Slashdot Mirror

The shared public/private access would not have been free access. Public safety would have paid for access, though the first "chunk" of access would be at below-commercial rates since public safety gave up some of its spectrum for this network to be built.

"The FCC paired the upper band D block (a single 10 MHz nationwide license) with 10MHz of public safety spectrum located next to the D block, and conditioned the D block license on an obligation to negotiate with public safety representatives towards the construction by the D block licensee of a nationwide public safety network. The idea was that a robust, dedicated public safety network would be built to the specifications of the public safety community, and in exchange the commercial licensee of the D Block would be permitted to use the public safety spectrum (in addition, of course, to the D Block spectrum) when it was not otherwise needed. Absent this private participation, funding for a shared public safety network was unavailable." -- http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1370

The sticking points were instead things such as "the network must be able to serve 99.3% of the U.S. population by 2019," "the need to be 99.9% reliable" and pre-emption over other users for public safety's 10 MHz of spectrum. See MRT Magazine for more info about the proposal.

It's way beyond that. Connected Nation is an Astroturf Group, brought to you by those warm and fuzzy Corporations now seeking RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY for spying on us. So even though they're pushing something that, on the face of it, seems good, you can betcha their version is not the version of broadband that We, The People, want. It's the same version Comcast is pushing. Or AT&T when they censor Pearl Jam. Or Verizon when they censor NARAL.

Bills are apparently numbered for each session of Congress.

The 109th Congress's HR1201 AKA "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2005," a bill to alter the Federal Trade Commission Act to punish companies that mislabel copy-protected CDs, got stuck in committee.

The 110th Congress's HR1201 AKA "Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007," a bill to alter Copyright Law to add fair use exemptions, is new.

Adding to the confusion, both were proposed by Rick Boucher.

Reporters never research (in USA or UK). Thats a state law.
Federal law signed into being a year or so ago (the one that allowed people to play dvds on thier home players and skip scenes without getting sued or something like that), says even taking a cell phone screen shot is liable for THREE years in prison, not a mere few months.

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation /s167
"(2) AUDIOVISUAL RECORDING DEVICE- The term `audiovisual recording device' means a digital or analog photographic or video camera..."

So digital cameras and cell phone cameras count because it says photographic OR video camera. Someone could be prosecuted under that law for an instant 3 year jail sentnance just for taking a digital snapshot of the film.

BTW, the law also permits and indemnifies theatre operators from any civil/criminal lawsuits if they want to detain and interrogate you.
"(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning..."
"(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1)"

I've also seen Public Knowledge discussing this quite a bit. I'm sure that I ended up there from reading a /. article at some point.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this bill. It's basically the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 (text) reincarnated as the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. Don't you see how much better the new version is? It's got 2007 in the name! Congress, therefore, MUST pass it this time! :-/

As far as I can tell, Congress didn't even care to look at, much less vote on it. The only difference this time is that the Attorney General is attempting to submit the law himself to give it more credibility. (It was previously backed by Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R) of Texas.) My hope is that it will end up in the same dustbin as the last attempt.

As long as I can point a camera at my TV, or a microphone next to my speakers, copy protection is just not going to work

Don't think they're not working on that too.

Basically they want to have your cameras and microphones detect when they are sensing restricted content, then shut themselves off.

So when you are trying to record baby's first steps, and the camera shuts down because Starwars is playing on the living room TV, oh well, too bad.

If anyone wants to follow this go to Public Knowledge site. http://www.publicknowledge.org/articles They have people sitting in on this WIPO stuff and presenting views on it. This is very serious stuff. The broadcasters will be given a 30 year copyright simply by broadcasting it. Even if you give them rights for 5 years. This new copytheft will supercede your contract and they will get an additional 30 years or more simply by broadcasting it. Bookmark Public Citizen and follow it. Then flood you congress people, I have been for some time.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2644-109.pdf

Monday, we're going to get an interview with Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge tomorrow, who will present a pro-Net-Neutrality argument.

