Slashdot Mirror

( ) <-

I'm no clairvoyant, but I'd guess you're the type to rapidly jump to conclusions with little or no information. I appreciate the link for 2000, but you might want to read Hatch from the record in 2001 (after the elections):

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act updated copyright law for the Internet, while striking a balance necessary to foster technological development and full deployment of the Internet. This law has set the groundwork for entertainment convergence on a single interactive platform where the consumer is king and can set his or her own schedule for news, information, entertainment, communication, and so on.

Well, Madam President, this is just a sampling of what we have achieved together. And it is a prelude to what we can do in the future.

-- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2001

I found this on thomas.loc.gov, however I wasn't comfortable that the URL their search engine provided would would as a link. this works as well.

From what I read of the decision (yes, I tried to wade through a significant chunk of its hundreds of pages) Judge KK seems to justify many of her points by saying that the remedies suggested by the dissenting states do not address the fault that was established. That is, for instance, forcing MS to auction the rights to port Office to Linux has nothing to do with the fact that MS used its monopoly power to squash Netscape, etc. That is, anything not directly related to the theory that MS felt a threat from middleware with cross-platform abilities is out of bounds as a remedy. (First question then might be: Is that an accurate description of part of her reasoning?) In some instances, what she says sounds right to me and in others it seems like she needs to re-read the findings of fact.

Another reason she seems to like for rejecting proposed remedies is that they would "help MS's competitors but not competition". This distinction seems slim. If that really is required of any anti-trust remedy, then is anything other than breaking MS up even a potential remedy?

Most importantly, given the narrow ways she uses to reject the proposed additional remedies, didn't she leave open the possibility of the success of a brand new anti-trust suit that does address the other ways in which MS has abused its monopoly power? (Like for instance, wouldn't Sun's additional anti-trust suit have a good chance?) But, given how long these trials take, won't Microsoft's strategy of prolonging the process wind us right back where we are, where any remedy applied so long after the fact makes no real difference? And then if that's so, while her remedy might be legally defensible, it would also serve to graphically illustrate the impotence of our anti-trust laws, no?

BWCarver

You can assure me all you like, can you provide a actual regulation I can look up placing the 500's frequencies mentioned in the article in the emergency band? The restricted bands are too numerous to reproduce here, but they are available here. The 500 range is not a restricted band. It is also worth noting that Part 15.242, which covers the band in question, makes long and specific mention of "biomedical telemetry devices," and that they must accept any interference and must not cause interference to TV stations operating on the same frequency. Also, while it's not an FCC link but an ARRL one, this section makes specific mention of land mobile transmitters belonging to fire, police, maritine and nautical safety services falling under Part 15. And finally, there is a huge difference between jamming and unintentional interference.

You can assure me all you like, can you provide a actual regulation I can look up placing the 500's frequencies mentioned in the article in the emergency band? The restricted bands are too numerous to reproduce here, but they are available here. The 500 range is not a restricted band. It is also worth noting that Part 15.242, which covers the band in question, makes long and specific mention of "biomedical telemetry devices," and that they must accept any interference and must not cause interference to TV stations operating on the same frequency. Also, while it's not an FCC link but an ARRL one, this section makes specific mention of land mobile transmitters belonging to fire, police, maritine and nautical safety services falling under Part 15. And finally, there is a huge difference between jamming and unintentional interference.

> a) Military is only a tiny percentage of the budget

I don't consider 16% tiny by any stretch. Neither as a percentage nor as an absolute figure ($280 billion, 2001 figures), in both cases absolutely dwarfing European countries. Incidentally, the linked document contains lots of interesting figures, including comparisons with other countries.

I do agree with most of your other points.

> a) Military is only a tiny percentage of the budget

I don't consider 16% tiny by any stretch. Neither as a percentage nor as an absolute figure ($280 billion, 2001 figures), in both cases absolutely dwarfing European countries. Incidentally, the linked document contains lots of interesting figures, including comparisons with other countries.

I do agree with most of your other points.

Actually this is required by copyright law. The government is not allowed to 'compete' with the general populous. One way this is controlled is by not allowing the government to copyright works created by government employees on government time (see Title 17 United States Code section 105.

There are some copyrights that are owned by the government, but these have to be works that the government bought or commissioned through a contractor. Also, as noted in the first link, some Government created documents / websites contain images that are copyrighted and used by permission. Any third party wishing to use the image would of course have to seperately obtain permission from the copyright holder.

