Slashdot Mirror

I strongly suggest that a quick look at the list of committee members.

It includes one Mary Bono (R-CA), widow of Sonny Bono.

Readers who follow developments in copyright law will understand the significance.

k.

--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

I was going through the committee membership looking for those "firebrand of capitalism" names. I only saw a couple of names that I consider to severely jeopardize Napster's case. The membership is here. Is anyone else familiar enough with these House members (perhaps from your own state) to be able to comment specifically?

-L

As a staff member working on Capitol Hill, let me remind you of the hierarchy of response to constituents (highest to lowest).

1. US Mail
2. Fax
3. Telephone calls
4. Email

NB: Most congressional offices don't put the priority on email communcation that this community does.

In your correspondance, refer to any personal contact you've had with your Member of Congress. Such notes usually get pushed to the top of the pile by staff.

You can click here to look up your Representative from a US zip code.

• Hearing description
• Webcast (Quicktime - audio only) on 05/24 at 10:00am EDT
• List of committee members
• Location of hearing (for the truly passionate on this issue), 2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC

Dave Aiello

• Hearing description
• Webcast (Quicktime - audio only) on 05/24 at 10:00am EDT
• List of committee members
• Location of hearing (for the truly passionate on this issue), 2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC

Dave Aiello

• Hearing description
• Webcast (Quicktime - audio only) on 05/24 at 10:00am EDT
• List of committee members
• Location of hearing (for the truly passionate on this issue), 2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC

Dave Aiello

The actual hearing is discussing how small labels and indie groups can gain wider audiences via the internet. The summary can be found at SBC's website

Interesting to note that the hearing will also be streamed using Quicktime.

The actual hearing is discussing how small labels and indie groups can gain wider audiences via the internet. The summary can be found at SBC's website

Interesting to note that the hearing will also be streamed using Quicktime.

Write your representative and tell them we dont want to move to Canada, but we will if we have to.

Devil Ducky

• Title 47 TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
• • 47 USC 227 Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
  • 47 USC 227 (b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment

So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.

Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.

Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.

You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?

I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.

I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.

You ever read it?

No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.

First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.

Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent" :)

Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.

I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...

I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.

Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...

I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.

I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.

My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.

This part specifically...

"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....

This is the "dealing with it" part. ;0

--

According to the US Code, the Librarian of Congress is appointed by the President. Seeing as how this is a) an election year, and b) a fairly minor matter in the broader scheme of things, I seriously doubt we could get Pres. Clinton to act on this.

However, we can forward this to our local librarians. I suggest printing off a copy, complete with the URL, and going to your local library and dropping it off. If we could get the various libary associations in on this, and convince them of the benefits of digitizing these works, a grassroots effort might be more beneficial.

It might also be beneficial to explain how the .PDF format works, and what it can (and can't) do.

So by breaking a so-called "unjust" law you are just assuming that your opinion is better than the people which Americans elect to make these laws, which I would call arrogance of the worst kind. Your opinion is no more valid than any others,

When I talked to my Congressman the other day, he didn't know what the DMCA was. He barely understood the term reverse-engineer. He didn't know you could patent sotware, or why that might *possible* cause a problem. He does have a killer website though. My point, although our leaders are trying to do their jobs the best they can (...) often there is just too much to keep track of. The Internet brings this to light even quicker because of it's incredibly liquid and fast changing nature. It has becoming obvious, IMHO, that many of our IP laws were built for a differnt time. With a different set of rules. It's as if the laws of physics for media have been changed, now the laws of the the land need to adapt. They have become so stale and brittle from years of selfish interfence, that the most logical way to change them, is to break them. Repeatedly and casually.

--

Craig Venter has promised this (on June 17, 1998 to the U.S. Congress):

A fact that has often been overlooked or questioned in the press accounts of this venture is that an essential feature of the new company's business plan is to provide public availability of the sequence data.

It is our plan to release data into the public domain at least every 3 months including the complete human genome sequence at the end of the project.

Celera has never made a release of it's human sequence data, so they must have started their work less than three months ago. The media are obviously mistaken when they report that Celera started sequencing in September last year.

BTW the human genome project got a bit of support yesterday from the U.S. Senate,

wether or not the freedom of the Internet jeopardizes the freedom to USE the Internet "

Very eloquent and accurate.

On the other hand, your flame was rather insulting,

Whenever someone moans about "the Feds", I have to ask what the hell are YOU (yes, you) doing about it? Are you expecting someone else to step in and solve these problems?