Monday, we're going to get an interview with Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge tomorrow, who will present a pro-Net-Neutrality argument.

The internet is just a series of tubes ... right?

So what is your interpretation of fair use?

What about making a copy to a "Music" cdr?

Here is an interesting read. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/564
It is not just the readers of slashdot that are confused about fair use.

Senator Ted Stevens already clearly told us about the Internet: "It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes."

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially...

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Damn, Its almost even funnier reading it than watching it. 10 minute Audio Link http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3

While I love Wired, Public Knowledge actually broke this story. The Wired blogger even credits Art Brodsky for the tip. The original blog post, with the MP3 (to which Wired hotlinked), is available here: Stevens on Network Neutrality. Maybe this detail got lost in the tubes, which are all stopped up with video.

Anyway, do listen to the MP3! It's very funny.

(Full disclosure: I'm a PK intern this summer.)

While I love Wired, Public Knowledge actually broke this story. The Wired blogger even credits Art Brodsky for the tip. The original blog post, with the MP3 (to which Wired hotlinked), is available here: Stevens on Network Neutrality. Maybe this detail got lost in the tubes, which are all stopped up with video.

Anyway, do listen to the MP3! It's very funny.

(Full disclosure: I'm a PK intern this summer.)

While I love Wired, Public Knowledge actually broke this story. The Wired blogger even credits Art Brodsky for the tip. The original blog post, with the MP3 (to which Wired hotlinked), is available here: Stevens on Network Neutrality. Maybe this detail got lost in the tubes, which are all stopped up with video.

Anyway, do listen to the MP3! It's very funny.

(Full disclosure: I'm a PK intern this summer.)

Audio avalaible here:

http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3

Did anyone download and listen to the audio?

Man, I thought Bush was a bad speaker.

I don't understand the Net Neutrality bill, and this guy is a tooooool. Internet Bill of Rights? Um, since when is a technological nicety a basic right? Sounds like he is just pissed because an email of his took a day to get where it was supposed to go... and he blames "consumers" that are downloading movies. Whatever dude!

Thanks

Bruce

Looks like Senator Sununu is proposing an ammendment to strike the broadcast and radio flags from the bill. Call up your Senator and get them to support it!

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/479

If you follow the link from the main article you find an even more interesting article laying out other problems with the bll. Not only does it bring back the broadcast flag but it also really doesn't do anything to help Net Nutrality in the first place!

If you have senators on the comittee don't just tell them about your dislike for the broadcast flag, tell them the whole bill needs to be scrapped.

"US telecommunications law rewrite a mixed bag"
"The US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce released the final draft (PDF) of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act"

TITLE IV -- MUNICIPAL
PROVISION OF SERVICES
SEC. 401. GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL. Neither the Communications Act
of 1934 nor any State statute, regulation, or other State
legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of pro-
hibiting any public provider of telecommunications service,
information service, or cable service (as such terms are
defined in sections 3 and 602 of such Act) from providing
such services to any person or entity.
(b) COMPETITION NEUTRALITY. Any State or polit-
ical subdivision thereof, or any agency, authority, or in-
strumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof,
that is, owns, controls, or is otherwise affiliated with a
public provider of telecommunications service, information
service, or cable service shall not grant any preference or
advantage to any such provider. Such entity shall apply
its ordinances, rules, and policies, including those relating
to the use of public rights-of-way, permitting, performance
bonding, and reporting without discrimination in favor of
any such provider as compared to other providers of such
services.
(c) COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS NOT AFFECTED.
Nothing in this section shall exempt a public
provider from any law or regulation that applies to pro-
viders of telecommunications service, information service,
or cable service.
(d) DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PROVIDER.
For purposes of this section, the term "public provider" means
a State or political subdivision thereof, or any agency, au-
thority, or instrumentality of a State or political subdivi-
sion thereof, that provides telecommunications service, in-
formation service, or cable service, or any entity that is
owned, controlled, or is otherwise affiliated with such
State or political subdivision thereof, or agency, authority,
or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision there-
of.

