Slashdot Mirror

No. He was sent to the senate on Dec 11th.

No, it wasn't. December 11th was when Obama announced that he would be nominating Daschle, that wasn't when the nomination was submitted. It was submitted on the 20th of January and the official records back me up. From: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/nomis.html

Nomination: PN64-03-111 Date Received: January 20, 2009 (111st Congress) Nominee: Thomas Andrew Daschle, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Referred to: Senate Finance Legislative Actions Committee Action: January 08, 2009 - Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held prior to introduction and/or referral. Floor Action: January 20, 2009 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance. Organization: Department of Health and Human Services Control Number: 111PN0006403

Make sure to read the bolded sections.

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Is there a list of stations that have given their switch notice?

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

Is there a list of stations that have given their switch notice?

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

The original bill didn't require analog stations to stay on until June either.

(if the link breaks, try this PDF link)

See Sec. 4, paragraph (a) which states in part: "Nothing in this Act is intended to prevent a licensee of a television broadcast station from terminating the broadcasting of such station's analog television signal (and continuing to broadcast exclusively in the digital television service) prior to the date established by law under section 3002(b) of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 for termination of all licenses for full-power television stations in the analog television service (as amended by section 2 of this Act) so long as such prior termination is conducted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's requirements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act,.."

(typical government wordiness)

What it means is that before this bill was introduced, stations could sign off their analogs before Feb. 17th upon giving 30 days notice to the FCC and the viewers. Should the bill pass into law, paragraph (a) ensures they can still sign off before June 12th, again provided they give 30 days notice.

Several hundred stations have already given such notice. Including most of the major-network affiliates in Nashville, New Orleans, and Wichita among other cities.

The proposed new bill (PDF version) contains the same paragraph.

As it turns out, nothing.

considering the Senate passed the bill unanimously, I figured it would easily make it through the House.

There is no real reason that industrial hemp can't be highly potent and in the past there were potent varieties. Just political expediency has forced industrial hemp growers to develop low potency strains and market industrial hemp on the basis that it is totally different from psychoactive varieties.
As for George Washington, he was interested in separating the male and female plants and commented on Aug 7 that he was to late.
Hemp is not usually separated and seed production is usually encouraged, especially in the past as the seed oil is very valuable.
Of course hemp for ingesting is much more potent if not fertilized.
Cannabis has long been known for its medicinal qualities and it stands to reason that any educated person of the 18th century would of been familiar with this fact.
Here is a scan from the George Washington Papers site, unluckily it was the best I could quickly find and seems to be out of a school book. http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgwd/wd01/0398.tif

Hrm. At first, I thought, this society is so secret, the web page is blank.

I wonder how many people thought you were joking. The reality is even funnier.

Here is the link

There doesn;t appear to be any bill on file.

Search http://thomas.loc.gov/ for coupon, and you get three results:
2 HR, and something different in the Senate...

Well, paper was good, as long as we're talking long fibers for paper. As we've moved to shorter fibers via more destructive pulping, the potential life of paper has been reduced.

This fellow has been a busy beaver -- besides the 'click' regulation, he's offered up a bunch of other "important" legislation. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&

According to THOMAS, he is also sponsoring several other stupid bills that would:

"Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender registries for background checks."

and

"To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes."

and

"To provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes."

Source - http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))

Representative King's website is: http://peteking.house.gov/

According to it, Rep. King is Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee and also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&

Thanks, Congressman Peter T. King - a Republican, is serving his eighth term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://peteking.house.gov/bio.shtml

(From here, oddly, the bill text page on Thomas is not linked from the summary information page on Thomas, which was linked in TFS; this seems to be a pretty boneheaded way of designing a bill tracking system.)

A BILL

To require mobile phones containing digital cameras to make a sound when a photograph is taken.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Camera Phone Predator Alert Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.

SEC. 3. AUDIBLE SOUND STANDARD.

(a) Requirement- Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.

(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).

Lay your fears to rest. Here's what Rep Peter T King, the artard that came up with this nonsense, has been up to.

Remember, only terrorists do not support the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias.