Who the hell am I? Well for starters I'm an over 40 PHB who lives in the US and has been on the net since the old days, pre 1980. My entire career for the last 20+ years has been the internet, starting long before GUIs.
What the hell am I doing about it? Plenty, you should be as well. All of us should, not just because it's our livelyhood, because it's our privacy and our basic freedoms as well. Personally, I have regular dialog with many elected officials on many different levels. I'm no stranger to the telecom lobbists or in my Representetive or Senators offices on capital hill and my state capital. I support the Electronic Frontier Foundation , Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA), Digital Future Coalition (DFC), and the TRUSTe Privacy Policy Certification Program as well as several others both monetarily and with my time. Do you?

Am I expecting someone else to step in and solve these problems? No, I am involved, are you?

Although you had a good point in your post, I feel the impact of it got lost in the flames, instead of flaming posters on /., try using some of that effort to get the laws and the policy changed, you might be surprised at what one person can do.

Now that we've done all the complaining about the law and the DCMA, next step is to get involved.Here's how, Constructive communication to the folks who can make a difference beats whining every time.

Electronic Frontier Foundation
US House of Representatives
US Senate
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA)
Digital Future Coalition (DFC)
TRUSTe Privacy Policy Certification Program

Public libraries have specific exemptions for them under copyright law, and therefore you CANNOT use their behavior as an example unless you happen to be using this ONLY as a public library.

Use the US Code search engine; query for "libraries AND copyright"; and see 17 USC Sec. 108.

Electronic Frontier Foundation
US House of Representatives
US Senate
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC)
Internet Free Expression Alliance (IFEA)
Digital Future Coalition (DFC)
TRUSTe Privacy Policy Certification Program

Money buys the time of people who stay in touch with (1) the issues and (2) the people who write the laws/regulations/rules, etc. It also buys the legal talent that can affect the outcome of pivotal court cases. IMHO it is really hard to consistently have your voice heard without an organized presence on the ground in Washington. Of course, it also helps if you vote and write letters to your representative. You can write to your representative here.

There may be existing organizations who already mostly reflect the point of view of the /. community. Does anyone know anything about EFF or IFEA? What other organizations have shown that they can be effective? Recall the Internet Alliance was crowing about their role in the DOC/DOJ report that concluded no new laws were needed to combat internet crime. The members of the IA are spending money to be organized and stay on top of "their" issues.

As the article above mentions, the /. community has money -- that money can give it a voice in the legislative and judicial processes. What are the /. issues? Is there an important core? Who can effectively get the /. community's message across?

For information about current legislation in front of Congress, you may visit Thomas, the US Congress Internet site. You may find additional information on the House and Senate at their respective sites.

For State and Local information, you may want to refer to the Yahoo Government Politics Directory here and find your particular state or locality.

The issues are already there. Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) has a lot of net.savvy - but then she represents Silicon Valley.

T
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."

The issues are already there. Anna Eshoo (D-CA 14th) has a lot of net.savvy - but then she represents Silicon Valley.

T
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."

The MPAA has exploited the DMCA to architect CSS licensing in a way that completely manipulated and controlls the publishers and DVD player manufacturers. If the MPAA wins out over DeCSS, a precident will be set that will set back the MPAA a long way.

Also don't just submit one comment. They are public and you can respond to other comments already received and posted. (See the last /. story on this). Lastly don't stop at just the copyright office. Support EFF,and also write you elected represetatives and let them know how you feel, Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications.

The house of representatives has a search facility to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The senates listing is here:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm

You have yet to explain how the AFSC or the Quakers (noted pacifists) are terrorists.

This is disingenuous. You know quite well that not all "views that diverge from the mainstream" are identical. If I fire a gun into the ground, that is harmless; if I were to fire a gun into the body of an innocent bystander, that would be a crime. Both acts involve the firing of a gun, but they are not identical. So it is with "holding views".

Furthermore, none of these leftists are accused merely of holding views -- that alone could be tolerated in a free society, no matter how psychopathic the views may be -- no, the problem is that they acted on those views, and actively proselytized them. And in the case of such views as theirs, there is no good reason for the nation to allow itself to be damaged by such behavior.

Disingenuous my eye. It's trite, but so clear. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. No one suggests that firing ranges are per se illegal, while drive-by shootings are. How can expressing your views do harm? The constitution places the right to free expression at the top of the rights enumerated. Along with the right to choose a religion that may differ from Luther's perspective on Christianity.