Damn, and here's me thinking that it had more to do with the fact that the US is pissing away about 50%(!!!) fof it's national budget on the military.

I hate to ruin a perfectly good point made with triple exclamation marks by introducing pesky facts, but the military budget is only $336 billion out of $2,052 billion, or 16.4%. If you want to find the waste in federal government, look at social programs, not the military.

The problem is, combined federal, state and local government here now represents about 50% of the market place, as opposed to around 5% prior to 1910.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean here. As a share of GDP, the 1999 figures I'm familiar with say it's 29%. Furthermore, you are going to have to do a lot to convince me that this amount of increase is a bad thing. Life expectancies are way up, poverty is way down, education has improved for the vast majority, and we are no longer the same country we once were in almost any sense. I think it is healthy to debate our government funding priorities, and I know there is money being spent I would rather were not spent. But if you make me pick between 2002 and 1902, the choice is too easy. And if you argue that we've made all of this progress completely in spite of the government, I'm afraid to say I would like to see a lot of specific evidence that this is true.

Not on any bandwidth regulated by 47CFR97. Hams aren't allowed to obscure the meaning of a message (47CFR97.113(a)(4)), except in the telecommand of satellites and certain emergencies (by my interpretation). The idea is everyone who is listening should understand what you're talking about if they speak the same language, in fact we're not even really allowed to use 10-codes, we have our own system. Ham bandwidth is more for experimenting than implementing an email system (however doing that is a very cool thing). If we need to have lots of these email systems the ITU would have to set aside a chunk of bandwidth, and the FCC could make rules specifically for that purpose.

If you want to read the prohibited transmissions they are mostly here .

Begin obligitory karma whoring. that is the website for the people who vote on what bills, and this is specifically for the DMCA

My landlord wont allow use ot have satelite TV, and theres no cable available, therefore I cant watch SG1 on Sky.

Ignore him.

Sec. 97.215 Telecommand of model craft.

An amateur station transmitting signals to control a model craft may
be operated as follows:
(a) The station identification procedure is not required for
transmissions directed only to the model craft, provided that a label
indicating the station call sign and the station licensee's name and
address is affixed to the station transmitter.
(b) The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended
to obscure the meaning of the communication.
(c) The transmitter power must not exceed 1 W.

However, just to educate yourself, I would recommend sitting down and spending a day combing through the actual laws to get a feel for how they may apply to your situation. Start with the Export Administration Regulations, Part 740:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/740.txt

Basically, the BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) divides the world into several categories:

• USA and Canada(?)
• The "EU+8" "friendly" countries
• Other countries that don't fall into the above two categories, but are not considered terrorist countries
• The "T-7" list of terrorist countries

You'll probably be treating each category of country in a different way. Furthermore, restrictions may be slightly different depending on if you are exporting to foreign government users or foreign non-government users. Also, in some circumstances, you may be required to file reports indicating how various customers are using your crypto.

You'll also want to peruse all the relevent web pages at the BIS:

http://www.bxa.doc.gov/

(Hmm, looks like they've recently changed their name to "Bureau of Industry and Security". They were "Bureau of Export Administration" when I looked earlier this year.)

For practically any kind of commercial crypto you are planning to export, you'll need to file some paperwork with the BIS. Fill out a request form on their web site, and they'll send you the paperwork.

One last recommendation I could make would be to occasionally read the talk.politics.crypto newsgroup.

Whenever I talk to people about crypto export regulations, I usually hear "Oh, you must not have heard, crypto regulations are relaxed, now!" I have to explain that dealing with crypto exports still requires, at least, dealing with a ton of bureaucracy and is still a royal pain in the ass.

Free software has no problem complying with such regulations... [such as the ECPA]

The first step in the process is to find out the rules that apply. That takes some research. Speaking with an attorney that specializes in communications is one way of doing the research. Alternatively, you can get copies of the rule books. You're looking for CFR Title 47 as well as the relevant FAA regulations if you're going to have a tower structure. These are available from the Government Printing Office Web Site They're also available at many libraries.

Why not just cut Congress off from the Internet in the first place? I am sure it costs a fortune to operate and secure from hackers. If they are not using it for our benefit, what's the point? If they need to surf and read e-mail, do it at home like most workers have too. Everything that Congress does, anyways, is printed in the Federal Register so disconnecting their offices doesn't prevent them from communicating to the public electronically. Congress ran for over 200+ years without e-mail and it doesn't seem to run better with it. Its not like they have figured why I'm not getting Social Security. Instead of ignoring e-mail, they could focus on fixing that.

