Slashdot Mirror

You missed the #1 contributor to all of his campaigns. Rogers Communications, Inc

No, not the Canadian one. In this case, "Rogers Communications, Inc" is Chip Rogers own company: which used to consist of a former radio station and some real estate holdings.

According to his political opponent Thompson (the one who keeps on losing to him), Chip Rogers is not being open about what his company consists of. If anyone has access to Lexis Nexis, may be some of you can find out more.

If you're on the fence on this particular issue, do note that the Senator is also strongly against Net Neutrality.

making it illegal for people to use the results of that labor without the permission of the person who performed it.

Oh hey, kind of like the situation we have now.

Oh yeah? And how's that working out?

He is not right technically or practically:

Here is the definition of a legal right:

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society.

Under this legally accepted definition the description of fair use is in fact clearly a legal right as it entitles certain parties to do something.

I emailed Ross directly and below is his reply:

Thank you for writing. I find it interesting you're citing US Code and aren't familiar with "affirmative defense." It sounds like you need to speak with a copyright attorney, but you can start by reading our FAQ on fair use at http://www.copyrightalliance.org/copyrightsandyou/ fairusefaqs

I'm glad you wrote because your confusion makes my point for me. As you yourself point out, fair use is a limitation on an otherwise exclusive right. Congress, empowered by the Progress Clause of the US Constitution, in 1790 granted limited monopoly rights to creators. Nearly 200 years later, a fair use section was added to copyright law, that puts limits on those rights.

Imagine I own a farm and you like to fish downstream from my farm. I have property rights over my farm, but the government imposes limits on my exclusive rights. For example, I can't leach hazardous biochemical waste produced on my farm into the stream. That's good for you and the fish that you caught, but you have no "rights" related to my farm. I have limitations on my rights that benefit you and everyone else who wishes to use that stream.

The confusion you've shown here over the use of the word "right" shows exactly why it would be dangerous to use copyright warnings to explain fair use. Whole courses in law school are taught on this; it is not summed up by citing a portion of the US Code, nor is it summed up in my op-ed. It is far more complicated than that.

You might also want to read:

"What's 'Fair'? Why those Concerned About Copyright Fair Use Need to Say What They Mean," U. of Utah Professor Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 11, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/4e3087e 6ce3d8be6862567d8006fd628/33230e94b3b08de8862572c0 0053aa5e?OpenDocument

"Stepping on the Toes of Giants: What Not to Think About Copyright," Solveig Singleton, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2007 at http://pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.6warmfuzzyt hinking.html

"Mountains Out of Molehills: How Believing the Worst Makes Technologists Ineffective, And What They Can Do About It," Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 26, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/f726f49 98ba46f86862567d80074727a/3b640346db49973d862572cd 00598873?OpenDocument

"Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter," Patrick Ross, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2006 at http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.6artistc ulture.pdf

He is not right technically or practically:

Here is the definition of a legal right:

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society.

Under this legally accepted definition the description of fair use is in fact clearly a legal right as it entitles certain parties to do something.

I emailed Ross directly and below is his reply:

Thank you for writing. I find it interesting you're citing US Code and aren't familiar with "affirmative defense." It sounds like you need to speak with a copyright attorney, but you can start by reading our FAQ on fair use at http://www.copyrightalliance.org/copyrightsandyou/ fairusefaqs

I'm glad you wrote because your confusion makes my point for me. As you yourself point out, fair use is a limitation on an otherwise exclusive right. Congress, empowered by the Progress Clause of the US Constitution, in 1790 granted limited monopoly rights to creators. Nearly 200 years later, a fair use section was added to copyright law, that puts limits on those rights.

Imagine I own a farm and you like to fish downstream from my farm. I have property rights over my farm, but the government imposes limits on my exclusive rights. For example, I can't leach hazardous biochemical waste produced on my farm into the stream. That's good for you and the fish that you caught, but you have no "rights" related to my farm. I have limitations on my rights that benefit you and everyone else who wishes to use that stream.

The confusion you've shown here over the use of the word "right" shows exactly why it would be dangerous to use copyright warnings to explain fair use. Whole courses in law school are taught on this; it is not summed up by citing a portion of the US Code, nor is it summed up in my op-ed. It is far more complicated than that.

