Slashdot Mirror

Look, if a law that restrictive was ever passed, Police officers would be breaking it.

According to page 5 of this PDF from the Library of Congress, law enforcement officers acting in official duty are exempt from the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Remember Prohibition?

The current crop of Republicrat legislators don't seem to; otherwise, they would have repealed the anti-recreational-drug laws a long time ago.

Any politician who would vote for such a thing better hope the donation from the media companies can buy him a ticket to Rio and keep him fed for the rest of his life

Find how much your politician got from Di$ney at Open Secrets.

because his public "service" career would end at the next election

Not with our ovine electorate.

I find AOL/TW less scary than MS, at least on a personal level.

At least Microsoft didn't spend millions lobbying both political parties to pass the Bono Act and DMCA like AOL(tw) did back when it was just Time Warner.

If I want to avoid their media conglomeration entirely, I can. And if I do, it doesn't affect me.

It does in the United States, where you can go to jail merely for watching a DVD.

Microsoft, on the other hand, by trying to extend its monopolies

Except AOL(tw) doesn't try; it succeeds in extending its monopolies.

If you're interested in how much the computer industry pay to senators, you can read about it here

unless of course, you look at places like this, and see just how much money people are getting. Either way, long term planning suffers, and the situation acts like a monkey trap

I think it is unfair to lambast AOL/TW for the AOL part and look past the benefits of the TW part.

"Benefits" including lobbying for the DMCA and the Bono Act?

you're trusting everything2 for accurate data [on the Bono Act]?

You mean like this?

Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (idea) by yerricde
Wikipedia article covering the Bono Act to which I contributed heavily

Yes. I'm trusting myself and my sources (which include the Library of Congress web site and Open Secrets) for accurate data.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Bush and Cheney are know to have ties to many, if not all, of the major oil companies in the US. I'm not even going to touch on the subject of stock ownership.

So what?

Trotting out the aging bromide about "Bush and Cheney are know [sic] to have ties to many, if not all, major oil companies in the US" is a) silly and b) beside the point. The finances of federal politicians, including Bush and Cheney are a matter of public disclosure and public record. (For example, here's a link to George W. Bush's disclosure statements for tax years 1998 and 1999.)

What is more to the point is what Dubya did before he got into politics: he was the managing general partner of the Texas Rangers--a post he held despite being one of the smaller investors in the group that bought the team. Why give Dubya the job? Well--perhaps the fact that his father was president of the United States at the time might have been some influence....

In this circumstance, the presence of Jiang in the bidding process was absolutely, positively of influence. Jiang's company entered the bidding, Jiang's company won the bidding. The relative merits of Linux, Windows, Open Source, or green tea were immaterial. That's how business is done in China.

Rick Boucher

Check out this amazing site to see what I'm talking about. I know some people might say I sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but I sincerely believe that big business controls the U.S. government.

For a current example, we only need to look at how Pres. Bush has done thus far; one of the first things we heard about in his term was opening up federally protected land in Alaska to oil exploration. More recently, we saw the federal government stand by and watch while California experienced a horrendous energy crisis, and the energy companies made a killing. For those who don't know, Bush is from the state of Texas, where several large oil and energy companies are headquartered. These statistics show that during the presidential campaign, energy interests(oil &amp gas, electric utilities, coal, etc.) gave Bush $2.9 million dollars for his campaign. They gave Gore $325,000... I'd say their investment has already paid off handsomely...

Check out this amazing site to see what I'm talking about. I know some people might say I sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but I sincerely believe that big business controls the U.S. government.

For a current example, we only need to look at how Pres. Bush has done thus far; one of the first things we heard about in his term was opening up federally protected land in Alaska to oil exploration. More recently, we saw the federal government stand by and watch while California experienced a horrendous energy crisis, and the energy companies made a killing. For those who don't know, Bush is from the state of Texas, where several large oil and energy companies are headquartered. These statistics show that during the presidential campaign, energy interests(oil &amp gas, electric utilities, coal, etc.) gave Bush $2.9 million dollars for his campaign. They gave Gore $325,000... I'd say their investment has already paid off handsomely...