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States - ... to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine; or ...

United States Code, Ttitle 47 , Chapter 5 , Subchapter II , Part I , Sec. 227.

If you are clever you should also be able work out a good set of claims against solitications to your cell phone using that section of the USC, too.

Reading the letter of the code, it should also apply to spam, but lawyers seemed to have dropped the ball on that one.

3 trillion amount to less than is spent on social security. the US spends a WHOLE lot more than that

According to the Office of Management and Budget, total spending of the U.S. Fed. govt in fiscal year 2002 was $2.052 trillion.

Read even more details about Part 15 rules here.

Will Personal Telco have to move again after the next commercial service comes along? How many times do they have to move until there are no more channels to move to?

Channels are finite and this is an unlicensed spectrum anyone can use. Both parties have to live with that. Starbucks/T-Mobile was just stupid by not planning better. It isn't hard for a planning engineer to whip out the WiFi and just check to see what's there on what channel.

It would be smart for Starbucks to move over to another channel. Surely there will be fewer users of their service than of the free one, so they can certainly offer a service based on better bandwidth availability.

But this won't last long. The spectrum is limited, and there is no licensing or frequency coordinators to manage it. Part 15 rules include the fact that users are subject to interference from other legal users, including microwave ovens. Basing a paid service on such rules is foolhardy. But one direction is that it's success could be used to get the FCC to open more spectrum, and a licensing structure, for just such kinds of services. It will probably have to be on all new spectrum, perhaps up at 10 or 24 GHz.

If you post it on the net, then there's nothing stopping [Axis of Evil] countries from getting the code. Hence, doesn't that put one in murky legal waters?

Not under the definition of "knowingly" used by BIS. Did you read the regulations I linked to? 740.13(e)(6) clearly states (my emphasis):

Posting of source code or corresponding object code on the Internet (e.g., FTP or World Wide Web site) where it may be downloaded by anyone would not establish "knowledge" of a prohibited export or reexport.

And if you really want to cover your rectum, you can make a "best effort" by looking up the IPv4 address ranges for the popular ISPs in the Axis of Evil, and just firewall those off.

However, these regulations also state the following:

(4) Country restrictions. You may not knowingly export or reexport source code, corresponding object code or products developed with this source code to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.

If you post it on the net, then there's nothing stopping these countries from getting the code. Hence, doesn't that put one in murky legal waters?

Well, the U.S. government does place restrictions on one's right to give software away (in the case of strong cryptography). Hence OpenBSD is based in Canada.

But do these U.S. export restrictions apply to free software? The current crypto export regulations (section 740.13(e)) seem to grant an export License Exception for publicly available source code and object code compiled from publicly available source code provided that the original publisher of such code notifies crypt@bis.doc.gov (cc: enc@ncsc.mil) of the code's public availability. (Notification seems not to be required for mirrors.)

Hence Mozilla is based in the United States, where the only restriction on exporting OSI Certified(tm) open source encryption software is that it not implement a system primarily designed to restrict the fair use of a copyrighted work.

You ever tried to be on welfare? An able bodied man? It ain't gonna happen, son.

And if you ever did go on welfare, it is not, not not going to pay your mortgage payment, nor would even begin to touch your rent, if you live anywhere halfway decent.

It's a few hundred dollars a month.

Your taxes wouldn't quintuple, BTW. Welfare doesn't even begin to nick the federal budget. For instance, Aid for Families with Dependent Children, even at its spending height, didn't exceed one percent (1.0%) of the national budget. People seem to think half their taxes are paid out to welfare receipients.

Now, if you want to talk the BIGGEST welfare scam of all time, think of this: 17% percent of your taxes, that is to say 17 times what we spend on little kids in poverty, is spent paying the interest on the national debt. That's the INTEREST. So when you hear them increasing the debt limit once more (it's 6.5 trillion now), you can listen to 17/100 of every one of your tax dollars pouring into wealthy holders of that debt paper. And it's been pouring into their pockets for over twenty years.

Let's see, let's just posit we take in 2 trill a year. 340 billion goes towards the bondholders who hold that paper. Hoody hoo!!!! multiply that by 20 years, assuming inflation makes all things equal, and we get:

6,800 billion dollars.