You might also want to read:

"What's 'Fair'? Why those Concerned About Copyright Fair Use Need to Say What They Mean," U. of Utah Professor Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 11, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/4e3087e 6ce3d8be6862567d8006fd628/33230e94b3b08de8862572c0 0053aa5e?OpenDocument

"Stepping on the Toes of Giants: What Not to Think About Copyright," Solveig Singleton, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2007 at http://pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.6warmfuzzyt hinking.html

"Mountains Out of Molehills: How Believing the Worst Makes Technologists Ineffective, And What They Can Do About It," Lee Hollaar, Institute for Policy Innovation, April 26, 2007 at http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublications.nsf/f726f49 98ba46f86862567d80074727a/3b640346db49973d862572cd 00598873?OpenDocument

"Artists and Culture: Empowering the Former to Foster the Latter," Patrick Ross, Progress & Freedom Foundation, May 2006 at http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.6artistc ulture.pdf

Institute for Policy Innovation
The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to "research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems." [1]
The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an eight on a scale of one to eight. [2] (Pdf)

I'm sure that everybody was far too busy thinking up cute "+5 Funny" comments to go out and actually take a look at the actual study... but for anybody who's perhaps interested in formulating a defensible position on the matter based on facts rather than groupthink, the actual publication is available here.

For a bunch of geeks, I'd think that doing a bit of research & gathering the facts before reaching a conclusion would be the *first* thing you'd do when trying to combat what you decry as a campaign of FUD & misinformation. Sarcasm isn't going to win the case in a courtroom, or in Congress. Deconstruct their argument & their methods. Show their assumptions & conclusions to be faulty.

• Armstrong Foundation
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
• Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation
• Carthage Foundation
• Jaquelin Hume Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• JM Foundation
• F.M. Kirby Foundation
• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
• Sarah Scaife Foundation
• John M. Olin Foundation
• Roe Foundation

IPI's president Tom Giovanetti wrote in an email exchange with Australian blogger Tim Lambert that "IPI has an absolute policy of protecting our donors' privacy". [12]

"If you are correct that organizations like IPI are being funded by companies who have an interest in these areas, the more you rail against us and "expose" us, the more heroic you make us appear to our assumed benefactors, and the checks just keep coming," he wrote. [13]

Here's another IPI opinion:

The reality is that open source can trap a customer into an outsourcer relationship more readily than commercial software. This is because commercial platforms expose standard APIs for third party applications and any consultant can develop for them. open source will go the way of other IT industry fads that were once trumpeted as the way of the future, like Macintosh computers, business AI, 4GL programming languages and Y2K.

The author is not an independent researcher. He is a paid shill for an-industry funded think tank founded by one of the more aggressively pro-corporate members of the House GOP leadership.

Let's not forget that "net neutrality" is the STATUS QUO. The telcoms want to change the system to take net neutrality AWAY. Recognize this, and the author's "straw man" argument collapses. Shame on the Mercury News for printing this corporate PR garbage on its op-ed pages.

Microsoft has another connection to the Abramoff scandal. Microsoft e.g. supports IPI, a right wing republican organisation which is involved in the Abramoff scandal - in fact its lobbyist Giovanetti openly had to admit it when his organisation was accused.

IPI represents MS interests at WIPO (euphemism for insults against NGOs), recently wanted to join the MS-EU antitrust case. This was rejected by the EU court of Justice for good reasons. See curia.eu.int

Further MS pays ACT, an SME association astroturf with the well-known lobbyist Jonathan Zuck. Close relations to DCI + ATL. I remind you of dead people letter campaigns of ATL... Guess for what company ATL did it?

Microsoft paid DCI's TechCentralStation journo-lobbying. TCS funds political radicals all over the world, spreads anarcho-capitalist ideas and insults France, Muslims, alledged socialists etc. The idea behind DCI is to inject radical views supporting their corporate sponsors into right wing sectarians and barraters.

My personal advice: when you hire the ... of US-lobbying and sent it all over the world, you'd better stop complaining about unfair reporting.

MS did not have luck before. Here at Germany Microsoft was involved in the Hunzinger scandal which forced a minister of defense, Mr. Scharping, to step down. Hunzinger's main corporate customer was Microsoft. I think it started when Hunzinger letters about a TV placement for Ms were leaked to the press and media professionals started to discuss the case. So Ms was involved in one of the few German lobbying scandals which had serious business consequences for Hunzinger. Microsoft quickly switched over to another lobbying firm but could not avoid bad press. This is a risk of MS lobbying: They burn lobbyists, they also burned Hunzinger, because smart people watch what MS does.

Last year a press worker for Microsoft Denmark, Marianne Wier, communicated to the Danish press (Borsen) a blackmail attempt of Mr. Gates himself, directed towards the Danish government. They were so sure of themselves that they even communicated it intentionally to the press. The scandal was echoed in the DK Parliament. ...