You're forgetting something happened in between. The DOJ was doing fine until Microsoft's check to Bush and the other Republicans cleared. Then the following conversation happened:

GWB: Now Ashy, don'cha think you're bein a little hard on Microsoft. Maybe you're misunderstating their position.

JA: But they broke the law! And since we're Republicans, we can't be seen as soft on crime!

GWB: Tell you what, John, if you go easy on the B. Gates and Co, I'll let you tromp on some civil rights. Will that make it better?

JA: Well...

GWB: I'll even give you some new police powers ...

JA: You got a deal! That'll show all those people in Missoura who would rather vote for a dead guy than me!

Unfortunately, the US government, for whatever reasons, have decided to whore out the rights of its citizens in exchange for increased corporate revenues and, as a result, increased taxes (not to mention all those nice PAC campaign contributions).

Well no.. the first person to do this (in software or hardware) gets totally nailed under DMCA. The RIAA paid lots of money for it, you bet they're going to make full use of it.

Point is that people who sell IP want to control how it's distributed. That's what drives their decision making. And the law, be it copyright, licensing, whatever, is almost always is on their side. Given the way the law is made, that's hardly suprising.

From the POV of consumers and artists, the results are often absurd. German gamers who can't play games they've paid for is one example. Another is music and literature that you can't listen to or read because the copyright holder is sitting on it. I myself know a couple of musicians who feel damn frustrated because their work is controlled by publishers who won't release or sell it back. Unfair? Absolutely. But perfectly legal.

Er, they can't donate anonymously. Donations are regulated, 'specially "hard" money (money sent to aid a specific candidate), which is quite limited.

Interested? See opensecrets.org.

In any event, as somebody noted -- it's not so much that money means winning, it's that winning means money.

I seem to be getting less and less tolerant to commercials too. The radio in my car is tuned to NPR, which is commercial free 50 weeks out of the year. Even if it is the all Afghanistan all the time network these days. I'm about 99% RIAA free these days, I think. They'll probably get that declared an act of treason soon... feh... bastards.

Speaking of which, how much did they give your guys this year? We should get a petition going for a constitutional ammendment forbiding any incorporated entity from giving money to any politician.

According to opensecrets.org Microsoft gives almost evenly to both political parties. In 2000 they gave 46% of $4,543,276 to the Dems. I'd say they were hedging their bets either way.

I still wouldn't say the DOJ is capitulating because of money. Recent polls have shown that the American people don't really care about Microsoft anymore, and that is why the Government is giving up and settling. Although they supposedly brought this case because MS broke the law, and the Gov't should pursue this kind of thing regardless of politics, if it isn't popular it isn't going to happen no matter who is President.

(not!) Apparently operating and promoting a criminal monopoly in the United States does not incur much penalty.

The terms of this antitrust agreement (at C|Net) stike me as more of a blowjob than a slap on the wrist. The terms of this agreement do nothing to address the core issues of punitive damages in this "penalty" phase of the trial. Hasn't Microsoft been found to be an illegal monopolist? And even so there is no penalty forthcoming, only what can be described as minor conduct tweaking? Wow.

This deal is also weaker than what was on the table before MS was found guilty. Armed with a 7-0 judge appeals ruling that MS is an illegal monopolist, the DoJ now settles for something even less? [sarcasm] If I didn't have such a high confidence in the current administration, I'd have thought they'd been paid off or something; good thing we know that that can't be the case. [/sarcasm]

We can all be sure that more of the same will now continue. After all, were not similar minor conduct remedies ordered by courts in 1994, etc, only to be ignored by Microsoft? Now these conduct remedies will be... ignored again! And with that scary extension... yet again! Justice prevails in America. So do the undead apparently.

The idea, as is sometimes heard now, that the DoJ should go easy on Microsoft because of the current financial uncertainty does not hold water either. So we should suspend penalties to laws, just so that the economic boat doesn't get rocked? Even if the previous penalty of breaking the company into 2 was applied, this would not substantially change the immediate economic situation. Everyone would still use Windows, it would still come with your Dell, it would still be the de facto stadard for years; it's just that slowly other system choices would gradually appear. How would this be an economic calamity? Even this breakup scenario is now unlikely, after the DoJ unilaterally pulled the IE bundling claim off the table (for what reason, no-one really knows).