Robert M. Stockmann

Per the bill (in its current form), there is still a $500,000 fine for anyone who goes against the FCC's broadband policy statement. Basically you'll have to complain if you think your ISP isn't living up to that statement, and the FCC will investigate. Who knows how effective this will be.

Also, do remember that the Senate has to consider this. Perhaps they could slip neutrality legislation into the bill. Call your senators!

It's strange how much we detest government regulation in televsion, radio and voice services, but suddenly we're begging for in on the internet.

Why isn't it reasonable that if a company is making money by using someone else's resources- they should have to pay for it? When send my customers packages, I have to pay UPS to deliver them. This isn't any different.

With the increase of bandwidth consumption by sites like google video and youtube, someone is eventually going to have to pay to upgrade the infrastructure. Why not charge the companies that are making money off of it? (as opposed to me, who is only wasting money on it)

Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.

Dear Lord, don't do that. Tell them you hate it. snuck the Broadcast Flag into it.

Screw that. Tell your Congressmen to support net neutrality and to fight against the broadcast flag.

Actually where have YOU been?

I'm well aware of the bill you quoted, Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation /s167
Or:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ009.109

Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like:
1) Using any kind of audiovisual recording device, such as a cell phone camera, inside a movie theatre, even if its to take a quick snapshot, is illigal? And that you can get 3 years in jail for it?
2) As well, theatre operators/employees can detain and interrogate you and are made IMMUNE from federal and criminal lawsuits if they do so?
3) Having certain types of movies on your computer can get you jail time, even if you never share or distribute those?

If you cant find the specific text I'm referring to, lemme know and I'll quote it.
Ok thats all from the already signed into law bill.
Now lets move on.

First lets check some of the text of the current law, "Section 110 of title 17, United States Code"

"the following are not infringements of copyright:"
Ok got it, these are copyright exclusions. Now lets see the text of the family copyright thing:
"Exemption From Trademark Infringement"
Ok, so this is about exclusions from trademarks as well.

Ok next, some specific text:
"the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture"
Ok, it applies to a private house watching a legit copy. Who else does it apply to?
"or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household"
Ok so it applies to anyone who creates such technology as well.
Lets see what else we can learn.
"A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act"
Ok, if you make such technology (that makes parts of a movie imperceptable), you aren't liable. But wait:
"The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph."
Ok so you CAN be liable if you dont comply with that paragraph (which currently says you have to have a notice saying this differs from the original movie).

So thats it for the already signed into law part. Now lets look at what will be modified until the proposed law.
The text of that proposal is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
"no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."

Got it. In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.

Now does that directly say they are violating laws by doing so? No, but now they are not exempt now. And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the origin

Please note, the link provided to Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391) pointed to an old bill. We've (PK) updated the information at that URL to apply to the current draft proposal.

I have found nothing on Lamar Smith's webpage.

It is too new to show up on the THOMAS (Library of Congress) website. Oh, wait. It hasn't been introduced yet.

H.R. 2391 only comes up as the Safe Communities and Safe Schools Mercury Reduction Act of 2005.

That said if TFA is accurate then it will be something I oppose and will write to my state Rep about.

passed in 2004. PK doesn't have anything on the new bill.

Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in
From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:

"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. ... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."

So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.

Geist:
there are many groups (EFF, CDT, Public Knowledge, ACLU, EPIC, IP Justice, etc) that work in the area.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Center for Democracy & Technology

Public Knowledge

American Civil Liberties Union

Electronic Privacy Information Center

IP Justice

etc

This bill effectively promises to do the following:
1. Remove Linux/MythTV from the PVR market since nobody will be able to release specs without some sort of non-disclosure contract given the DRM requirements.
2. Add a more flexible varient of the Broadcast flag to all devices that deal with video so that "Copyright Owners" can control how the content is viewed; aka remove the consumer's fair use rights. They may even be able to use the system to prevent skipping commercials.

