build/Buy an MP3 Player. Get Filesharing programs, and share like mad. Buy any commercial software you need/want. Move, do whatever it takes to avoid the bill. Don't buy CDs. Don't buy movies. Go to concerts, and record your music live. There is NO way I want my computer to become an expensive TV. That can't record content. Send your senators mail, telling them to vote against it, or lose their jobs. It isn't the tech industry's job to solve another industry's problem. This bill would give them full rein over OUR computers and technology. Imagine going into a store, buying a CD, going home, putting it in your PC, and your PC tells you that you can only listen to it on a $200 CBDTPA CD Player. You can't rip the songs, and burn them to custom mixes or anything. And you can't play a DVD on your computer, but they have DVD-ROM content. Go figure. FIGHT THIS BILL, SINCE IT TURNS PCS INTO EXPENSIVE TVS!
  • We have heard that all the Congress Critters have heard from their constituents are negative comments about this bill. Thus, were the supporters actually to take it to a vote, it would die, and MPAA, et al would have practically zero negotiating power remaining when talking with the hardware manufacturers.

    So, instead, paying attention to this comment:

    In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.

    We see that the Bush administration instead wants this settled out of public view, in secret negotiations.

    Yes, that would technically leave hardware manufacturers free to produce unencumbered devices, but that won't do any good when the mainstream media has copyright protections in the path of accessibility. Then it just becomes the whole deCSS case to view DVD's on unencumbered Linux all over again.

    As long as so-called content providers (MPAA, et al) can get a reasonable majority of the mainstream manufacturers to go along, there will be insufficient public outcry to stop them and those who don't wish to give up their fair use liberties will be left out in the cold.

    -Robert

    • Better then the Clintoon administration (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Delivery boys for the DMCA as bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA. You think it's no coincidence that Hollywood gives about 10 times as much money to Democrats than Republicans?
  • "...a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."

    Nice way to earn allies, asshole.

    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

  • Do you people not read Lawyerpoint? Rogan is working in the background to get most of CBDTPA accepted without passing CBDTPA (through voluntary standards-setting, but with that legislation hanging around in the air, how much of the tech industry's involvement is 'voluntary' and how much is 'I will participate to prevent a worse disaster')
  • Go to DC. Find yourself a Sentator. 'Nuff said.
  • From the actual text of the bill:
    (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that -- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
    Seems to me the only software that would be effected would be CD/DVD writers, media players, web/mail servers, ftp and napster like stuff, mails clients, web browsers, and possibly other stuff I'll think of once I hit the sumbit button.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close