I somehow doubt we have paid poor people in the U.S. 6,800 billion dollars since 1980. On the other hand, we have paid individuals, funds, and business 6.8 trillion dollars of free money. And we haven't even touched the principal.

Take a look at the Federal Budget, or more tellingly, a graph of what we spend taxes on.

That teeny-tiny piece caled human services is what covers welfare. The big cancer is the debt, the service on the debt, and defense spending.

I *wish* we had a safety net in this country, but we don't. Welfare won't pay for anything. You have to have *no* income, sell your belongings, your home, kill your assets. I have bad memories of a brush with welfare when I was a kid. Believe me, you wait months to see any cash. And the money you get doesn't cover anything real. Better to beg in the streets. You might make more.

Here is a better one.

Employment Discrimination

...A. Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified. The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines...

In fact, Lessing was wrong - there is a "law of the horse". One of the earliest legal codes we have, from one of the Scandanavian kings (Ranulf?), has at least two horse-specific laws. And they're interesting.

One law provided that, if a horseshoer made a horse temporarily lame, (which happens occasionally, more often with inept horseshoers) they had to provide a loaner horse until the hoof healed up. This is perhaps the first piece of consumer protection legislation. Note that it's very specific, and, like modern "lemon laws", places the blame unambiguously on the service provider. It's not a general tort or liability law; it's a law that arbitrarily assigns blame for a specific, common problem.

Another law provided that that if someone borrowed a horse and rode it around the village, they were guilty of a minor offense, but if they rode it out of the village, they were guilty of a major offense. Some jurisdictions make that distinction today in auto theft cases, mostly for juveniles.

So the law of the horse did exist when horses were important.

There's a sizable law of steam. Start with the ASME Boiler Code, which is very specific and has the force of law in many countries. Boilers used to blow up frequently before there was law that set standards for boilers and the people who design and build them. The U.S. safety regulations for steam locomotives (49 CFR 230) are still valid and enforced. There's a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.

For a history of the law of steam, see page 35 of this recent boiler explosion investigation report. There's a law of steam for good reason. The first law of steam was enacted in the US in 1838, after a riverboat blew up, killing 300 people. The issue remains; a steam locomotive blew up in 1995, killing several people.

Thus, claims that there is no "law of the horse" or "law of steam" are false. Such laws exist.

Please show me which part of the DMCA talks about this subject.

You should do your own research, but here

''(b) SYSTEM CACHING.-- ''(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.--A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which-- ''(A) the material is made available online by a person other than the service provider; ''(B) the material is transmitted from the person described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network to a person other than the person described in subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person; and ''(C) the storage is carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the material available to users of the system or network who, after the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph (B), request access to the material from the person described in subparagraph (A), if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.

''(d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS.--A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider-- ''(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing; ''(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or ''(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material; ''(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and ''(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

Take a look at the document "Findings of Fact", avaliable here.

6dB? Where does it say that?

Right here

Keeping in mind that there's no real actual clear definition in the spread spectrum rules in Part 15. It does give a statement that monitor input may not exceed 6db.

I do have an amateur radio license so I'm not an RF idiot - and they do require you to calculate erp in the extra class exam (which I passed). Your right - feedline loss, antenna db, and transmitter power make a big difference in erp - especially feedline. For 2.4 ghz I'd never use anything less then something with an aluminum jacket.

"In time of war, we cannot dawdle around in carrying out our constitutional obligations."

The link directly to the debate in question is here.

"In time of war, we cannot dawdle around in carrying out our constitutional obligations."

The link directly to the debate in question is here.

Just a simple FYI if anybody wants to track down the bill text on thomas.loc.gov -- it's S. 2201, otherwise known as the "Online Personal Privacy Act".

If you want a PDF version from the GPO, this link may work for you.

Now that I've finished with your uncreative argument, here's a few facts (Warning: the preceding link is to an Excel spreadsheet).

The largest budget item is national defense. This is a greater benefit to others more wealthy than me for a few reasons. First, I have very little to defend. If China was to take over the US today, they would not seize my property or money...I have none. Bill Gates, however, would probably very quickly go from billionaire to thousandaire. (Of course, we would also both lose freedoms, but that would be an equal benefit.) Second, due to my lower income level, I cannot invest in stocks. Wealthy folks can invest in defense companies, and thereby increase their wealth (a good bit of the $300 billion will go to defense contractors).

Social Security and Medicare are paid with seperate taxes. Those taxes are only levied on salaries up to (IIRC) $65,000/yr, so wealthy folks don't pay 90% of those programs.