It is therefore impossible that Congress could create an agency with the power to invade privacy using a citizen's expressed beliefs as their only justification.

As for "B-1" Bob Barr, I don't have 7 year old clippings around, so the exact quote escapes me, but after Clinton was elected, he commented that the president should be careful coming to Georgia, because there's a big military presence there, and they might not like him. I saw a follow up where someone asked the Secret Service to look into that, and they said they questioned him, and were watching out.

As a point of fact, treason is the act of making war on the government. Saying "I plan to lead a coup" is not treason. This is that same distinction between speech and action. It's only revolution when you start shooting. The weather underground did, the AFSC didn't.

Thanks for the kick in the ass.

I just went down to his office (its in the same building, yes I can be that lazy) and will be setting up an appointment when he returns from Washington.

That's the big fight for me, fighting the cynicism over seeing the way our government appears to work. I told the secretary I wanted to talk about Internet laws and give my two cents on the growing copyright debates. I was thinking about wearing by DVD-CCA t-shirt..anyone have suggestions on how to approach (first time talking to a congressamn) or good URLs that I can give him?

--

Look, the current administration is not going to help. Clinton's policies surrounding this are all over the road. His administration is focusing on only two things, 1, ramp up the failing Clinton legacy and 2, get Gore in the White House. This needs to come from grass roots efforts, they do have impact if they are communicated effectively. This means politely, professionally and with out flame. Find out who your local congressional member or senator is and communicate with them that the DMCA is way off base and catering not to the general good of the citizens, but to specific industries.

Make sure that in all your verbal or written communication to either an elected official, industry lobby or industry exec that you be nice. Elected officials really don't respond well to flames, spam, mail floods or harsh language. You will come off as a script kiddie and be completely ignored. For a loose reference, re-read the Linux Advocacy Guide, it will give you the right sort of flavor for your communications. The bottom line is don't JUST bitch about how "big brothers keepin' us down man" do something about it!

The house of representatives has a search facility to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The senates listing is here:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm

I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly except for one key point. Several powerful representatives and senators (Barney Frank and Rod Grams are the two I remember), have lately come to embrace e-mail from constituents as just as valid as snail mail. The others are catching on. So go ahead and e-mail your representative and/or senators and let them know how you feel.

The house provides a search facility to make it easy to find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
The senate is not quite so helpful, but they also provide a list of members and e-mail links:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

How much are such laws actually promoting the progress of the "useful art" of television programming?

The constitution gives legislative power solely to Congress for good reason.

Other recent examples:

1. Who: Dept. of Health and Human Services
   What: Medical privacy regulations
2. Who: Post Office
   What: Mandatory use of SSN's for PO box holders
3. Who: FDIC
   What: "Know Your Customer" proposal for mandatory bank account activity profiling

The list goes on and on. I am afraid that until we force Congress to assert its sole right to legislate, we will be running around trying to stamp out these fires as they pop up. Inevitably some of this shit is going to slip by. We need to solve the root problem.

The constitution gives legislative power solely to Congress for good reason.

Other recent examples:

1. Who: Dept. of Health and Human Services
   What: Medical privacy regulations
2. Who: Post Office
   What: Mandatory use of SSN's for PO box holders
3. Who: FDIC
   What: "Know Your Customer" proposal for mandatory bank account activity profiling

The list goes on and on. I am afraid that until we force Congress to assert its sole right to legislate, we will be running around trying to stamp out these fires as they pop up. Inevitably some of this shit is going to slip by. We need to solve the root problem.

10 USC 311 at uscode.house.gov.

Look up the law yourself at The U.S. House of Representatives.

Defendent #46

Here's the bill, HR1572 .

Ok, people, we all know this sucks and all, and we'd hate to see Linus deported and blah, blah, blah.

How about we do something about it? The legislature has the power to reform the system, but they won't do it if they think it's more important to be declaring a national standing-on-your-head-and-blowing-bubbles-out-your -ass day. Tell them about the problem. Yes, you red-blooded Americans who can or will soon be able to vote. Even you skilled immigrants who can not yet vote have some influence, since most politicians like to have friends with the tech crowd (people with money) and besides, you could be voting before too long if all this paperwork gets cleared, should you desire to become full citizens.