As it appears from skimming the 35-page bill (http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTC SA-Analog-Hole.pdf)
TV-tuners and HD upscalers and such will not become illegal, they just must ensure the integrity of the embedded DRM, and follow the rules established by that system.

Thus, this bill will probably only effect two types of people:
1. Those who rely on fair use to record Pay-Per-View shows that they don't have time to watch as scheduled, or given the greedy media companies, anything else that they decide to limit (aka everything).
2. Users of open-source software. Thus, Microsoft will win given there closed-source Windows Media Center and the funds to acquire specs and write drivers.

In either case, big wealthy companies like Time Warner, Fox, and Microsoft win while mere users who want to watch HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies on their Linux/BSD/Hurd/etc box will be locked out.

Actually if I read that thing right (reminds me of some HORRID code) it looks like it's not 'no analog to digital conversion' but rather it prohibits analog-digital and analog to analog that doesn't obey whatever encoded 'rules' (no copy, copy once, copy many but still copyrighted) and it must not do anything to the encoded 'rules' themselves, except pass them on (I think it allows changing copy once to no copy) and it MUST do that.
    Not shure but it probably puts the same restrictions on digital to digital.
    It also makes a bunch of distinctions between pay per view and subscription and premium subscription and so on.
        I found a link to it at http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr4569

Mycroft

As an example, in scenario 2 we see what all devices must do if only the VEIL signal is found.

(Step 1) CGMS-A State Detected -- Not present
(Step 2) RCI State Detected -- Not present
(redistribution control bit to be detected with CGMS-A)
(Step 3) VEIL Detected -- YES
Rights Assertion Description -- INCONSISTENT STATE: Rights are being asserted so the CGMS-A was probably tampered and/or the RCI was probably stripped
Technical Content Protection Response -- VIEW ONLY - Protect as Copy Protected Content

The last encoding technique, VEIL (Video Encoded Invisible Light) is particularly interesting as it was originally developed as a way to transmit information to a series of Batman toys. Now it is supposed to be a DRM watermark technology. Hmmm.... The EFF has weighed in on this too.

It is already illegal to do the things that this technology supposedly is designed to prevent. Does the MPAA really need to be protected by the government, at our expense, like this?

MPAA - the unfreedom fighters.

yo.

Oh come on, seriously. Looking at this makes me want to puke! Perhaps a requirement for becoming someone who dictates legislation.... you should have to go to grammar school and not write something that looks like one big sentence!

Why do I feel like they write this in a way to make it near impossible to read?

Dickhead who Lobbies: *lies*
Congress: *listens to lies*
DWL: *presents legislation*
Congress: *Doesn't understand, bases judgement on lies written by the marketing/legal department
DWL: *laughs at the expense of the american people*
Congess: *just wasted John Doe's vote*

I propose we all move to Switzerland, try to get refugee status or something, then open up an international business! Who the fuck's with me?

http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCS A-Analog-Hole.pdf

Did you know copyright infringement is a crime?

Well, it is.

Or at least, it should be in all countries that singed the TRIPs agreement. It says so in article 61:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm4 _e.htm

--

SECTION 5: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES

Article 61

        Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity. In appropriate cases, remedies available shall also include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of the infringing goods and of any materials and implements the predominant use of which has been in the commission of the offence. Members may provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in other cases of infringement of
intellectual property rights, in particular where they are committed wilfully and on a commercial scale.

--

So, commercial copyright infringement, as is obviously the case here, is to be regarded a criminal offence in all countries that signed the TRIPs agreement. And if it is a criminal offence, the government is responsible to take the offender to court and throw him in jail should he be found quilty!

All you gotta do is go to the police and hand over all evidence you can find regarding this alleged crime. Then the police should start investigating in order to bring these criminals to justice!

