Slashdot Mirror

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents No records found with
Please enter another Search Phrase.

Apparently IE don't work so well as Ms. Tubbs would like...

( ) <-

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

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

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

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

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

This bill is not new news (see Wired article) and was introduced so late in the session of the 107th Congressthat it has no chance of passing (introduced on Oct 10 with only 6 working days left). Basically, it is a feel good measure for chest-thumping politicians with no real expectation of the bills passage. Neither Kyl or Wyden are up for re-election this year but opposing "repressive regimes" and supporting the "free world" always makes good sound bites.

If you based "repressive" on the laws passed, we would qualify... CIPA (Child Internet Protection Act - 106th H.R.4577 - law 106-554), COPA (Child Online Protection Act - 105th H.R.4328 - law 105-277), CPPA (The Child Pornography Protection Act - 104th H.R.3610 - law 104-208), CDA (Communications Decency Act - 104th S.652 - law 104-104), USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism - 107th H.R.3162 - law 107-056),

You can go look at the Center for Democracy and Technology legislative reports and the Electronic Frontier Foundation Action Center and the proliferation of groups like the Center for Digital Democracy, Digital Speech Project, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse to understand that these are not isolated examples.

You can find the full text here.

You are correct in saying that you cannot copyright facts, only the expression of facts. But there are limitations.

1. Where the fact is not widely known, you risk plagurism unless you adequately reflect the source.
2. Where the fact is of a private/personal nature, you risk invasion or privacy or breaking relevant privacy laws
3. Where the fact is not, in fact, a fact, or is in dispute, you risk libel and various other damages.

(2) and (3) apply in this case. (2) because financial statements are private until published by the person (company); and (3) because until published financial statements are NOT fact. Anyone who acted on Reuter's information is potentially at risk of being accused of insider trading (yes! even though the details were published in a newspaper, they had NOT been published by/to the burse).

And summerising a movie is adaption and abridgement, and a violation of copyright.

First things first: the DMCA is not contrary to the founding principles on which our country was built. Freedom of speech-- which is what this is really about-- is a founding principle, but so are reasonable limitations on that freedom. The old cliche goes, "Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." In other words, some speech is dangerous to the individual or to society and is not permitted. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to reveal secrets indiscriminately. National secrets, trade secrets, personal secrets, these are all recognized by the law and our legal tradition. If an access control device is based on a secret-- be it a secret algorithm, or a secret encryption key, or any other secret-- then you don't automatically have the right to reveal that secret in a public forum. The DMCA is, as I said before, imperfect. But it does not violate any high principles upon which our country stands.

Now, that said, you can learn everything you need to know about the DMCA, or any other law, at http://thomas.loc.gov. All the laws-- including bills not yet signed into law-- are available there in handy cross-referenced forms. I guess you could say that ours is an "open source" country. The laws that define our government are freely available, and pretty easy to understand if you take the time. To read the DMCA, search for bill HR 2281 in the 105th Congress.

Are you out of your mind? The Internet contains about 1/1000th of a percent of all the information contained in the world.

Look here to see where a big chunk of the information IS actually stored.

-73

It ain't gonna happen:

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

Link to US constitution at the Library of Congress

Nothing short of a constitutional ammendment can allow this tax.

1. Minor complaint: The article headline is backwards. These sites are biased toward the incumbents, as the article notes.

2. If we want less bias, have a nonpartisan agency write the bios and update the pages. Something like the Congressional Budget Office -- not immune to politics, but one step removed from the process and beholden to no single representative.

3. Incumbents win over 90% of Congressional races and have for some time, so the bias issue really isn't all that important. There is so much inherent bias in the fact that incumbents get to do newsworthy things in front of cameras that websites don't really change anything.

4. The real scandal about government websites, especially the Congressional ones, is the almost total lack of content. The home pages should include all votes cast by the representative -- Thomas is clunky and difficult to use. As the artcile notes, it would also be nice to know when the official is up for re-election. Personally, I'd also like to see links to FEC campiagn finance reports on the same page to make correlating funding sources and voting patterns easier, but asking Congress to commit mass political suicide is probably not a realistic option.

The branch davidians, among quite a lot of other things, refused to cooperate with an ATF investigation that was being carried out as much in accordance with due process of law as one could possibly ask, and shot some ATF agents. The south in the civil war, among quite a lot of other things, seceded from the united states despite having no clear authority to do so just because they didn't like the results of a presidential election, and fired on U.S. naval ships outside charleston.

The 20,000 people in the article have a plan to move to some state and then vote there. And y'all are comparing that to armed attempts to declare oneself outside of federal jurisdiction??

I don't think the Free State project or whatever is all that realistic, and i don't know if i agree with all of their goals. But they are serious, honest attempts to work within the system to effect change. Their goal basically comes down to using the democratic system for its intended purpose.

As such, i have to respect them as a movement, and i don't really think comparisons to the confederate states or the branch davidians are really in order. The free state people (look at their FAQ :P) are actually trying to achieve their goals by nonviolent, political, legal means. That is a big, big difference! The government isn't going to send troops in to stop people from bloc voting (unlike in some countries i could name).

I for one would say attempting to force some kind of 10th amendment confrontation between state and federal governments is a noble goal, and would be beneficial at least in that it would bring a marginalized issue to the forefront and force the supreme court to clarify a constitutional question that right now seems very very muddy (where is the border between state and federal jurisdiction?). And i for one would say this even if the confrontation in question were caused by a movement led by a zombified resurrection of Ayn Wacko Libertarian Rand herself :)

Link to legislation/status info

The 5% rule states that the only income to be counted toward the retroactive payments is that derived from webcasting or running an ISP (which there may be a good reason for, like preventing a sort of shelter for webcasting revenue under your ISP revenue that can't be easily separated), so your concerns can be allayed.