Health and Income Services, I'll have to admit, I'm a bit fuzzy on. I'll guess that Income Services are federal employee salaries? If that's the case, then we don't really need to discuss that. It obviously only benefits federal employees. Health, I really have no idea. Most hospitals (all?) are locally funded. Healthcare is privatized, and we all pay our HMO's for it....

The only other large item is Net Interest. That's to pay interest on the federal debt, which is mostly in the hands of the wealthy in the form of treasury bonds. The linked article even states that Microsoft used to invest exclusively in treasury bonds. And of course, each deficit dollar spent helps the wealthy even more, as they can buy even more treasury bonds.

"Education, training, employment and social services" is a paltry 3.3% of the federal budget (for 2000). Commerce and housing credits account for around 2/10 a percent. Natural resources and environment? 1.5%. Agriculture? 2%. Administration of justice? 1.5%. General gov't? Less than 1%. Transportation? Around 2.6%.

Now, you tell me where all these benefits that I'm supposed to be getting are....

Actually, it's required. The Magunuson-Moss Warranty Act or 1975 requires that warranty disclaimers or limitations be "fully and conspicuously disclosed" in order to be effective, and delegates to the Federal Trade Commission the authority to provide standards for disclosure.

The FTC's standards have indicated that appropriate disclosures for warranty terms are likely to use visually distinct type or printing to refer to warranty terms considered especially important.

Now, human factors/usability people will tell you that using all caps makes blocks of text unpleasant to read and understand - so it may be that the FTC and people trying to follow their rules are actually making it less likely, not more likely, that consumers will understand what's happening.

But that's what the rules are today. Limitations of liability need to be visually distinct, and conservative managers and lawyers tend to do what everyone else does (which isn't a bad strategy for avoiding legal risk) and use ALL CAPS.

This is a classic example of a foolish notion that radio communications ("wireless" for those of you who didn't realize what technology this is) can be made private. Yes, our Federal Communications Commission (and many other such agencies world wide) believes that you'll be a good citizen and not monitor your neighbor's juicy conversations.

This goes against everything we've known about radio for the last century. However, given this sort of legislation, nobody can hold Best Buy or any other retailer liable for sending your credit card information out over the airwaves where everyone can see it.

The FAA expressely prohibits "Black box" (CVR/FDR) data from being used in any legal enforcement action. It is only accessible for accident investigation and safety purposes. In other words, an airline can't legally snoop the data and decide to fire you the pilot just because you did something wrong. Only if there was an accident, and the NTSB, using that data after the fact, proves your fault, then only in that case, the data plays a role in any discipline action.

One can only imagine that they will make such a policy for cars, hopefully!

Actually, that would be in violation of federal law. See 47 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 64.1200 subsection (a)(1)(iii) regarding unsolicited telephone calls to devices in which the recipient is charged for incoming calls.

This portion actually deals with automatic calling machines and prerecorded or artificial messages, but you can read further on and in other code to find the exact statements. Besides the fact that you could claim any calls made to you without your expressed prior consents while driving pose a threat to your health.

It's time for some Q&A.Let's start with familiar /. lore.
Q. Who invented the Internet?
A. The US federal gummint (DARPA)
Q. On whose dime?
A. The US taxpayers'
Q. What industry occupies the largest portion of the US federal government's trillions of dollars in expenditures?
A. Defense. 35% in 2001. Welfare and other means-tested entitlments were 6%.
Q. What has the US Dept. of Defense been focusing on since the end of the Cold War? A. Technology - computerized planes, satellites, drones, tanks, etc. Read any Afghanistan story in the Washington Post or New York Times, or any other major newspaper, and you will hear nothing but raves about our high-tech military.
Q. And who does that money employ?
A. Engineers, technologists, programmers.
Q. What do they make on average?
A. A starting salary of $60K, if not more

Q. Wow, Eric, sounds like the geeks get the most welfare of all! Why do you think they complain so much?
A. (stumped)

And don't even dare to complain how hard it is to figure out what the government spends - it took me 6 seconds to find the US budget. Whew!

That criminals use the internet for 'identifty teheft' is not news Even the US government is on the case:

The proliferation of identity theft crimes has been fueled in some measure by the Internet, where Social Security numbers and other personal identifying information are widely available for a fee.