Well this bill [HR414] was sponsored 1/9/2009 by Rep. Peter King, R-NY.
Looking here, it seems that Peter has been a busy boy this month. (11 bills by himself)

Some gems:
H.RES.63 : Supporting the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias. *
H.R.521 : To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the national collection of data on stillbirths in a standardized manner, and for other purposes.
H.R.523 : To establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and for other purposes.
H.R.549 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing Prevention, to address terrorist explosive threats, and for other purposes.

*"Membership requires "Belief in a Supreme Being"."[from the wiki link above]

Congressman Peter King (NY) is responsible for this waste of floor time. Next thing we know, the representative will wanna push something through for funding some obscure secret society... Oh wait... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.63:

You know, some of us are old enough to remember what cameras were like before they had cell phones stuck to them. Or even before cell phones.

For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary: They stored images on something called "film", and rapidly opened and closed a "shutter" to expose it.

And that made a 'click' sound. Every single time it took a picture.

All that the bill (Look, you can even read it!) requires is that a phone equipped with a camera "shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken". And that's exactly the same as what non-digital cameras did for most of the last century.

So, yeah, I think that the world may be prepared to deal with the consequences of cameras that go 'click'.

If you click the link, and then click the link on that link to the actual source, it's a bill introduced by Rep Peter T. King [NY-3] introduced 1/9/2009 with no cosponsors; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Most bills submitted to committees never get out of committee, espercially the ones with no co-sponsors, buried under the press of other stuff that congress can do which they think will actually get them votes. By introducing the bill he can tell the constituants that were lobbying for this "I introduced a bill in Congress to solve that very" and make it sound like he actually did something.

TFA even has a link to the bill's page at Thomas (which is the server that Congresspersons use to keep track of legislative business, and is open to the public). Current status is:

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Also note that the bill's sole sponsor, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), does not sit on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The most likely scenario is that this bill will sit in committee until it quietly dies (a very common fate, I would add).

My Japanese phone has an option called "manner mode" that has a dedicated button on the side of the chassis that eliminates all potential for being cell-phone-rude. Some societies find phone clicking etc kind of annoying? Let's say I'd rather not bother people while clicking away at the museum etc. Am I a criminal? Would I be a criminal just for carrying my phone since its tone can be disabled?

This is a redundant law anyway. If the photos were being taken of something inappropriate and for illegal usage, the "artist" is already a criminal. As prevention, the existence of a manner mode option on my other phone demonstrates how out of step the legislation is with other concerns of the ordinary citizen.

Lastly, tell me this isn't national legislation. Surely there is something better to be done than trying to eliminate the wave of opportunistic camera-phone wielders waiting for that perfect chance to slip a shot that will put smiles on coworkers' faces...like fighting obesity so said pervs will be taking more flattering pictures on their ninja phones? Economy? Anyone?

Oh my God...fire them all.

Since any hacked camera will NOT make a sound ... will the cops randomly demand that people with camera-capable devices "demonstrate" that they click when a picture is taken?

The police will apparently have nothing to do with it.

The text of the bill

(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).

Yup. Rep. King also hard at work with resolutions to deal with the pressing matters of supporting the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias, and establishing a United States Boxing Commission. The economy will just have to wait.

You mean something like this?

There are portraits of the presidents Washington to Clinton on on the LOC's website. The White House also had a similar page... but the Bush admin deleted it.

Full text is sometimes available through the THOMAS system, but good luck finding it.

The key change is that the full and final text would be available for public scrutiny a week before a vote is called, giving the public plenty of time to rant and rave to their respective congressmen when they find something they don't like, and giving the press plenty of time to find poor legislation and bring it to the public's attention.

The clause stating that it must be the final text is key, eliminating 11th-hour closed-session dealing and helping to ensure that each bill passes on its own merits. Since (according to CrimsonAvenger) the One Subject at a Time Act is dead on arrival, this is a decent alternative: at least all those riders will be flapping in the breeze for all to see.

Regarding the forced readings: I still like this idea mainly for the reason that it would tend to make legislation much, much shorter than it currently is. The more complex and lengthy a bill is, the easier it is to hide stuff in there that nobody (save those in the political class and their owners) wants. I would still be quite satisfied if nothing in the bill were passed save for the W00t Full Disclosure Baby clause.