As far as Dems opposing the bill, they didn't oppose it enough to come down to the floor and demand a recorded vote. The bill passed under a suspension of the rules by voice vote only, which generally means either everyone likes it, or it passed under the radar of pretty much everyone who wouldn't like it.

Besides, issues regarding IP, piracy, and the RIAA/MPAA have been relatively non-partisan. Berman (D-CA) is happily trying to make it legal for the RIAA(/MPAA) to bend (admittedly law-breaking) citizens over a barrel to have its way with them.

I doubt it. Someone still has to understand the standards, how it all fits together. Your library catalog might have a slick user interface, but there's a lot more to library science than just the dewey decimal system. (If you don't believe me, knock yourself out reading MARC standards, for starters). Librarians will do more and more with technology, but somebody needs to understand at a deep level how the technology maps to the underlying standards and practices, and if AI has taught us anything, it's that it's a lot harder to encode human expertise than you might think. Knowing how to (re)search is far from a trivial skill, and knowing how to assign meaning or metadata to data is something I think computers will never be able to do as well as humans.

...for the same reason serious Linux users don't use Linux to be cool.

Every dollar spent on technology is a dollar that doesn't go toward buying another book. It pained me to hear librarians who, when asked on a local radio show what they would do with $100,000, would spend it all on IT when their book collections are so modest.

Sharing the Internet with the public is a worthy goal, but for most avenues of knowledge, books and periodicals are still the way to go. When authors decide to spend the years it takes to create a great book, they publish it on paper so they can make money, not on the web. Librarians realize this and focus their efforts on creating collections of printed works that are carefully catalogued and chosen for their intellectual value.

Sharing local collections with the world is being undertaken by the Library of Congress in two separate projects. National works of art are at http://memory.loc.gov/, and the LOC is helping other countries with putting their materials online at http://international.loc.gov/.

...for the same reason serious Linux users don't use Linux to be cool.

Every dollar spent on technology is a dollar that doesn't go toward buying another book. It pained me to hear librarians who, when asked on a local radio show what they would do with $100,000, would spend it all on IT when their book collections are so modest.

Sharing the Internet with the public is a worthy goal, but for most avenues of knowledge, books and periodicals are still the way to go. When authors decide to spend the years it takes to create a great book, they publish it on paper so they can make money, not on the web. Librarians realize this and focus their efforts on creating collections of printed works that are carefully catalogued and chosen for their intellectual value.

Sharing local collections with the world is being undertaken by the Library of Congress in two separate projects. National works of art are at http://memory.loc.gov/, and the LOC is helping other countries with putting their materials online at http://international.loc.gov/.

That site is great. The other handy thing about it is the indications of what areas were yet unexplored at the time. By looking at a map of the era I know what fuzzy unknown wilderness areas are ripe to be populated with all sorts of Bad Guy hideouts and such.

On another note, I noticed an awful lot of the birds-eye artist rendition maps are from the Wisconsin area, where I live, and I thought that was a bit odd. It turns out the reason for it is that the Library of Congres' project of comissioning maps of all the new cities happened to be in effect at about the time the artist's birds-eye rendition was in vouge, which was also about the time this part of the country was starting to be heavily settled.

Why would the CIA World Factbook offend anyone? it's a tremendously good resource.

One thing the US government is really good about is putting out lots of free data archives that it's spent money building. There are *excellent* resources available to the world:

The USGS puts out really great maps and elevation maps for free. Not something you can produce on your own easily.

NASA puts out some of my favorite stuff -- images, huge quantities of data.

The Farm Security Administration has some really nice old photographs.

The Library of Congress has tons of really nice stuff.

The Smithsonian is one of the greatest museums I can imagine.

The US government is one of the most steady and highest-quality provider of useful content (and ad-free!) available to the Internet.

I kind of wish there was some site that listed all the US government sites as a sort of tree...make it easier to browse through them.

Why would the CIA World Factbook offend anyone? it's a tremendously good resource.

One thing the US government is really good about is putting out lots of free data archives that it's spent money building. There are *excellent* resources available to the world:

The USGS puts out really great maps and elevation maps for free. Not something you can produce on your own easily.

NASA puts out some of my favorite stuff -- images, huge quantities of data.

The Farm Security Administration has some really nice old photographs.

The Library of Congress has tons of really nice stuff.

The Smithsonian is one of the greatest museums I can imagine.

The US government is one of the most steady and highest-quality provider of useful content (and ad-free!) available to the Internet.

I kind of wish there was some site that listed all the US government sites as a sort of tree...make it easier to browse through them.

Zooming in on a screen size version is nice, but is there a way to get the whole image at full resolution?

Hack the image URL. The position and resolution are right in the query. For example, a 1024x768 detail from the New World map.

(I tell ya, our maps suck these days. No dragons, sea serpants, gods, cherubs... all you get are little icons that show you were the nearest Red Roof Inn is)

A 1024x768 image of the map of the Americas, mentioned in the submission: Click Here.

I found the attitude in this story very odd, considering online map library exhibits have been around many years. What's next, people start discovering LOC's *free* pre-Google answers service?