I am apalled at what amounts to a near toal capitulation by the Bush Administration's new DoJ attorneys. Mostly, it is the lack of justice that bothers me. I'm glad I'm not a US citizen otherwise I'd also be angry about the millions of taxpayers dollars put into this case over many years, and not even the most minor financial penalty to cover the costs of the case recuperated. If they want any kind of justice, Americans should write their state representatives and attorneys general to make known they do not support the Sates' signing on to this toothless deal. Barring that, it's up to the European Union to reign in the beast now.

And then I'll tell them I won't give them any more money if they don't listen to me. Lets see, I gave my party $100 this year. Lets see... The RIAA gave my party about 50 grand this year. Disney gave my party about 140 grand this year.The MPAA was relatively cheap and only gave them about 20 grand this year. Hmm. I wonder who they would possibly listen to... (Statistics thanks to opensecrets.org here.)

• 3G will start a new wave of competition amongst the major phone companies. If Sprint offers 3G services and SBC doesn't, Sprint's market share will increase, so SBC and the other competitors need to keep up. Now take a look at the money flowing to powerful people in Washington and see who the top contributors are - BellSouth and SBC are pretty high up there. It is not in their best interest to see 3G happen and they are paying off Congressmen left and right to make sure it doesn't happen (in this lifetime at least).
• Law enforcement regards 3G as a nightmare. Think about it - cell phones that have enough bandwidth to transmit encrypted datastreams between phones. And not the cheesy 40-bit breakable encryption that they use on current PCS systems, either. They're worried about people loading 128 bit Blowfish or IDEA encoders onto their phones and using them to communicate securely. Roving wiretaps are useless if all you can gather from them is white noise. No wiretaps == no control, and law enforcement exists to control.
• If 3G service is commoditized (think "Tracfone") and potentially anonymous, what's to keep criminals, ACLU members and privacy nuts, and WTO protestors from using disposable phones to communicate securely? By the time they traced one phone, the subject will have moved onto another one. Anonymous voice services are "bad enough" for The Man, but anonymous data services will wrestle even more control away from authority.
• 3G service is difficult to disrupt when making a covert search of somebody's apartment or office. If FBI agents can't knock all of your computers off the network, you can see everything they do if you have a few $30 webcams planted around the joint. The FBI wants you to have a broadband service that they can monitor, but disconnect at will as well (preferably by cutting a cable). It is a known fact that on most covert searches (such as the Scarfo search) the FBI cuts off communication lines prior to the search. 3G or Ricochet is difficult to work with on their end, and their excuse for opposing it is that it will give the Scarfos of the world a leg up on law enforcement.

-CT

Check out Open Secrets and do a search on Microsoft. Their contributions were nickle and dime stuff for them, though it is interesting to note how they hedge their bets (Though the republicans seem to be getting about 3x more from them lately than the dems are.)

That would be these people:
The top industries supporting Ernest F. Hollings
and the nitty gritty would be here:
1999-2000 PAC Contributions

That would be these people:
The top industries supporting Ernest F. Hollings
and the nitty gritty would be here:
1999-2000 PAC Contributions

By the way, who would know more about this subject than a US Senator? (quotes were also linked). Would it convince you to know that there are CEO's who've spoken out about it? Saying they're tired of being extorted; political bribery is all but a necessity to keep up with competitors who 'donate' and get special treatment. And why do you think the private sector would continually shove money at politicians if they weren't buying something? If they weren't, spending those millions of dollars every year for nothing, might be a good hint that they're in the wrong line of work. You could always follow the trail yourself, but at the very least I would ask that you actually back your statement up. If there's anything on this earth I know about, it's this, and what you've said amounts to "You're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why. You're ignorant, go back to school."

An interesting read might be at o rg</a>

I'm a resident of South Carolina, and it makes me cringe to see a senator from my state proposing this bill.

I've lived here 3 years, and South Carolina, while a beautiful place to live, is hardly a technological mecca. Yet our senator has put himself at the forefront of the pro-internet taxation group more than once. And now he's proposing this crazy bill.

I can guarantee you his constituents in South Carolina didn't write him and ask him for this bill.

So who is he really representing? Hmm, the media industry has given him a quarter million dollars!

Start here.