All this conversation is pointless: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1 The OSX Leopard Copyright. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search_Arg=mac%20os%20x&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=48bsGI18UZf9wHef0qsTSXbS4&SEQ=20081223014733&SID=2 The copyright for OSX as a whole.

All this conversation is pointless: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1 The OSX Leopard Copyright. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search_Arg=mac%20os%20x&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=48bsGI18UZf9wHef0qsTSXbS4&SEQ=20081223014733&SID=2 The copyright for OSX as a whole.

Registration is not required to secure a copyright on a work. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. So the very fact that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard exists is a copyright.

However, Apple must have registered their copyright on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard before they can file suit for infringement on this copyright.

Read about all that at copyright.gov:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

This would all seem to be moot though. According to copyright.gov, Apple registered their copyright on Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 on January 24, 2008, Registration Number: TX0006849489.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1

I have no doubt that there is something we're missing here, as it seems unlikely that Psystar's Lawyers couldn't do a simple search at copyright.gov for "Mac OS X Leopard". But this article offers little more than an announcement that Psystar has responded to Apple's copyright suit.

It has been said before in this thread, but I think not clearly enough. Just because Psystar makes some outlandish claim (and how likely is it that Apple forgot to register copyrights on MacOS X ?), doesn't mean it is true. In this case, the fact is that Apple has registered the copyright on MacOS X Version 10.5 Leopard on 24/Jan/2008 under the registration number TX0006849489. You caln follow the link below, which will time out again; when it is timed out do a search for "Mac OS X Leopard" which finds Apple's copyright and three copyrights for books. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=wRSriYVKQl7vglCfQyV3qoEcDM4&SEQ=20081223043158&SID=3 What a waste of time this Psystar company is. Psystar also claims that Apple has code in MacOS X that prevents it from running on non-Apple computers and therefore is evil, but somehow this code isn't copy protection because Psystar would never, never circumvent copy protection and violate the DMCA act.

Here's the copyright filing from government records, 1/24/08...

The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

Get your facts straight. The EFCA doesn't eliminate the secret ballot. It simply adds another mechanism for union organization. Go here and read the text of the bill that passed the House. You won't find language in there anywhere that strikes the secret ballot provision from the existing law.

Since you refer to "Freedom of Information Act" I'm assuming you're speaking in an American context.

We already do this. Look here:
United States Library of Congress
The National Archives

Perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but I haven't heard much about involvment by professional preservationists who know how to catalog and preserve the stuff, even in a digital context. I speak of the hardcore phd librarian and historian/librarian hybrid types who know how to do this stuff.

You can repeat this as often as you like, but it's just not true. The US ratified the WCT *after* passing the DMCA, not before. It had signed the treaty before, indicating non-binding support for it, but it had not ratified it, so it was not obligated to do anything.

Common, the slightest bit of reference on your part could have avoided this. Even Wikipedia has us listed as being bound by the WIPO treaties in 1996 where the DMCA was in 1998. The two WIPO treaties (and yes, 2 of them, not just the copyright treaty) were employed and discussed in 1996, congress ratified it on October 21 1998. (look up treaty # 105-17 at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/treaties/treaties.html ) The DMCA was signed into law on October 28 1998. It isn't uncommon to make the laws concerning the treaties as the treaties are being considered because most of the times the treaties specify the law that is required as well as goes through the same discussion as to why provisions of the treaties are valid or not just the same as provisions of laws. It is obvious that we were passing the law for the treaty and technically, when we ratified the treaty before the law was actually law... Well, I should have to go on.

Yes, this requires some sort of protection of DRM, but the DMCA goes far further. Look at the last four words: "or permitted by law". That means that fair use could trump DRM, but in the DMCA, it does not. There's nothing there to prohibit software that breaks DRM, but the DMCA does that.

This isn't a trick question but what do you think the words pertaining to "this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts" actually mean. Here is a hint, Two other treaties have created a set laws or the obligations for laws in which must be followed. If you would look at the Performances and Phonographs treaty, the WPPT, Tou will find the clause under sections 18 that says

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

Now I will admit that the US law goes a little further and carries the effective technological measures anti circumvention into more then performances and audio/video recordings to all covered copyrighted works but it isn't like it is totally unfounded. You have to remember, the DMCA was the result of not just the copyright treaty but the Performances and phonograhs treay too. The short title of the law is actually, `WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998': I don't really know how long that link will be available ( I have seen links to Thomas.loc.gov last while some break within a day) so if it doesn't show up, just look for H.R.2281.