Before you go running off spamming your local representatives, please remember a few things:

1) Be polite.
2) Write a real letter, don't expect hyperlinks to explain themselves, as a recent story on slashdot revealed that our Senators and Representatives may not be very adroit with e-mail, and they may be seeing it on paper. Or, if you can bring yourself to it, snd it snail-mail. They read those things.
3) Don't dis the U.S. It won't be received kindly.

Now, here are your links:

To find and contact your Congressional district representative, go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/

For a full list of Senators and their websites/e-mail addresses, go to http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.c fm

So let's stop standing on our heads, blowing bubbles out our asses, and help these people out.

Ah... the web has a long memory, even though I do not. He's been consistent, at least (or at most).

[4/2/98] http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/bull 512i.htm
he suggested that the U.S. should expand copyrights to match the extended copyrights of European nations; continue its fight against worldwide piracy; and, expand intellectual property right protection by enacting the WIPO copyright treaties agreed to in Geneva in 1996 (see article below). He also stressed the necessity of other countries enacting and enforcing similar penalties for copyright infringements

[04/03/1997]http://www.star.so.swt.edu/97/04/ 03/040397n3.html
As a war pilot, scholar, White House special assistant, movie industry leader and author, Valenti has worn many hats throughout his career
...
He received his bachelor's degree in business from the University of Houston in 1946 and his M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1948. In 1952 Valenti co-founded Weekley and Valenti, the advertising/political consulting agency, which was in charge of coordinating the media during President John Kennedy's and Vice President Lyndon Johnson's visit to Texas in 1963
...
Valenti was in the motorcade in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated, and within one hour of the shooting was hired as the special assistant to newly inaugurated President Johnson
...

[Mar. 14, 1997]http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/MediaDa ily/OldArchives/199703/1997031405.html
"Sen. Lieberman believes if you say 'V, S and L,' nirvana has arrived," Valenti said, adding that such a content rating "winds up lumping The Three Stooges in the same category as "Natural Born Killers." However, Valenti on Feb. 27 told a Senate committee hearing that he was not opposed to some changes in the system. "I've changed my mind," he said at the hearing. "I'm not inflexible."

[1992-1997(?)]http://iitf.doc.gov/members/valenti. html
Apparently, he was on "The President's Information Infrastructure Task Force." This site has not been updated in a while: "Use Netscape 1.1, IE 2.0, or CyberDog in 8 bit color" Cyberdog? Heh.

[1-28-98]http://www.twsu.edu/~news/insi de/1-28-98/forum1.html
Valenti will explore the relationships among free speech, censorship and personal responsibility in "Lights, Camera, Rhetoric! Who has control of television and movie violence?" on Monday, Feb. 9, at 7:30 p.m. in the Metropolitan Complex
No stranger to controversy, Valenti's first movie content battle came just weeks after becoming president of the MPAA in 1966 with "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" and its frank language. Other controversies followed, along with a Supreme Court decision that stated cities had the power to prevent the exposure of children to books and films which could not be denied to adults.
Those events led Valenti to announce in 1968 a new voluntary movie rating system, which has been revised occasionally to reflect changes in the movie audience.
In 1996, Valenti helped create a similar, and controversial, rating system for television.