Get a grip, nerds, librarians are Not What You Think. (draft of a page I made a few months ago especially directed at the slashdot crowd, url published here for the first time ever!). See also a category I build at the ODP, Librarians in Society.

So, where exactly in the second amendment does it say that "people could have armed militias?" Where does it say that the militia is there to "check" the government? The oh so short second amendment reads as follows.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. - Ammendment II of the Constitution

Notice the "well regulated" part? Also, notice that "Arms" is a proper noun? That means that WE can decide what regulations to place upon gun ownership and militias and WE can decide what the definition of "Arms" is. Do fully-automatic machine guns and rocket-launchers count as "Arms?" They most certainly are, but them being prohibited doesn't counter the 2nd Am. because "Arms" is defined by the individual States and by Congress itself.

1. To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2. To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3. To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4. To put in good order.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear.

Which US Constitution are you talking about, exactly? The Constitution isn't that long a document, you know. You can read the whole thing in just a few minutes. This kind of ignorance of our country's most important document is embarrassing.

The word "war" is only found four times in the Constitution. Here, for your enjoyment, are all four references.

Article I, Section 8, clause 11: [Congress have have the power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Article I, Section 10, clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article III, Section 3, clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

So you're wrong. The US Constitution has no specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it says nothing about what will or won't happen when the war is over. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights or the other amendments, either, except to say (in Amendment 3) that soldiers shall not be quartered in private homes even in times of war, and (in Amendment 5) that nobody will be held to answer for a capital crime unless indicted by a Grand Jury, except in cases of military justice in times of war.

I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic; I'm just so fucking sick of uninformed people making a lot of noise about how this or that thing is unconstitutional without having actually read the Constitution. It makes me sad that so many people in our country can be so unfamiliar with its founding document.

Now, on the subject of a declaration of war, let's again consult the history books.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

That should look familiar. If you cut out the whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan

If you examine S. J. Res. 46 (here), and cut out a lot of whereas stuff, the meat is contained in this one sentence: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Do these two pieces of legislation sound similar? They say basically the same thing: the President, in his role as Commander in Chief of the United States military forces, is authorized to apply those forces to achieve our goals. The only thing missing from S. J. Res. 46 is the word "war."

If the President decides to deploy our military forces against Iraq, in an effort to defend the security of the United States and to enforce United Nations resolutions, it will be a completely legal and Constitutional act.

I found the dates that the DMCA was introduced and what not, and near the bottom it mentions that there was a voice vote. Now if this is the actual vote by the Senate on the bill or not, its hard to say, as I don't understand it much, but I did not see any other links or anything that described a roll call, or any sort of formal vote..

Here is where I was looking at.

Here. Directly for the Library of Congress' site. You can find any bill there, if you know how to search for it. The thing that puzzles me is that I can't find a roll call for this.

Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security of a computer, computer system or computer network, with the authorization of its owner or operator.

We already are on Double Secret Probation! Have been since 26-OCT-2001. Argh.

> For the first time in my scholastic career, I had a history class that went beyond "We had a revolutionary war in 1776. We had a civil war in 1860. ..."

Yeah, a good class would get the dates right.

> Yes, I've heard stories of political correctness being forced on people at universities, but it's not at every one, and even at those universities, you'll find an amazing diversity of opinion if you actually talk to the students and teachers.

Teasing aside, the main point of your post is certainly correct.

If only the Librarian of Congress was actually a librarian. He's not - he has no degree in library science. He causes much agnst among librarians because of his rulings on the DMCA, webcasting, etc.

Here are some links relating to info about him:

His official bio

http://www.deepinthestacks.com/ - some commentary

So assuming something that can read a CD exists in 100 years, digital photos stored in this medium will be available then.

No national security. Lol, you want none. I guess the boy scouts can protect us (as long as none of those evil doer gays join).

What do you have against gays? Or are you implying that I (because I dislike big government liberals and therefore must be a religious-right republican) hate homosexuals? Sorry pal, that dog won't hunt. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life, so sexual preference is pretty much a non-issue for me. It ain't Muskogee here-- we let gays walk around free and even HAVE JOBS.
As for national security, our nation ends at the borders. Or it should, anyway.

If you don't want to help on a national level, why would you want to help on a local level?
because on a local level one can help directly. Government involves waste. The larger the bureaucracy, the more money gets siphoned off before it can get to the actual people who need it. I would rather get together with my neighbors and bring a carload of groceries to a neighbor who's out of work than send $400 to the feds who'll send him a check for $200 after they've taken their "cut". The neighbor eats either way, but the former costs less and now all of us neighbors know we can call on one another if we're in a bind. Do you think a federal program really cares? Should some cog in a giant machine based in D.C. be deciding whether or not my neighbor deserves a little help based on a three-inch book of regulations? Or do you think something local might work better?

Nothing NEEDS do to be done on the national level (your contention is true). However, only 6 states contribute over 75% to the GDP. Every other state would be like Mexico. Do you really want that? Good luck driving through Kansas and having your car break down.
GDP has no direct relation to standard of living. And what sort of federal program is it that maintains the viability of auto repair shops? Food stamps? No, that's actually a Dept of Agriculture program to artificially inflate food prices which, if they weren't propped up, would become more affordable. Again, things would be simpler WITHOUT.

Fed's out of banking. Lol, I guess you want your local load shark to be able to charge you credit card rates for your mortgage.

This isalready not entirely a federal issue. Ever notice how all the big credit card companies are in Maryland? ever wonder why?