Check out opensecrets.org for the Center for Responsive Politics' stats for contribution information and reports on key special interests.

And, of course, also go to the BillionairesForBushOrGore.com site and check out their price/performance guide's Return on Investment" section.

I created an account, but the email with my password is taking forever. :)

This battle might actually be interesting. Which industry has the best most influence on .us politicians?
It looks like Hollywood contributes more to the coffers of the political parties.
Let's just hope the Electronics Industry and Comsumers win this one.

He said that any meaningful reform of the 1996 telecom act would need a lot of intervention from Capitol Hill, and the interests that oppose reform are giving like mad to our elected leaders.

-sting3r

A lot of the information you're looking for can be found at Project Vote Smart. You can put in your zip code to find out who all your representatives are, and how to get in touch with them. The site will even tell you how your representatives have voted during their time in office.

As an aside, if you're interested in knowing whose votes are influenced by which lobbyists and corporations, Opensecrets.org has that information.

If we do create a PAC, here's what we're up against. That's the yearly contributions by the movie industry to both sides of the political fence. In 2000, about $24 million to Democrats and $13 million to Republicans.

If we do intend to go forward with a PAC aimed at fighting the DMCA, one thing is clear: the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Republicans clearly receieve less entertainment funding, and therefore we can begin this war on a simple pretext: the Democratic Party is the enemy.

How come you can follow money here, and not follow the money behind Rep. Barbara Lee, the woman who voted against punishing the guilty parties for the WTC attack? And see who she accepts PAC contributions from?

It's nice we're on the brink of WWIII, and have terrorist puppets even in Congress, but you guys are still worried ab0ut not being able to copy your porno DVDs.


How come you can't post a link like this one? Is it because you're a blowhard armchair-quarterback chickenhawk who screeches "WAR" from the safety of your home, not to mention that you can't even be bothered to adopt a pseudonym and log in? Go fuck yourself. For the record, she voted against giving Bush a free hand in deploying American servicemen and putting them in harm's way, not against punishing the guilty. There's a difference. You know this, and yet you post bullshit.

Her personal contributions are right there. Please explain how the Riadys, the Klintons, and the ChiComs figure into all of this. Enquiring minds want to know.

P.S. Nice troll.

How come you can follow money here, and not follow the money behind Rep. Barbara Lee, the woman who voted against punishing the guilty parties for the WTC attack? And see who she accepts PAC contributions from?

It's nice we're on the brink of WWIII, and have terrorist puppets even in Congress, but you guys are still worried ab0ut not being able to copy your porno DVDs.


How come you can't post a link like this one? Is it because you're a blowhard armchair-quarterback chickenhawk who screeches "WAR" from the safety of your home, not to mention that you can't even be bothered to adopt a pseudonym and log in? Go fuck yourself. For the record, she voted against giving Bush a free hand in deploying American servicemen and putting them in harm's way, not against punishing the guilty. There's a difference. You know this, and yet you post bullshit.

Her personal contributions are right there. Please explain how the Riadys, the Klintons, and the ChiComs figure into all of this. Enquiring minds want to know.

P.S. Nice troll.

First, big business. Second, big labor organizations.

For your review.

And you guessed wrong about this Libertarian, but your wild assumptions about everything else and skewed perception of the Republicrats belie your small intellect.

So big business gives MILLIONS split evenly between the 2 major parties just to be nice guys?

Oh, please.

Off topic, but has anyone seen how much money the RIAA, MPAA, TV and cable folks are forking out to our elected officals? A cool US$ 38 Million.

While not trying to burst your bubble, nor am I disagreeing with your points, I do want to point out that Hollings got only US$2,000.00 from Disney. See: this at OpenSecrets.org for a break down of Hollings contributors.

A more interesting page is who did MPAA and RIAA give tons of money to. For that info, click here MPAA or here for RIAA.

Personally, I find it hard to beleive that someone would sell out for just US$2,000.00. Perhaps Hollings just needs a rap on the forehead to get him to stop being stupid.

While not trying to burst your bubble, nor am I disagreeing with your points, I do want to point out that Hollings got only US$2,000.00 from Disney. See: this at OpenSecrets.org for a break down of Hollings contributors.