[July 16, 1998]http://www.internetnews.com/i wlive/summer98/key4.html
Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association Of America, took on the persona of a fire-breathing, circuit-riding preacher as he talked about digital copyright protection to the afternoon keynote audience today at Summer Internet World.
...
"The only way to protect works [of intellectual property] and to guarantee their future is to employ technology to protect them whenever they go on the Internet," he pronounced. "If Congress confers legal status on any machine whose mission is to commit copyright burglary, we're in trouble."
Valenti's jeremiad was inspired by proposed U.S. legislation being revised later the same afternoon in Washington. The bill would implement an international treaty--the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, signed by more than 80 countries in October 1996--extending copyright protections to digital works, such as digitized movies, software, and the contents of Web sites. Each country must pass enabling legislation for the treaty if its existing laws don't already cover the treaty's provisions.
In its original version the U.S. bill would have criminalized the manufacture of any device that could be used to circumvent copyright--for example, software to decrypt an encrypted movie--but this provision has been opposed by hardware and software makers who don't want to be responsible for every possible use to which their products could be put. They have proposed criminalizing the act of copyright violation rather than the manufacture of the equipment, but the motion picture industry and recording industries oppose this strategy as being too difficult to enforce.
"We don't want to ban VCRs," Valenti said. "The only folks who have cause for concern are the makers of black boxes, which are nothing more than stealing machines." The film industry fears unleashing the ability to copy movies on DVD, since such technology could produce unlimited copies with no degradation in quality, removing any intrinsic incentive to purchase a commercial DVD rather than a pirated one.
Valenti cut his remarks short so that he could fly to Washington to attend congressional meeting involving the WIPO legislation, saying that when he accepted the invitation to speak several months ago, he didn't know the bill would be revised the same day.
Valenti wasn't exactly preaching to the converted, however. In a panel discussion put together to fill the rest of his speaking time, speakers pointed out that the Motion Picture Association of America's approach to the WIPO legislation could make it a criminal offense to commit such everyday acts as setting a Web browser to refuse cookies, if they were being used as part of a copyright protection scheme. Moreover, even manufacturing a browser that is able to refuse cookies would become a crime.
"Jack doesn't want these laws to be so sweeping, but Washington doesn't always get it right," said Jason Catlett, founder of Junkbusters, a company dedicated to stopping the spread of Internet junk mail.
"I run a Web site, and I think that people who violate copyrights should all go to hell, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions," said David Fiedler, editor of the Mecklermedia site Webdeveloper.com. "This legislation might make your computer illegal because if programmed correctly it could be used to circumvent copyright." He also pointed out that the Motion Picture Association of America had in fact sought to ban VCRs and video rental when they were first introduced.

[December 12, 1996]http://www.cme.org/press2.html
"The age-based system that Valenti's group is proposing is inadequate and will not be helpful to parents," explained Kathryn Montgomery, CME President. "The ratings group has chosen to ignore the recommendations of academic experts, parents, child advocacy groups, and professional organizations to develop a usable ratings system that can work with the V-chip," Montgomery added. "Instead, they have purposely devised a system that will not tell parents whether a program contains violence, sex, or offensive language."

[April 25, 1966]http://www. resignation.com/historicaldocs/letters/04251966_va lenti.html
The economic commitments to my growing family cause me to regretfully submit my resignation as Special Assistant to the President, effective May 15.
(reply:) Dear Jack:
It has been a very long day.

[Tuesday, 19 May, 1998]http://www.chl.ca/Cannes98/may19_pirac y.html
CANNES, France -- The film industry is making progress in its war against piracy, but digital copying is posing a new and "cancerous problem," the head of the U.S. film association said Tuesday.
Recent raids, including the seizure of 8 million videos in Hong Kong, show progress is being made against pirates who cost the U.S. industry up to $5 billion a year, said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America.
...
"In digital, the 1,000th copy is pure and pristine as the first copy. So digital presents a cancerous problem," Valenti said.
His trade group is spending about $50 million annually to fight piracy, including employing ex-FBI agents to bolster other countries' efforts.
"What we're trying to do in China is get market access," he said. Hollywood is limited to 10 films a year in the world's most populous nation.
Valenti said he'll try again with a trip in the fall.
The carrot for the Chinese?
"We'd like to invest with Chinese partners in state-of-the-art cinema," he said. "We are looking forward to a partnership relationship with China."

[September 28, 1995]http://ww w.economicclub.org/Pages/archive-old/abstracts/arc h-valenti0.htm
Currently, a good many public officials have certified that the so-called "popular culture"-defined as movies, television, and musical recordings-is the prime villain in what they perceive to be the clanging of the last ding-dong of doom for this society, the source bed of much of our ills. TV is a powerful medium, but there are deadly combustibles in the community, more noxious than any movie or TV program, and violence has been on the decline in movies and television for the past decade. A restoration of the homely" standards by which ordinary Americans have so long and through so much turmoil sustained their values, maintained their families, and guarded their country--not rating systems and censorship--is the only means for solving American social ills.

[02/07/96]http://www.house.gov/judiciary/461.htm
But what we do know is this binary numbers future is coming. It will have large impact, as well as both sublime and dislocating effect, on millions of Americans. It is the mandate of the Congress to peer beyond the veil, to make sensible and required judgments about how to make absolutely sure that America's grandest trade asset, its intellectual property, is protected in an era of technology so magical it verges on fantasy.
...
This committee knows full well the broad global sweep of American intellectual property which in 1994 produced over $45 billion in international sales, and is that rarity, a producer of surplus balance of trade, a phrase seldom heard in the corridors of the Congress. These creative works are the jewels in America's trade crown. To protect these delicate products in cyberspace is of transcendent importance. For if you cannot protect what you own, you own nothing.