The US didn't need to do *anything* until it had ratified the WCT, but instead it chose to go far beyond the requirements of the treaty. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.

Lol.. You know, often you don't have to stop for a red light until you reach the intersection. But the reality is that when people know something is inevitable, they will prepare for it somewhere along the way so it is viable at the time it is necessary. Sure, some don't, but some do. Both WIPO treaties were going to pass ratification. The DMCA wasn't created in isolation of the WIPO treaties, it was created in tandem with it. If you look at th

You can repeat this as often as you like, but it's just not true. The US ratified the WCT *after* passing the DMCA, not before. It had signed the treaty before, indicating non-binding support for it, but it had not ratified it, so it was not obligated to do anything.

Common, the slightest bit of reference on your part could have avoided this. Even Wikipedia has us listed as being bound by the WIPO treaties in 1996 where the DMCA was in 1998. The two WIPO treaties (and yes, 2 of them, not just the copyright treaty) were employed and discussed in 1996, congress ratified it on October 21 1998. (look up treaty # 105-17 at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/treaties/treaties.html ) The DMCA was signed into law on October 28 1998. It isn't uncommon to make the laws concerning the treaties as the treaties are being considered because most of the times the treaties specify the law that is required as well as goes through the same discussion as to why provisions of the treaties are valid or not just the same as provisions of laws. It is obvious that we were passing the law for the treaty and technically, when we ratified the treaty before the law was actually law... Well, I should have to go on.

Yes, this requires some sort of protection of DRM, but the DMCA goes far further. Look at the last four words: "or permitted by law". That means that fair use could trump DRM, but in the DMCA, it does not. There's nothing there to prohibit software that breaks DRM, but the DMCA does that.

This isn't a trick question but what do you think the words pertaining to "this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts" actually mean. Here is a hint, Two other treaties have created a set laws or the obligations for laws in which must be followed. If you would look at the Performances and Phonographs treaty, the WPPT, Tou will find the clause under sections 18 that says

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their performances or phonograms, which are not authorized by the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law.

Now I will admit that the US law goes a little further and carries the effective technological measures anti circumvention into more then performances and audio/video recordings to all covered copyrighted works but it isn't like it is totally unfounded. You have to remember, the DMCA was the result of not just the copyright treaty but the Performances and phonograhs treay too. The short title of the law is actually, `WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998': I don't really know how long that link will be available ( I have seen links to Thomas.loc.gov last while some break within a day) so if it doesn't show up, just look for H.R.2281.

The US didn't need to do *anything* until it had ratified the WCT, but instead it chose to go far beyond the requirements of the treaty. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.

Lol.. You know, often you don't have to stop for a red light until you reach the intersection. But the reality is that when people know something is inevitable, they will prepare for it somewhere along the way so it is viable at the time it is necessary. Sure, some don't, but some do. Both WIPO treaties were going to pass ratification. The DMCA wasn't created in isolation of the WIPO treaties, it was created in tandem with it. If you look at th

Jesus Christ, do you know what collaboration means? It seems like you actually attempted to look at some things but you still failed to understand them or the concepts behind them.

Let's try a different track. Consider the US copyright act of 1976. Now consider that the things you are blaming various European commitees for come from that and a few minor tweaks that have been proposed to the senate in 1992 and eventually passed with the thankfully watered down legagy of Sonny Bono (it was in the international news long before his death, and IMHO was bigger news). This was discussed for so many years that the death of the senator it was eventually named after is not the huge "gotcha" you are talking about but just another bit of a very long and painful process. Hence round 45 is not the start of a fight.

OK, Read this carefully because I have lost my patience with this type of stuff. The copyright act of 1976 was a response to the UN's Universal Copyright Convention in which the US ratified in 1955 but failed to pass laws until the mid 70's. It also preempted state laws that were in some cases extending the copyright terms longer. We didn't pass the laws sooner because we were already in the Pan-American copyright convention which already had quite a bit of the laws or concepts of the laws in place already. We did a study on the UCC requirements and it was done in 1966 or so which after being introduced to congress, took 10 years of changes to finally become law in 1976. In 1988, we actually signed on to the Bern convention and some slight changes were made to account for the increased restrictions. It should be known that the the Berne convention was modified to allow us flexibility on the moral rights. We chose to have the ability to assign them to others.