This is great! This is the key to enforcing the GPL globally without having to be the author or copyright owner of the code of which the copyright has been violated. That's the beauty of criminal offences. These are prosecuted by the government on behalf of the public.

Let's take a look at what I could find on this in the US law, since these disks have been sold in the US, haven't they?

What I found out is that -- for me -- over the ocean, they have the "Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004":

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391

"Provides penalties and jail sentences for trafficking in "counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging" of records, software, movies, etc. The original bill also provided penalties for filing false information with Internet registrars, but that portion wasn't picked up in the omnibus. Passed the House Sept. 21, 2004."

As far as I can see, this is the law text that applies and apparantly is in act:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00002318----000-.html

--

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > 2318 Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in a counterfeit label affixed or designed to be affixed to a phonorecord, or a copy of a computer program or documentation or packaging for a computer program, or a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, and whoever, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section, knowingly traffics in counterfeit documentation or packaging for a computer program, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

--

"or a copy of a computer program"

Looks like those criminals copying GPLed software can be sent to jail!

I guess you haven't been following the Grokster case too closely. Your conclusions are way off the beam.

This page will get you caught up. Here's the court opinion. If you read that and you're still not sure of the difference between Grokster and Ford, post here and perhaps somebody can explain it to you more carefully than I can.

"I don't think I like such vague wording."

That's the summary, not the court opinion. The opinion is some 50 pages but I think it'll address your concerns. I know reading dry court opinions are a drag, but there's no better way to understand what happened here.

BTW, kudos to you for acknowledging that you're slippery sloping.

It's great that you're curious. A bit of Googling would've turned up the Supreme Court opinion on the case. It's about 50 pages, but it's worth a read if you're curious about why Grokster was ruled illegal, and say, Firefox would not be.

Here's the opinion. As I mentioned, good reading if you truly want to have a better understanding of what happened here.

"It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power..."

Sorry... many folks think justice prevailed here. Grokster was actively encouraging their customers to use the service for piracy, and from this they made millions and millions of dollars. Compare how Grokster operated compared to, say, BitTorrent or the iTunes Music Store, and I think you'll see what I mean.

And lest you think all lobbyists are evil, Public Knowledge and the Home Recording Rights Coalition will also be testifying at the hearing.

There are no representatives from my state (Arizona) on the committee, and they get so much correspondence that they essentially ignore anyone who is not their direct constituent, but if your congressman is on the list, then now is the time to let them know how you feel, especially if you are from Texas or California.

Actually, they already tried that. In a House bill in 2004, Congress attempted to secure our rights to skip whatever part of a transmission (or DVD) we desired, as they wanted to make it legal for a number of new products that would automatically skip the gore and sex in movies and therefore make them "safer."

But tacked onto the end of a smart piece of legislation was the addition that it was illegal to skip any content that contained ads.

Luckily the Senate removed that part before they passed it, leaving a reasonably good piece of legislation.

From the article:

Senators on the US Senate Commerce Committee:

...(list of a bunch of other senators)

    Senator Barbara Boxer - California
            Hart 112
            202-224-3553

(list of a bunch of other senators)...
       

From the second paragraph of the article:

"This new legislation to give the FCC the power to adopt the broadcast flag will likely be attached to the digital television (DTV) bill. The Commerce Committee is where all of this will go down in the Senate. Any Senate flag language would be attached to a DTV policy bill, and likely be done behind closed doors: without so much as a public hearing or debate. Similar language could be made as an amendment to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's version of the DTV bill. That's why voicing your opinion now with your Representative and Senators is vital."

8 of these 20 senators are up for reelection in 2006, more than the percentage of the entire Senate (40% vs 33%). Call their office, ask how they'll vote, decide whether to vote for them to represent you for the next 6 more years, and tell them that you and all your Internetted friends are voting that way next year. That's the only way to influence them, short of sending them sacks of cash bribes^Wcontributions, or finding them in bed with a dead girl (or live boy). If you really want to make a difference, don't just call them with consistent, effective talking points. Send them a paper letter. Because plenty of these neanderthals don't have any idea what a "broadcast flag" is, and probably think they're voting for some kind of "wrap myself in the American flag" rule that scores votes among the blindly patriotic.