Ever hear of Fannie Mae? How about Sallie Mae? No federal student loans?

I contend that government interference is largely to blame for the fact that one even NEEDS a loan to buy property or get an education. Here in Los Angeles there is a large community of Korean immigrants who own their own businesses and they didn't borrow from a bank to start up. The Korean community has a tradition of investing in each other (a co-op, of sorts) and not trying to fleece the borrower. If it works for them, it could work for any group of people. Which is more efficient: forty people pitching in a little cash at a low interest rate to help a neighbor start a business, or a huge corporate behemoth like Bank of America which gets guaranteed loans from the feds at low rates and then loans it to south american countries (which then default) and has to pass the cost on to you (5%+prime rate) when you want to buy a freakin' shack in the ghetto for $250K?The feds encourage wastefull mega-banking like this with all their inane programs. Do you think a huge multinational bank could really ever happen if it wasn't for the feds agreeing to loan it huge chunks of money at prime rate to play with?

If you truly believe everything could be better on the local level you've just got your head in the sand. The only reason the USA out performs most other countries in the world is 99% of issues are standardized at the national level so everyone conforms to the same law. This prevents every state from signing treaties with one another and having to pass various laws that are essentially the same.

I do concede that we ned a federal government in cases of interstate matters. My real concern, however, is those things the feds do that would be better if devolved to the local level. My EPA example was a bit of a stretch and was only meant as an example of how large government breeds indifference to individuals.

If you truly believe everything could be better on the local level you've just got your head in the sand. The only reason the USA out performs most other countries in the world is 99% of issues are standardized at the national level so everyone conforms to the same law. This prevents every state from signing treaties with one another and having to pass various laws that are essentially the same.

I'm a strict constitutional constructionalist. I'm not saying we should fracture into fifty or moire independent fiefdoms; I simply believe that we should actually abide by the 10th amendment , which basically says "if it ain't specifically written in the constitution, the feds ain't allowed to do it". Half the crap the feds foist on us is put out under a sham definition of "interstate commerce" and the other half is coercively forced on state legislatures by threatening to withhold money gained via vicious taxation. You talk about the threat of usury if the feds weren't there? Tell me, is it worse to pay %20 on a loan (which I doubt would happen anyway-- see my co-op argument) or to have over 50% of your money disappear in taxes? One could argue that we get some back, but I contend that most of it goes down the rathole of government itself.

Could you imagine trying to have a business that sells in every state where each law is different? I guess you don't have the ability to foresee the negatives.

Hello, we already have that. Ever hear disclaimers like "not valid in wisconsin" or "cannot be shipped to New York or New Jersey"? I daresay law wouldn't be so widely disparate as to throw interstate commerce into disarray, because states have a vested interest in unfettered commerce.How long do you think, say, a "10% out of state purchase surtax" would last once people realized that meant mailorder purchasing is out of the question? Not long, man.

When you say the government doesn't care, remember you elected (if you can call it that) George W. who would rather kill peoples kids for war than look for a diplomatic solution first. So in that regard you are correct. However, the government is only made up of American people, and these are the ones you want governing on a local level? If they don't care on a national level why the hell would it be different locally? Have you ever been to a local council meeting? It's worse than the senate & house of reps.
I never said government would be fun if it were more local, only that it would work better. Does your cogressperson care about your concerns? Not likely. State assemblymember? A little more likely, but not much. Town council? more likely than the other two, plus you can show up and address them all in person if you wish.

If coercion is the worst way to do things then everyone in the Military should be able to vote for themselves if they want to be on the frontline in Iraq.

Idiot. Coercion is forcing someone to do something without their consent. The military is all volunteer, so consent is clearly given. I know. I was on the front line in Iraq the FIRST time we went (101st ABN) and also a year earlier in Panama (7th LID) so I suggest you choose your armchair-liberal examples from things you know about, rather than things you smugly assume to be true.

People are selfish and you're a perfect example. You talk about how you would prefer it to be at the local level, yet I doubt you'd give a dime.
Apparently you didn't read my previous post, or worse, think I'm lying to make a point. Like I said, I give both time and money when I can.

In reality I should love GWBush since I'll probably save an extra 10-15 thousand this year. Realistically I would have rather paid those taxes and seen them go to stopping the financial bleeding from our local economy

You saved $10K-$15K in taxes? How much do you make? You must be one of those guilt-ridden liberal professionals who can't seem to reconcile their own greed with their ivy-league dorm-room politics. So what're you going to do with this saved tax money?

Trickle down doesn't work because when I save 15k in taxes it simply sits in my money market until the market recovers somewhat
Oh, I see. You're squirreling away this tax windfall for your own benefit and then you have the gall to complain that it's not going to help the needy because the government didn't take it from you? Fucking hypocrite. I make $22K a year which, here in Los Angeles, isn't shit. I don't have a money market account. I can't afford to register my car. Yet I daresay I give away a greater percentage of my income than you do. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and donate that $15K to a scholarship fund? Or a freakin' food bank? You sit there whining about how the government doesn't do enough while you sit on your money market account and then claim to somehow have a heart? Give me a break. You can take your degree in finance and minor in economics and shove 'em. You're a typical armchair progressive who likes to pontificate about how people need to give more and then only gives enough to stave off the guilt.
Get stuffed, fool.

In other words, there is a distinct legal process and considerations for hunting/killing copyrighted material: the copyright holder must notify the Department of Justice about what technology it will use in blocking the work, and there appears to be an opportunity for the file trader to be notified what files are allegedly copyrighted before the copyright hackers move in.