The next copyright laws we made was the Uruguay Round Agreements act which wasn't actually a treaty but an agreement to restore copyrights that were in effect in Europe but not covered by US law because of a previous law, Implementation, or something. It should be noted that the Uruguay Round Agreements act was fast tracked through congress as written by Clinton's team at the round tables and was eventually amended in 1997 to correct some mistakes. We also saw the EU Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection the year before this in 1993.

Now the Sonny Bono copyright act. The Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection issued in 1993 ended up settling on a term 20 years longer then the requirements of the Berne Convention. The US responded with the copyright extension act which was in the works for several years because we want our terms to be the same as the EU's or longer in order to stop American works from being copyrighted solely in foreign countries to get the extra times. The extension act also exempted small bars and restaurants from royalty requirements if they were under a certain size and altered allowed independent negotiations for royalty payments. It was not named after Sony Bono because he benefited from it, it was named so to honor him when he died. The bill as represented in 1996 Didn't have Sonny Bono's name to it, The name was added to is after his death in the house Judiciary Subcommittee on courts and intellectual property. This happened in the 105th congress with his Wife on the comity.

They also call this the Mickey Mouse Copyright protection act which is nothing but misinformed people attempting to claim ancillary actions like some entity supporting the bill if somehow proof of reason for the bill or law to be passed. Of course you have spent many of pages attemptign to assert the same corruption without actually looking into the stuff.

Now for the DMCA, The two WIPO treaties, the copyright treaty and the performances and phonographs treaty was passed by the WIPO, and ratified by congress in

i'm not a big fan of the bipartisan system--personally, i'm a Nader supporter--and i'm not too excited about having a former drug Czar as a VP. but how is this not news for nerds?

the president-elect has launched a website to lay out his plans for government reform (letting us know what we should expect in the coming term) in an accessible online format, and also to solicit thoughts and opinions about policy issues from ordinary citizens. AFAIK, this is the first time any U.S. president has embraced IT and the world wide web to such an extent as a means of engaging the citizenry in public discourse.

i honestly believe that the web is the key to realizing a true participatory democracy on a federal level in a country as big as the U.S., so this is certainly something to take notice of. this may be just the first small step, but at least it's a step in the right direction. along with the THOMAS system, which gives the public easy access to bills, legislation, and congressional voting records, the web is gradually increasing the level of transparency in government. perhaps in the near future online referendums can be conducted, if not for deferring policy making to the public, then at least to poll public opinion on key issues.

this kind of interactive digital democracy eliminates any ambiguity as to what the general mood of the public is, how the public feels about key issues, and what the will of the people is. it's vital for an online dialog to be opened between political officials and their constituency, especially with the growing gap/disconnect between the political elite and the daily realities of the common man. at least then politicians and can't plead ignorance.

The economic crisis will strengthen free (libre) software: during an economic crisis people need to innovate and think of ways to increase their productivity (more production for less effort). Free software and open source software, as well as free and open content like text, need less effort to be produced and the end result is of higher quality. Therefore, as people seek ways to increase their productivity during the economic crisis, everyone will embrace free and open source because as a model of production it allows for much higher productivity to be realised. With closed source software you end up writing the code very similar to that written by your neighbour, because both of you are afraid to let one another see their code. That's absurd. With open source, neighbours let one another see their code and with free software they can benefit from the other's source code so that they don't end up writing the same thing twice. This translates to productivity gains, which is exactly what people seek during an economic crisis.

People offering their labour to free software projects or other similar efforts do not do so for free. They do get paid, but the payment is not in cash: when I participate in a free software project and I have a wish for it, I write down some code implementing my wanted feature. This acts as a catalyst for other developers to come in, either to fix bugs or to implement their own wishes on top of mine (their wishes may have come as a result of my implementation, for example if I implement an OS with a CLI, other people will want a GUI, but if there were no OS to begin by there would be no wish for a GUI at all). One wish leads to another, and the software being free we can all work on realising our wishes. This is my payment when I participate in open source: other people do the same thing and I end up having a superior product in the end, as my participation acts as a catalyst for others to join, and the participation of others acts as a catalyst for my own continuing participation in the project. The result of this participation, the improved software, is part of my payment for my participation, which I offer partly because I want to enjoy the benefits of improved free software, and this can only be done by participating in it. The rise of free software is unstoppable and as people seek more productivity and more free software as a result of the economic crisis, they will participate more in free software development, because there is no way to have free software without participation.