Republicans:
Conrad Burns - Montana 202-224-2644
Trent Lott - Mississippi 202-224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas 202-224-5922
John Ensign - Nevada 202-224-6244
Olympia Snowe - Maine 202-224-5344
George Allen - Virginia 202-224-4024

Democrats:
Bill Nelson - Florida 202-224-5274
Maria Cantwell - Washington 202-224-3441

Senator John McCain - Arizona 202-224-2235 is running for president in 2008. Call his office, too, and tell him whether you and all your Internetted friends nationwide will be voting for him.

Senator David Vitter - Louisiana 202-224-4623 just stood up for his partymate Bush's failure to protect his state before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. He's not running, but he's so vulnerable that he doesn't need to hear that rich, smart people are against him, along with the poor evacuees and victims.

Senator John Sununu - New Hampshire 202-224-2841 is the most powerful telecom senator. Call his office and tell them what his "tech constituency" thinks of his votes to protect us from being regulated into media vassals.

Go ahead and call any of the rest of them, if they represent you. That means they represent you, not the interests of some out-of-state media cartel that's just ripping you off:

Republicans:
Chairman Ted Stevens - Alaska 202-224-3004
Senator Gordon Smith - Oregon 202-224-3753
Senator Jim DeMint - South Carolina 202-224-6121

Democrats:
Ranking Member Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii 202-224-3934
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia 202-224-6472
Senator John F. Kerry - Massachussetts 202-224-2742
Senator Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota 202-224-2551
Senator Barbara Boxer - California 202-224-3553
Senator Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey 202-224-3224
Senator E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska 202-224-6551
Senator Mark Pryor - Arkansas 202-224-2353

IP Law is such a quagmire. My company even has lectures on it now and then just to ensure employees have a clue on just how messy it really is, and how important it is to the company.

This isn't the point though, the point is the the annoyance of it. It's nice to see something on Fair Use's side, but the question is should the DMCA simply be repealed, or should laws on Fair Use's side be put in place, or should the courts just erode it piece by piece?

Personally... I opt for whatever reduces court use for stupid things. Repealing the DMCA seems like it would simplify things most. Ah well. Here's some useful links with more information on the matter. More information from the public knowledge website and A direct link to the bill (PDF format).

Hmm, also, seems that the Consumer's Union is backing it...

I dunno. I'll go with "undecided" for now, though I'm leaning toward just supporting it. It's highly unlikely that the DMCA will be appealed, so at least its a step somewhat in the right direction. Albeit diagonally.

IP Law is such a quagmire. My company even has lectures on it now and then just to ensure employees have a clue on just how messy it really is, and how important it is to the company.

This isn't the point though, the point is the the annoyance of it. It's nice to see something on Fair Use's side, but the question is should the DMCA simply be repealed, or should laws on Fair Use's side be put in place, or should the courts just erode it piece by piece?

Personally... I opt for whatever reduces court use for stupid things. Repealing the DMCA seems like it would simplify things most. Ah well. Here's some useful links with more information on the matter. More information from the public knowledge website and A direct link to the bill (PDF format).

Hmm, also, seems that the Consumer's Union is backing it...

I dunno. I'll go with "undecided" for now, though I'm leaning toward just supporting it. It's highly unlikely that the DMCA will be appealed, so at least its a step somewhat in the right direction. Albeit diagonally.

Second: EFF legal victories since its founding - from the Steve Jackson Games Secret Service raid to the Diebold memos. Has EFF won every case? No. Few advocacy groups do. But you don't get to throw around statements like "[a]ll their cases have failed miserably" without some facts to back you up. You don't have them.