My point centers in the language of the bill:

"1) If, pursuant to the authority provided by subsection (a), a copyright owner knowingly and intentionally impairs the distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of a particular computer file or data, and has no reasonable basis to believe that such distribution, display, performance, or reproduction constitutes an infringement of copyright, and an affected file trader suffers economic loss in excess of $250 as a result of the act by the copyright owner, the affected file trader may seek compensation for such economic loss in accordance with the following..." (emphasis added)

Yeah, IANAL, but still, spoofing could bog down the network, which could interfere with the trading of legitimate files (class action lawsuit opprtunity). Or, if interdiction were applied (sucking up all your outbound file connections) it could be argued that that would also prevent legitimate files from being shared.

So once you violate this, you move to the penalty track, where a copyright holder must submit a claim with Justice and try to get compensation.

Something to think about.

`(2) `peer-to-peer file trading network' means two or more computers which are connected by computer software that--

`(A) is primarily designed to-- `(i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers;

`(ii) enable the connected computers to request the transmission of files or data from other connected computers; and

`(iii) enable the designation of files or data on the connected computers as available for transmission; and

`(B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States;

Ordinarily, the lack of technical understanding displayed by politicians irritates me, but in this case it may work to our advantage.

VeriSign Inc has stopped providing access to information about the .gov internet domain, which is restricted to US government bodies, over concerns the data could be used in planning internet attacks.

Meanwhile, the government is trying to pass a law making it illegal for us to do the same thing.

Next? store the content that is being managed as
METS

Where does it give the FBI the right to ...

On the THOMAS website, within Bill Number HR.3162.ENR, SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, all replacement text for Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

All of the charges leveled against the PATRIOT Act in this case should be easily found within this section, my reading indicates they're present, and reports are doing an exceptional job of not blowing thing out of proportion. (All interest groups blow things out of proportion, but in this case reports are suprisingly accurate.)

Here is the text of the Patriot Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c107:./temp/ ~c1073P4rg4

Where does it give the FBI the right to search library and bookstore records without a valid search warrants? I couldn't find library or bookstore mentioned and I could only find one unreleated reference to the work book.

I really wish when journalists mention that so-and-so law is evil they would be more specific as to which sections they are talking about. I'm not questioning whether those provisions are in there, I just want to read and judge them myself. For example, maybe the FBI is assuming authority that it really doesn't have.

"President: chosen by a vote of confidence by each state legislature. Can serve one 5 year term and must be a military veteran."

First off, I'd rather live in a country where we're citizens first and soldiers second, not the other way around. While I agree with some of what Heinlein was trying to say in Starship Troopers (not to be confused with the movie of the same name), the idea is to make the citizens value their own right to vote through service to the state (and not necesarily military service), not to create a military junta.

Secondly, the only thing preventing that now are the laws in fifty states that lock the votes of the presidential electors to the popular vote. And nobody involved in the process is interested in changing that. We're taught in schools that democracy is the best choice in all situations (even though it's not), while the politicians benefit from being able to rely on party mechanics to get them into office. The more voters you have to worry about, the more it "helps" to be able to herd the voters into larger and larger groups.

"Senate: chosen by state legislatures again, can serve up to 3 3 year terms"

If the seventeenth amendment were repealed, what's the point in having such short terms or term limits? The idea was that the state legislature could have more direct control over their Senators than, say, a few voters having to remember why they were pissed off six years ago.

"House of Representatives: chosen at random similar to jury duty from the part of the population of a state never convicted of a felony. Term: 1 year."

First off, I don't think anybody would be too keen on having to take a year out of their lives to live in Washington when they weren't planning on it. What if they live in Alaska? Or what about their old jobs?

Secondly, this is one of those cases where democracy is limited enough to be useful (unlimited democracy is about as bad as no democracy at all). The voting body is small enough that individual votes count and two-way communications between the representative adn the constituants are possible.

You know, just because you've been called for jury duty doesn't mean you're automatically on the jury. The prosecutor and defense counsel have to agree that you're fit for the jury. In what you're describing, who would play the role of the opposing lawyers in the House member selection process?

"Before any bill goes to the President for signing a "Constitutional Court" must read it and vote on its constitutionality."

Um... no. That's not how courts work. They don't look at a law and say "can I see any way this might violate the constitution?" They must be presented with a specific case; an example, if you will. Their job is to interpret the law, not to get involved in the law-making process. Doing what you're suggesting would give too much power to the court.

"Any act of corruption could be summarily punishable by the US Supreme Court if it makes a constitutionality ruling."

"Acts of corruption" like, say, impeaching a federal judge? Methinks you're being a little too naive here.

"Any lobbyist and his/her financial backers found to have been involved would receive the maximum penalty the law provides without any appeal."

So, you want to fix over-broad laws that leave room for too many loopholes by... introducing an over-broad law with room for too many loopholes?

The courts are there to decide guilt and punishment on a case-by-case, individual basis. Introducing a blanket law like this will simply be too harsh in some cases and too lenient in others. And we'll be right back where we started.

"The message: if you aid and abet government corruption you will be punished VERY severely."

And in your model, who decides what is corrupt government and what isn't? The government.

"The fundamental flaws in democracy are that (a) it legitimizes any action a politician may take in the eyes of said politician if he/she wins by a strong majority,"

That's what the constitutions and the courts are for. A properly-written constitution prevents the majority from exerting too much control over the individual. The federal constitution is still properly-written, but it's slowly being whittled away over the centuries. Most state constitutions, on the other hand, are not, and usually require a simple majority to amend them.