This is economic production, it is pure transfer and generation of wealth, and yet it is not properly counted in the GDP because it is not expressed in terms of money. That's absurd, and it is a result of humans paying so much attention to symbols (money is a symbol) that in the end they cannot discern the reality behind the symbols (the economy and real wealth). In fact, this inability of many humans to see reality without using symbols (or, to put it in another way, to perceive value in a symbol when there is no real value attached) is partly to blame for the current economic crisis: people are too stupid to discern real value and instead seek symbols, which sometimes give the impression of carrying lots of value when in fact they don't, and other times they give the impression of carrying too little value when in fact they carry a lot, but rarely their estimated value has the slighest relevance to the real value behind them (if there is any).

The economic crisis will strengthen free (libre) software: during an economic crisis people need to innovate and think of ways to increase their productivity (more production for less effort). Free software and open source software, as well as free and open content like text, need less effort to be produced and the end result is of higher quality. Therefore, as people seek ways to increase their productivity during the economic crisis, everyone will embrace free and open source because as a model of production it allows for much higher productivity to be realised. With closed source software you end up writing the code very similar to that written by your neighbour, because both of you are afraid to let one another see their code. That's absurd. With open source, neighbours let one another see their code and with free software they can benefit from the other's source code so that they don't end up writing the same thing twice. This translates to productivity gains, which is exactly what people seek during an economic crisis.

People offering their labour to free software projects or other similar efforts do not do so for free. They do get paid, but the payment is not in cash: when I participate in a free software project and I have a wish for it, I write down some code implementing my wanted feature. This acts as a catalyst for other developers to come in, either to fix bugs or to implement their own wishes on top of mine (their wishes may have come as a result of my implementation, for example if I implement an OS with a CLI, other people will want a GUI, but if there were no OS to begin by there would be no wish for a GUI at all). One wish leads to another, and the software being free we can all work on realising our wishes. This is my payment when I participate in open source: other people do the same thing and I end up having a superior product in the end, as my participation acts as a catalyst for others to join, and the participation of others acts as a catalyst for my own continuing participation in the project. The result of this participation, the improved software, is part of my payment for my participation, which I offer partly because I want to enjoy the benefits of improved free software, and this can only be done by participating in it. The rise of free software is unstoppable and as people seek more productivity and more free software as a result of the economic crisis, they will participate more in free software development, because there is no way to have free software without participation.

This is economic production, it is pure transfer and generation of wealth, and yet it is not properly counted in the GDP because it is not expressed in terms of money. That's absurd, and it is a result of humans paying so much attention to symbols (money is a symbol) that in the end they cannot discern the reality behind the symbols (the economy and real wealth). In fact, this inability of many humans to see reality without using symbols (or, to put it in another way, to perceive value in a symbol when there is no real value attached) is partly to blame for the current economic crisis: people are too stupid to discern real value and instead seek symbols, which sometimes give the impression of carrying lots of value when in fact they don't, and other times they give the impression of carrying too little value when in fact they carry a lot, but rarely their estimated value has the slighest relevance to the real value behind them (if there is any).

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act passed! Don't you people read the news?

loc.gov

The senate bill is S3325.

Posted the wrong links to the votes.
The final house vote as I read it is this one: Number 664.

While with the senate the result is reported by the Thomas.loc.gov history as:

9/26/2008:
        Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

The cosponsors are:

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 9/23/2008
Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] - 7/24/2008
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO] - 9/23/2008
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 9/24/2008
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 9/26/2008
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 9/10/2008
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 9/25/2008
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 9/18/2008
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 7/24/2008
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 7/24/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 9/23/2008
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] - 9/25/2008
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 9/11/2008
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 9/24/2008
Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 9/25/2008
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 9/24/2008
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR] - 9/24/2008
Sen Specter, Arlen [PA] - 7/24/2008
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 9/26/2008
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH] - 7/24/2008
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 8/1/2008

IOf you're offended by this consider this. There are a number of other issues they do not address, vis education, taxation, etc. But somehow in two months the House and Senate went from introducing this bill to passing it.