[03/26/99]http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/14 _1/199903/t4151392.htm
President Kim Dae-jung yesterday told visiting U.S. commerce secretary that Korea will maintain the controversial screen quota system which limits imports of foreign movies into Korea, in defiance of U.S. demands for film market liberalization.
...
He made the remark as Jack Valenti, head of the American Film Producers Association, suggested that Seoul scrap the system, saying Korea is the only Asian country which maintains a quota.

Actually NOT Quite.

First everyone likes to black and white things. Capitalism good, social/commun isms bad. Well sorry , doesn't work that way. We are for the most part through our evolutionary history an altruistic being ( by necessity -- like wolf packs ), which can be both capitalistic or solcial/communistic depending on your point of view and arguement but generally could be more associated with socialism.

The general problem with Capitalism and its emerging bastard offspring "corprotism" (borrowed from Katz ) and this is particularly an american thing ( though its spreading ) is the ME FIRST individuallism that allows for the rampant greed that is becoming all to common place today. Corporations are horrible for this because legally they have standing in the courts as if they are human beings in terms of protection etc but have very little responsibilities especially for the people running them who can hide behind the corporate vale to pretty much condone any behaviour ( ie firing 2000 workers to boost stock prices by $0.25 ). There is a very interesting article at the US house website ( house.gov ) about how there currently is no economic reason ( ie foreign pressure ) to remain lean but that what has been seen is that after large companies lay off or eliminate large portions of their staff the stock prices go through the roof making the CEO etc, who made the decision very wealthy... ya thats an unbiased non conflicted decision. here's the link

And this is how all this relates to patents. Everyone is so money hungry today, with an at all costs attitude ( ie the ends justifies the means ) that people are trying to have absolute control over everything. To own it. If you can patent it, its the first step to being a Bill Gates.

Science in any form sould not be patentable, however I do understand the need to afford so protection to the people who did the work that way these 2 bit vulures who hang around waiting to co-opt any idea they can get their hands on, yet never provide anything of value back to society. Patenting of this stuff however just leads to the same behaviour with the roles reversed. Maybe this sounds idealistic and naive, but carry the behaviour patterns out to their logical conclusion. If science is patentable you start to break down the free exchange of ideas and peer review. without that serious problems and as basic science becomes less of a focus in order to perfom applied science so that you can make the quick buck well 100 years from now ( if not sooner ) its likely we'll be in serious decay.

It's the former non-capitalist countries that are totally devastated. Capitalism makes profits from ecological preservation just as well as from destruction, it depends only on which laws the people enact through their democratic governments.

I would kinda disagree here. The history of capitalism is not necessarily a pretty one. The rape and pillie of africa for its resources until we were finished, setting up puppet governments in the process and then pulling out when they were of no ore use leaving things in ruins ( west africa is a perfect example ) is capitialism. Homelessness and poverty. Unfortunately one of the problems with capitialism is that in order for the rich to get richer and profit someone has to be poorer. Life may not be a zero sum game but its simple "as the top of the class gets higher and higher marks the class average shifts and someone has to be below it." Poverty is the same. This is where socialism/comunism (marxism) was a noble idea if not perfect. My point has been shown very nicely by the fact that the top 5% in the US has more money than the bottom 50%.

Capitilism is not what it started out to be. The father of modern capitialism saw the potential problems with his own theories and warned against them...

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing of the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Smith realised that without a human ( humane ) element to work including people who may not be necessary is vital to the economy and society and should not be done merely for profit alone... Otherwise all it really is, is GREED.

http://www.transmeta.com/ -- I could smell you, but then I'd have to kill you

http://www.hemp-sisters.com/ -- Let's just say it's a pretty strong smell.

http://www.house.gov/ -- the smell that comes out the back of a bull, covered by a strong perfumed masking smell

http://www.microsoft.com/ -- anxious sweat, money, the smell that comes out the back of a bull, the smell of a deisel engine (you know, like the ones that power steamrollers and bulldozers)...

http://www.getyoursoftware.com/ -- spiced ham

http://www.loc.gov/ -- very musty

http://www.as400.ibm.com/ -- very musty

http://www.slashdot.org/ -- jolt cola, fried silicon, solder, sweat, ozone...

Wouldn't it be neat if we e-mailed the MPAA, their attorneys, and our representatives in The Senate and The House with the following?:


To Whom It May Concern,

I am in posession of the css-auth code, the supposedly-illegal DVD decrypting programming code. I hereby turn myself in.