On the other hand, a government chosen by a democratic process cannot simply ignore the voters, which is liekly to be worse than having too much democracy in this case.

"(b) it gives the majority the illusion that it has any moral authority by sheer fact of being a majority"

Only for extreme sizes of "majority." If the majority is big enough to be treated like a faceless, nameless mass, it needs to be broken down into smaller voting bodies. Problem solved.

"(c) it establishes a political aristocracy that can't relate to either its working class our bourgeoise constituents if it tried."

Again, only for extreme sizes of "majority." The shear number of people voting for a particular federal political office makes true two-way
communications impossible. A democracy with a small enough voting body (say, at the state or local level) allows and even fosters a dialog between the voters and the government.

"How many think the DMCA would have been passed if Joe Blow down the street was chosen at random to be the next rep for his district and then was asked to draft a law that would make his little Johnny or Suzy a multiple felon?"

The DMCA would have had a tougher time passing if the House of Representatives were anywhere near it's constitutionally-mandated maximum size. The more members of the House you have, the fewer voters an individual congressperson needs to please, and the individual's voice becomes more important to the representative. Laws like that get passed because the majority just doesn't care, and having 435 people "represent" nearly 300,000,000 effectively mutes the concerned minority.

"As Peikoff put it, the face of democracy is the execution of Socrates."

There is a solution, and it's been around for 215+ years. It's called the United States Constitution. Your mention of the death of Socrates brings to mind Federalist number 63. Been there, done that, problem solved.

Democracy is like radiation therapy for cancer. Too much is just as dangerous as too little, but the proper levels can work wonders.

what law is it breaking to have incorrect data?

None yet, but if ICANN gets their way they'll buy this law.

Jebellius Christ !!!!!!

The *article* violates the DMCA ???? Gimme a fucking break !!! Has everyone just turned into a ignorant whining pussy ???

Which part of the DMCA does it violate ??

You have to look at why we have rights at all.

It seems self-evident to me. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. To secure these rights, governments are instituted.

Sorry, but I get really upset when something as profound as fundamental rights of liberty are bastardized to argue for any number of trivial material privileges. I'm all for a society that shares and in which the well off help provide for the less well off. But that has exactly NOTHING to do with the profound rights with which we are born.

Consider This bill...

If passed, this will mandate a year of military training for nearly all "selective service" age males (and any females for volunteer - is it just me or is this an amusing chauvenistic anachronism for a modern law?...).

It's far from being an outright "draft", but it holds a disturbing (and on-topic) implication.

I seem to recall that when someone begins US military service, that they are subjected to a variety of examinations, including, I assume, psychiatric ones. Of course, the military keeps records of the results.

Therefore...this bill is basically a convenient way to ensure that the US Federal Government would from that day forth be able to "profile" effectively every male US citizen as they hit voting age. It'd be a trivial matter, in a technical sense, to automate the "picking out" of any results that are deemed "worrisome" and the reports shared with law enforcement agencies everywhere...

I'm not certain that's the main PURPOSE of the bill, but I don't doubt that aspect of it would appeal to current AND FUTURE executive administrations in the US....

The placement and content of your post certainly indicated that the anon. cowturd was right in saying people don't own the copyright to works they create. Maybe you should take a look at the Copyright Office's website.

And yeah, the cartel censors their news content, but there are other ways to get the word out.

My sig is more about the cartel trying to take control of the internet by abusing "contributory infringement" clauses and getting Nazi laws passed than absurd little technicalities that were used 80 years ago.

There's probably lots of stuff out there that is now public domain. The problem is, how much of that is accessible? Promoting creation of material, and making it accessible by the public are two entirely different problems.

Think about that the next time your local library throws out part of its collection because it's running out of room to store those items, or because funds are not available to preserve them.

Supposedly, the Library of Congress is supposed to have a copy of everything that is copyrighted. This is no longer true these days, because of space issues - they'll let you turn in a "representative sample" of your work, ie a set of photos for a film. Keep in mind though, that there's plenty of stuff that's never explicitly registered, and barring some collector preserving a copy of the item, these items will not survive for future generations to enjoy, as the copyright laws originally alloed.

I would suggest an amendment to copyright law: set the upper bounds for ownership of a copyright by a corporation to 25 years, with PAID extensions in 25 year intervals until 100 years. The paid extensions would go toward restoring and preserving material in the Library of Congress collection. Essentially, you're licensing the right to continue charging for the work in exchange for supporting the preservation of the work for future access.

Again, to re-iterate, access is just as important as copyright when material passes into the public domain. If I was evil I could try and recall and destroy every copy of my work before my rights expired. When the rights did pass into the public domain, they would be useless because there wouldn't be a copy of the work left.

This isn't an academic issue - consider films like Gone With the Wind, where portions of the original technicolor negative were severly damaged, because the studio neglected the film for so long. Who's to say the assets of MGM will not fall on hard times AGAIN, and be allowed to rot further? Or, the original Star Wars, which now exists in the "revised" Lucas form. I don't have to be explicitly evil to deny my work to future generations, I could just be incredibly neglectful (not hard to do if you're a corporation.)

Ironically it may the pirates who preserve work for future generations. Already some film restorations have been made possible only because someone found some footage, some from academic repositories, and some from "private" collections. Who's to say that digital works (arcade roms, early amiga/apple II/commodore games, etc.) will not go the same way...