A more interesting page is who did MPAA and RIAA give tons of money to. For that info, click here MPAA or here for RIAA.

Personally, I find it hard to beleive that someone would sell out for just US$2,000.00. Perhaps Hollings just needs a rap on the forehead to get him to stop being stupid.

While not trying to burst your bubble, nor am I disagreeing with your points, I do want to point out that Hollings got only US$2,000.00 from Disney. See: this at OpenSecrets.org for a break down of Hollings contributors.

A more interesting page is who did MPAA and RIAA give tons of money to. For that info, click here MPAA or here for RIAA.

Personally, I find it hard to beleive that someone would sell out for just US$2,000.00. Perhaps Hollings just needs a rap on the forehead to get him to stop being stupid.

While not trying to burst your bubble, nor am I disagreeing with your points, I do want to point out that Hollings got only US$2,000.00 from Disney. See: this at OpenSecrets.org for a break down of Hollings contributors.

A more interesting page is who did MPAA and RIAA give tons of money to. For that info, click here MPAA or here for RIAA.

Personally, I find it hard to beleive that someone would sell out for just US$2,000.00. Perhaps Hollings just needs a rap on the forehead to get him to stop being stupid.

You guys ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the reason that CNN and other American news sources don't report that Bush was behind it because their owners support Bush completely?

I was going to call you on this (after all, this is Ted Turner, former hubby of Jane Fonda f'chrissakes), but I went to OpenSecrets (a wonderful source of data on campaign contributions) and found that Turner Broadcasting Corp. donated 83,406 to the RNC, and another $1,878 to the LNC/Non-Federal (Libertarian National Committe?).

Ya learn something new every day.

j.

In my above post, I forgot to point out the two contributions Microsoft made to the "Ashcroft Victory Cmte Non-Federal" on 12/31/1999 and 06/30/2000 found in OpenSecrets.org's database [opensecrets.org].

A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.

Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)

Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.

Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?

A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.

Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)

Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.

Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?

A lot of people saw this comming. During the election flame-wars, many people were posting right here on slashdot that Bush would stop the breakup. This should be a surprise to very few, and certainly none who frequent this board. Bush is so deep in the pockets of big business and industry, it should come as no surprise that Microsoft would jump on that bandwagon when the opportunity arose.

Microsoft donated a total of $4,617,726 to all election campaigns in 2000. Although it does not break down specifically where the money went, 53% went to republicans, 47% to democrats. From an industry standpoint, Bush received $1,177,770 from computer and internet companies, and Gore $580,634. Certainly not huge numbers, but a quick analysis on how Bush's number is more than double the #2, and then there is a pretty linear dropoff, it is not at all unfaur to conclude that since Microsoft was far and away the biggest contributor from this industry group, a large percentage of the Bush money is from them. (A bone for the flame-mongers: More analysis of these numbers would, of course, be necessary for a solid conclusion.)

Although this decision may have also happened had Gore won, I do not think that would be the case - he is too knowledgeable about the tech sector. Also, knowing how Microsoft respects the law, it wouldnt surprise me at all if they made many more untraceable contributions (dont tell me it cant be done, its done all the time). I also wish opensecrets.org would show contributions for the 2004 election, that may be more revealing.

Is any more proof necessary that this is now truely a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation?

Perhaps all of Microsoft's campaign contributions [opensecrets.org - search for Microsoft] proved to be a good investment.

Interestingly, MS really hedged its bets by contributing to Ralph Nader's and Harry Brown's campaigns in addition to Bushito's and Gore's.

In 2000, Microsoft was by far the biggest computer & internet industry contributor to election campaigns with a total of $4.6 Million.

53% of this went to Republicans, 47% to Democrats. Although it does not show to which campaigns received the money, or which level of election (presidental, senatorial, etc), Gore probabaly got a pretty good chunk of this. Microsoft was playing both sides of the table, but I still dont think this would have happened under a Gore administration, he just knows too much about the tech sector.

I don't know much about IA, but you can see that Sony/Bertelsman intentions are more obvious, since both donate to the House/Senate, Democrat/Republican Dinner Committees.

I don't know much about IA, but you can see that Sony/Bertelsman intentions are more obvious, since both donate to the House/Senate, Democrat/Republican Dinner Committees.