Respectfully,
Waldo L. Jaquith


"You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." - Arlo Guthrie

The media basically shoved the cox report under the rug. It is online, but joe average citizen isn't going to wade through it: cox report.

Give 'em hell!

Give 'em hell!

Give 'em hell!

Give 'em hell!

You write your representitives. Had written on paper is generally best, then typed letter and signed, then phone call. Lest best is email. Not sending a letter means you don't care and are ignoreable. Remember when you are writing this up, clearly state your opinion and support it. Also do it in a calm reasonable manner. Never use personal attacks either against your representitive or others. Who knows your representitive or one of the staff may like the perons you attacked and dis your letter.

US House of representitives: clerkweb.house.gov

MN Government: www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legdir.htm

Those are the two ones I have book marked. Can others fill in the rest or point to a site with them all indexed.

From the U.S. Legal Code here

-CITE-

35 USC Sec. 101 01/26/98

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 35 - PATENTS

PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS

CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS

-HEAD-

Sec. 101. Inventions patentable

-STATUTE-

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,

manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful

improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the

conditions and requirements of this title.

-SOURCE-

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)


Go here to find more. I searched for 'discover' in title 35.

I do not believe that discoveries should be patentable, but the current law allows it. Also recall that the US governemnt's web pages are not always up to date, i.e. H.R. 1907 may have changed this in some way.

From the U.S. Legal Code here

-CITE-

35 USC Sec. 101 01/26/98

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 35 - PATENTS

PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS

CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS

-HEAD-

Sec. 101. Inventions patentable

-STATUTE-

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,

manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful

improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the

conditions and requirements of this title.

-SOURCE-

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)


Go here to find more. I searched for 'discover' in title 35.

I do not believe that discoveries should be patentable, but the current law allows it. Also recall that the US governemnt's web pages are not always up to date, i.e. H.R. 1907 may have changed this in some way.

We shouldn't just sit around and let the US government trample over our rights. This flies in the face of independent research and 'garage inventing'. It's already impossible to find chemistry supplies as an individual. From the looks of this, it will soon be impossible to find electronics supplies as well. If this continues, research will soon be the exclusive province of large corporations, government, the military, and educational institutions. We won't see any more people come up with an Apple in their garage, or figure out a way to vulcanize rubber in their kitchen. I urge you to call, write, or e-mail your congressman and tell him how you feel about this. You can find their contact information for the House here and the Senate here. Don't let this issue go almost un-noticed. Make sure your Congressman is for science and freedom.

This is a flat out misconception. The federal government has actually been in a pattern of returning power to the states over the past 10 years or so.

Really? I invite you to check out on of the many illegal and unconstitutional evecutive orders our esteemed leader attemped to slip through in between granting favors for money:

Executive Order 13083

You may want to try reading the federalist papers or other writings by the framers of our government and see what the government was meant to be. It stands in stark contrast to what we see today.

Finkployd

Why not just go to a flat tax? We need a government for plenty of things: education, national defense, laws and law enforcement, etc. Just look at Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy" for an idea of the simple things we rely on from our government.

Steve Forbes has one proposal out there. There was also the Armey-Shelby plan. The idea is that it subtracts a constant from your income, then takes a percentage. For most plans, it is designed to virtually eliminate the median family's taxes. The effect is that the percentage tax you pay is a rising, continuous function of your income. You can play with the percentage and constants to make the tax harder on the rich or poor, or to raise or lower total revenue gathered.

The point of that system is no loopholes for anyone. Politicians can't use the system to manipulate people, only to raise revenue. There are only two or three numbers to argue over, so everyone understands the debate pretty well. Also, you don't have the government differentiating between groups-- so you have one set of rules for everyone.

I think Armey-Shelby is phased in over a few years, during which you can choose which system you pay with.

Maybe it's not just 99% that use the term incorrectly.

"Prior art" is *not* only what has been published. See 35 U.S.C. sec. 102 :

It is also, inter alia, and subject to some geographic restrictions, things which were:
(a) "known or used"
(b) in "public use" or on sale
(c) abandoned by the inventor
(e) described in a secret, pending patent application
(f) derived from the work of another
(g) invented by another (who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it).

In fact, being "published" is not even sufficient! It must be "described in a printed publication." (Yes, the Web is a "printed publication." Don't ask.)