However, the main thing is if you allow value to be preserved indefinitely (100+ years is pretty indefinite), there will be no incentive for the copyright owner to allow copying, so long as they can milk the item for as much money as they can. Setting an upper bound (75 years) and forcing them to maintain the copyright by filing extensions and paying maintenance fees (as they have to do with patents) would help balance things. Either that, or they have to ensure that the copy at the LOC is kept in pristine condition for the duration of their copyright.

The only reference I could find to "Recording Revenue Collection Act" was at uncoveror.

The record labels pay independent promoters lots of money per song to get on the radio which then goes in part to radio stations, far more than they could possibly collect from end users. Why? Because most people find out about music they buy from FM radio.

They discourage people from listening to FM, they've broken their business model.

Yes, the idea you describe is insane. If Hollings introduced such a thing, RIAA would unplug its campaign support immediately.

If Hilary Rosen took an idea into her head to get Hollings to write anything like that, her employers would not only consider her insane, they'd probably do their best to get her locked up in a booby hatch.

I should have checked the site first. Here ar a set of stories on their front page.

MAFIA TO OFFER PRE-PAID ILLEGAL SERVICES

MICROSOFT DEVELOPING WINDOWS BSD

NEW DAWN BIOTECH ADMITS THAT CHICK'N IS REAL

OSAMA BIN LADEN MAY ATTACK FROM SPACE

THE UNCOVEROR IS AN ONION-STYLE HUMOR SITE, YOU IDIOT!

From your previous post, i rather suspected that you're (formally or informally) trolling for the Dems, but this one proves it. As much as i dislike this phony and destructive Left-Right political paradigm, people like you (and that right-wing idiot who didn't do any fact checking) insist on keeping the ball rolling.

My Sincere Apologies to the thinking/rational members of the /. Community for the excesive length, but "tossed off" facts require real context. SORRY!

Let's deconstruct some of the above post, why don't we?

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

In the last two Federal cycles, Republicans received about 625 million dollars and Democrats received 449 million, or the Democrats recieved about 70% of revenues the Republicans received. Don't know about where you live, but around here, 449 MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money.

here are some links to real data, you can find verified numbers for just about anything, if you look;

Common Cause
Judical Watch
Federal Election Commission
Roll Call Magazine
Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative info site
Vote dot Com
TownHall dot Com
Pew Research Center (reasonably balanced/verified poll data)

You also neglected to mention some rather important things. Especially as you seem to be attempting to tie the current economic probs to a particular party.

1. The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors

3. The Republican Party gets much more of its money from individual "grass roots" contributors (i.e., people sending in twenty or fifty bucks) than the Democratic Party does.

Whereas, the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of its donations from corporations, with very few dollars coming from "grass roots" donations. That's a kinda important point in this discussino, since you seem to be so wound about corporate donations.

4. The two largest contributor groups of the Democratic Party are two of the most regressive and damaging special interests in America. Teachers Unions (NOT the teachers themselves -- for whom i have HUGE respect by and large) and Trial Lawyers.

Teachers Unions have gutted and stalled any meaningful educational reform in this country for 30 years, while students' test scores have plummeted (and they continue to actively obstruct schoool reform) and Trial Lawyers are making it virtually impossible for anyone to start a new business in America without hugely expensive liability insurance (which many entrepeneurs cannot afford). I've done several tech startups in Cali -- next one WON'T be here, i'm done with this messed up state.

Trial lawyers are also increasing the price of virtually every product we buy with frivolous deep pockets liability lawsuits.

The key determinent in politcal fundraising actually seems to be, not so much supposed politcal affiliation, but rather who has control of the House. When the Dems had control of the House (and the White House) they outraised the Republicans by about an average of 20%.

The actual reality is that corporations will give money to whoever can deliver the goods. That will always favor the Party in the Majority. We have the best legislators money can (and does) buy. But, why would any corporation want to waste money on a legislator in the Minority??? What sense does that make? You spend money to buy influence, PERIOD.

When the Republicans took control of the House, they found that they could outraise the Dems, especially in "party building" monies. The reason is generally held to be that whoever controls the House, controls the purse strings. If you're looking for bucks, you go to the Majority Party.

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans."

nice troll! actually cops and firefighters vote mostly republican (about 68% nationwide), teachers do indeed vote mostly democrat (about 82% nationwide -- though that's starting to change -- there's been nearly a 10% increase nationwide of teachers who are voting republican in the last decade, whoda thunk it?)

(i have no idea how plumbers vote), you're sidestepping the fact that it's actually police and fire unions who give big amounts of their members' dues to far-left candidates.

"All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all.

True kinda/sorta, but certainly NOT "..a ton more", through the next election cycle, there will probably be about 18-22% advantage for the Republicans. Or about the same numbers that the Dems had over the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate.

A significant difference, but certainly not fatal. Clearly the Dems aren't attacting voters the way they used to. The Republicans are (and have always been) the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", when it comes to image projection. So, that pretty much suggests that the Dems are just losing their appeal. The Republicans are usually not adroit enough at attack politics, they're too busy blowing off their own media toes. (Look at Bill Simon in Cali,-- this guy couldn't get a BJ in a whorehouse, what were the Republicans thinking????)

From about the 1960's to the late 1980's, the Dems had an (by your standards "large") advantage in money raising. When the Republicans and Gingrich took over the Congress in the '94 mid-terms, the money gap started favoring the Republicans.