The original article seemed very alarmist. Is it really such a problem? My skimming of a US government report from some years ago revealled the following interesting information (emphasis added):

Officials at VISA U.S.A., Inc., and MasterCard International, Inc., indicated that overall fraud losses from their member banks are in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but these losses constitute a small part (about 0.1 percent) of the banks' overall billing transactions processed. Nevertheless, an official from MasterCard told us that dollar losses relating to identity fraud represented about 96 percent of its member banks' overall fraud losses of $407 million in 1997.

Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution weren't that stupid

The framers might have been a bit more forthcoming on what those other rights "retained by the people" are.

Amendment IX sounds very grand but in practice it has played no substantial role in deciding cases.

As it stands, Amendment IX appears to give the courts the power to overturn any piece of legislation on the simple grounds that the legislation violates a right that the courts themselves may define. The idea of a judicial veto is as open to abuse as any other exercise of power that isn't restrained by law or common practice.

As the article suggests, the courts think that in a democracy the legislature should have broad scope to decide things, which is what the framers of the Constitution also thought.

Would it be possible and legal for non Americans to contribute to such a setup as well?

I grow increasingly concerned over the state of such laws being proposed / enacted in the USA, simply because American culture and laws have become popular precedents for many other countries to follow.

I fear that someday that such laws may take away the freedom of my fair use, and the freedom of the private sector of my country to innovate, simply because some law was passed in the USA some 30,000 miles away.

Interesting point to note : Bush just passed the Campaign Finance Reform Act which places limits on the amount of money one can recieve during a campaign.
Relevant hyperlinks are the Press Release and the text of the Act (in pdf form)

The documents linked from the page mentioned are not Congressional Hearing transcripts but submitted statements.

Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.

After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.

The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access yet.

Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002, Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002.

Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements vs. transcript

The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.

the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know

The documents linked from the page mentioned are not Congressional Hearing transcripts but submitted statements.

Sometimes these statements are read at the hearing, but sometimes they are just entered in the record and the congressperson or expert witness says little or expounds on the points in the statement.

After statements, there's a question & answer period. That's when the good stuff usually happens & it's only reflected in the transcripts.

The latest Sentate Judiciary and Commerce Committee hearings on the CBDTPA (sih-bid-tihp-ah?) & related issues have not been posted to GPO Access yet.

Judiciary (Leahy): "Competition, Innovation, and Public Policy in the Digital Age: Is the Marketplace Working to Protect Digital Creative Works?" held 3/14/2002, Commerce (Hollings): "Protecting Content in a Digital Age--Promoting Broadband and the Digital Television Transition" held 2/28/2002.

Earlier hearings do have transcripts posted, though. Compare "Online Entertainment: Coming Soon to a Digital Device Near You" submitted statements vs. transcript

The q&a in the transcript looks like it's either written communication from before the hearing or a heavily edited version of what was said. I have the audio from Hollings hearing, so when the transcript comes out, I'll check its accuracy.

the link to the statements for that particular hearing from the Judiciary page is wrong, but mine is right. I've let them know

I had to write a pretty large paper on the anti-trust trial for a class. Which meant that I had to read both the DOJ & MSFT's proposed findings of fact. In the DOJ's one of the stories was about IBM and Compaq, who both came close to losing their windows license. The Compaq part is detailed here, starting in section 203. Compaq started a marketing agreement with AOL at the height of the browser wars, after the threatend loss of their license they capitulated and were granted the lowest price for Windows of all OEMs.
The IBM part is detailed starting in section 67. IBM didn't get a license untill 15 minues before windows 95's launch! Because they wanted to bundle smart suite. Before reading this I supported Microsoft in the trial, after reading about these two companies, I realized that they had been quite blatent in their monpolizing of whatever they wanted to get today.

The FCC does not allow encryption on Family Radio Service bands (47CFR95.183(a)4) They usually don't allow data either - Garmin had to get the FCC to make a specific exception for the Rino.

Anyone can listen in.

SUPPOSE there's a US Govt agency with $1B

The Department of Defense gets $303B a year.
See the official budget of the United States Government for 2003.

Exactly WHAT is an agency of the US Gov going to crack
that will allow it to gain exactly WHAT money
to amortize it's $1B
that won't be missed?

IIRC, each Stealth bomber costs about a billion dollars. Given the tradeoff between buying a new Stealth fighter, and knowing where to put my current Stealth fighters before my opponent has got a chance to move his armies, I'd pick the latter.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works),
section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright),
section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances),

The pertinent portion of law that applies to [accepting cash] is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.