Incidentally, according to the CBO this bill is estimated to lead to spending up to $429 million over the next four years. So much to budget control.

How's it working out for you having your government take a "hands off" approach to your banks? (assuming you are an American).

Clue yourself in. The subprime crisis was caused by government intervention, not by any "hands off" approach. Just because people can co-opt the word "deregulation" for their own purposes doesn't mean any less regulation is occurring. Check out this excellent article written 8 years ago that predicted the whole thing, down to the huge dollar amount:

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities

Right. A single cause for a multi-trillion dollar meltdown. If only it were that simple. Rather than try to pin the whole thing on the CRA, perhaps you might also want to look into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act as well, which deregulated the type of insurance (credit default swaps) that banks were using to allow themselves to make the insane loans they were making. The CRA may have been misguided and caused some more risky loans to be made, but it certainly didn't, on its own, lead to lenders giving large home loans to people with no evidence at all that they could pay it back. Nor did it allow for the obfuscation of the value of these loans through the creation of these ridiculous securities, which is one of the main causes of all of the problems. Nobody knows the true value of these things. That causes panic.

By deregulating credit default swaps, the government (republicans in this case, and Phil Gramm specifically), allowed companies like AIG to insure these mortgage backed securities, even though they couldn't really know their true value. To make matters worse, they weren't required to disclose any of this, and they were not required to have a capital reserve to cover the insured securities either, so when home values started crashing, they couldn't cover even a fraction of the securities that they insured. The whole house of cards came down.

Banks thought they had it made, and were loaning to anything with a pulse because they figured they were covered either way, either the person pays, or they collect the insurance. AIG thought that they'd just sit back and watch the premiums roll in and that they were facing little risk. They both thought they were getting a good deal. Why they thought home prices would never fall remains a mystery.

Obama McCain Far more of McCains money is from unknown sources and PACs. Additionally while Obama's money from Big content is enough to register (unlike McCain's)it's still only 1% of his total. In this election who is donating to you does not mean much, most of the money is coming from the people for both candidates.

As for the bills you speak of I see no such thing from McCain on http://thomas.loc.gov/. Can you please tell me what bills you are referencing?

Creating THOMAS links in the past was ridiculously complex. You essentially had to craft a search query that would go directly to the document you wanted to like. E.G. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.enr:.

Whereas if you tried to use the link from THOMAS' search results, you would get something like http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:15:./temp/~c107zRB7G3::. Of course, this link is time limited and it isn't at all clear how you would construct the permanent link.

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr3162 is much easier to construct and is somewhat clear. Now if only they would provide the link in the THOMAS search results.

Creating THOMAS links in the past was ridiculously complex. You essentially had to craft a search query that would go directly to the document you wanted to like. E.G. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.enr:.

Whereas if you tried to use the link from THOMAS' search results, you would get something like http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:15:./temp/~c107zRB7G3::. Of course, this link is time limited and it isn't at all clear how you would construct the permanent link.

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr3162 is much easier to construct and is somewhat clear. Now if only they would provide the link in the THOMAS search results.

Creating THOMAS links in the past was ridiculously complex. You essentially had to craft a search query that would go directly to the document you wanted to like. E.G. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.enr:.

Whereas if you tried to use the link from THOMAS' search results, you would get something like http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:15:./temp/~c107zRB7G3::. Of course, this link is time limited and it isn't at all clear how you would construct the permanent link.

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr3162 is much easier to construct and is somewhat clear. Now if only they would provide the link in the THOMAS search results.

1) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr1

2) http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml (warning, might not be a permalink; as a bonus, the bill text proper)

3) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.103hr700

All three in less than ten minutes. Though #3 was a gimme, and it was easier to find the bill than the roll call for #2.

1) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hr1

2) http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml (warning, might not be a permalink; as a bonus, the bill text proper)

3) http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.103hr700

All three in less than ten minutes. Though #3 was a gimme, and it was easier to find the bill than the roll call for #2.