My favorite though is "...Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country."

Where would this conservatie media be? You've got the looney-tunes Washington Times, the spooky strange FoxNewsChannel and that's about it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washingpost, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, and most big city newspapers might as well just print the DNC's "Message of the Day".

Limbaugh gives the Republicans a pretty large presence on talk radio. (despite a decade of dire predictions by the Left about Limbaugh fading away, he's still do quite well, fascinating. i woulda never thunk it.)

But the most successful "politics" shows on TV are O'Reilly (yeech, i'm waiting for Bill to allow a guest to complete a sentence before he starts screaming at them) and Larry King, who spends more time discussing his own opinons than his guests. I can't watch EITHER of them without getting a headache. So, I don't.

O'Reilly is hardly a conservative, and while King is technically a liberal, as O'Reilly continues to pummel King in the ratings, King has drifted back to the center.

So the vast majority of media in this country is pretty much Center-Left.

It is also boring, trite and doesn't spend any real time discussing any alternatives to the obviously dysfunctional Left-Right paradigm that has captured the votes of the majority of the few voting Americans and turned off/over about half the eligble voters in America.

I voted for Nader before, and it looks like i'll be doing it again in '04.

Since when does sanity play any part in our government? And prove it to you? Read the text of the ruling yourself: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/carp/webcasting_rates .html.

I'm excited at the possibilities for this archive. I tend to share the beliefs of those who argue that the death of print was over-hyped.

However, if you want a tale of digital overkill: the gang at the Library of Congress (folks who jacked up the cost on Internet radio among other lovely inventions), decided to render pulps from the late teens-'30s into microfilm.

The LOC did the entire collection of Amazing Stories, Weird Tales and something called Black Mask (why I'd be really, really, really interested), but they're not too good about sharing (of course), and who knows how long before the microfilm begins to degrade?

Sometimes I wonder if I should start contributing to a Republican like Lynn Cheney just to access the works. Then I realize the system is flawed. Then I sigh, rub the dog's belly, and go have a cigarette.

Hope Calgary does a better job with this bit 'a wealth.

The rules of any process, meeting, or presentation, are generally tilted to give the advantage to the incumbents. I am sure no one is surprised to hear this, and no one doubts that the Commerce Departments DRM Workshop was likely tilted to insure the implementation of some recording and movie industry friendly protection. Therefore, if we all sit back like nice sheep, act appropriately, and follow the rules, what we will get is an industry friendly DRM system.

I am sure that some of you feel that downloading MP3s while hiding behind your firewalls and anonymous hotmail accounts is all it will take to stop DRM from coming, and maybe that will be enough. But maybe some direct action is needed. Maybe the token Free Software person needs not to sit back and smile, grateful for the opportunity to be in the presence of such great people that he is not even worthy to shine their shoes, but to stand up and declare himself not a patsy, but an equal.

The reference to the US suffrage movement may or may not be accurate. Our ability to copy and download music may not be as important as a women's right to participate in our democracy. On the other hand, I do not see any DRM protesters picketing the white house, being beaten, sent to jail, and force fed because they feel that their children's right to be considered full citizens was greater than any discomfort they themselves might incur.

What Stallman and a few other brave folks did was minor. It is being blown out of proportion by a media fearful for the demisof the only livelihood they know. It being propagated in populist forums like /. by persons uncomfortable with democratic process and the messiness that is occasionally necessary to keep that process afloat. If the opposition to the DRM is not important enough to justify such messiness, we should allow it to pass, and live in whatever world is the result.

Congress finds that--

(1) American innovation, and the protection of that innovation by the government, has been a critical component of the economic growth of this Nation throughout the history of the Nation;

(2) copyright-based industries represent one of the most valuable economic assets of this country, contributing over 5 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States and creating significant job growth and tax revenues;

(3) the American intellectual property sector employs approximately 4,300,000 people, representing over 3 percent of total United States employment;

(4) the proliferation of organized criminal counterfeiting enterprises threatens the economic growth of United States copyright industries;

(5) the American intellectual property sector has invested millions of dollars to develop highly sophisticated authentication features that assist consumers and law enforcement in distinguishing genuine intellectual property products and packaging from counterfeits;

(6) in order to thwart these industry efforts, counterfeiters traffic in, and tamper with, genuine authentication features, for example, by obtaining genuine authentication features through illicit means and then commingling these features with counterfeit software or packaging;

(7) Federal law does not provide adequate civil and criminal remedies to combat tampering activities that directly facilitate counterfeiting crimes; and

(8) in order to strengthen Federal enforcement against counterfeiting of copyrighted works, Congress must enact legislation that--

(A) prohibits trafficking in, and tampering with, authentication features of copyrighted works; and

(B) permits aggrieved parties an appropriate civil cause of action.

So...

He's not afraid of The Man, but he IS afraid of The Woman...

• Stopping proposed DRM regulation
  • The Senator "Disney" Hollings Bill (CBDTPA)
  • Stopping "Disney" Hollings effort to bypass the legislative process and have the FCC mandate DRM directly
  • Stopping "Disney" Hollings, Biden's, et. al.'s Anticounterfeiting Amendment of 2002, proposed by Fritz Hollings to make copying movies criminally equivelent to copying (counterfeiting) dollar bills.
• Stopping Palladium and Microsoft's publicly stated goal of ending open computing as we know it
• Stopping the legalization and empowerment of vigilanti cybercrimes by copyright cartels against individual both guilty and innocent alike