Slashdot Mirror
Ask Congressman Boucher About Internet Regulations
U.S.Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has co-sponsored an anti-spamming bill, questioned some of the DMCA, and has been asked by at least one online notable to think about a tax credit for Open Source coders. He's also a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus. We can think of no federal lawmaker more qualified to give us insight into the nitty-gritty of the legislative process, especially as it relates to the Internet. Our usual interview rules apply: post your questions below (one question per post, please), we'll forward 10 - 12 of the highest-moderated ones to Rep. Boucher, and will post his answers next week.
Congressman Boucher, how do you feel about Caleb Jaffa pouring multiple bowls of piping hot grits down his pants?
Seriously, this is not a troll.
Thank you!
Every debate that comes down the pike, from Napster to DeCSS linking to DMCA anti-circumvention to Scientology to ad naseum, seems to have at its root the perversion of the purpose of copyright from protection "for a limited time" of the rights of the authors/creators to the effectively perpetual restrictions primarily for the benefit of corporate entities. Is it not time to fundamentally realign copyright law with the Constitution?
The internet is quite possibly THE most cost effective way a representative has to reach their constituents, yet most hardly use it as more than a way to publish their contact information. If a rep wanted to be truly accountable, they could publish a few words about their recent votes, and why they feel they made the best decision possible for their district/state/etc. In my opinion, a representative who made decisions that were really in the best interest of their constituents - and repeatedly told them WHY those decisions where in their best interests - would be nearly impossible to defeat in reelection, yet most representatives don't do this.
My questions for you are these: Why do you feel most representatives aren't making more use of the internet to stay close to their constituents, what do you see being necessary to change this, and when do you think we can expect to see change come about?
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Posted by jak1320:
This is no different than a sales and use tax paid on an in-state purchase. If a retailer does not exist within your state, then you should not pay that retailer any tax. States like Wisconsin and Ohio have recently implemented voluntary reporting of sales and use taxes owed on out-of-state purchases. This is because the internet has greatly increased the number of purchases on which no sales and use tax is paid to the state in which the product will be used. However, the voluntary reporting of the sales tax does not only apply to internet sales. It also applies to mail-order and phone-order sales.
Regarding nomenclature, voluntary and trust taxes have existed for a long time. The sales and use tax charged by retailers is a trust tax, because consumers and the state are trusting retailers to report and pay the required tax in a timely manner.
Posted by jak1320:
this would only be a tax on interstate commerce if the sales and use tax applied only to commerce from other states, and not commerce within ohio. it is, however, merely an effort to collect taxes for items bought on which a sales and use tax has not already been collected
Why does it seem that laws passed on technological issues favor the corporations, and not the individual? Is this just perception, or is it truth?
Technology is a great opportunity to set us free, as people, across the world. Why does our government of the people, for the people, by the people pass laws that protect corporate interest (DMCA, and UCITA on the state level)? And why isn't more done to promote public participation in discussion of this kind of legislation?
Sorry for the loaded questions-- but it does *seem* the government favors business over personal freedom.
- tony
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The thinking is that medics come for the injured and, then you shoot them with real guns...
The thinking is that by injuring an enemy soldier rather than killing him, you not only take him out of the fight, but you also force the enemy to expend resources (i.e. 2 people to carry him away, medical supplies, doctors) to care for him.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I seriously hope that this very loaded question doens't make the cut. I'm not sure what Mr. Boucher's opinions are on gun issues, but I would rather keep the discussion on the topic of IP and Internet regulation rather than going off into more controversial and less productive topics.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
It does no such thing. It simply rewards the contributions made by individuals and corporations to the public. Even if, by providing this benefit to the public, it lessens their ability to make a profit, I still see nothing wrong with the tax credit. The tax credit and the benefit to the public cancel each other out. What is left is a business that may be only marginally profitable, or not profitable at all, but that's not a problem. Hell, our tax dollars are used to fund private research and whatnot all the time. Why not use that money for something that we will actually see a return on?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Fixing one guy's car is not the same as coding a software package that can be used by millions. If Bob created new car parts through some mystical means that required only minimal overhead costs and his own time, but could be given to everyone who wanted them, then I think a tax credit might be in order.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think it's an extremely relevant topic. This isn't just about Napster, that's a very small-picture view of things.
I think one of the main reasons that many people don't respect copyright anymore is because they see it for what it has become, a tool for corporations to retain perpetual control over information and creative works. The public has no interest in that, and it was not the intent of copyright to allow such a thing. If the government is going to enforce an artificial and arbitrary period of control over information, there had better be a public benefit from it. That benefit has been legislated out of existence. People are right to be pissed off about that. I think people understand that copyright, as it exists today, is wrong, even if they don't consciously know exactly why. That's why millions of people don't seem to have any moral qualms about downloading copyrighted music.
Personally, I'd like to be able to contribute directly to the artist (or at least a lot more directly). I buy CDs from artists on MP3.com. I go to concerts and buy their merchandise. It's not the artists I have a problem with. It's the exploitive and overly controlling recording industry that I have a problem with.
They've got their system established where they control the radio airwaves through bribes to the stations to get the music they're promoting played more. Radio stations can't play whatever they want anymore. The creativity is gone. Now it's all about the money. Stations have to make the money to stay competitive. The record labels have the money. The stations sell out to the record labels or they die. The big station owners managed to all but kill the FCC's plan to allow low-powered stations to exist and maybe bring us something other than the same 20-30 songs in constant rotation. There is still some hope that the low-powered stations will eventually get their chance, but they are facing a tough battle.
In the end, what it comes down to is a decision about who gets to control information, creative works, and culture, and how long and how much they get to control them. If copyright were reduced to its original 14 year term, perhaps people would have more respect for it. I know I would. As it stands today, with copyrights lasting longer than a human life, they might as well be perpetual. Nothing has transitioned into the public domain in decades. The public is not benefitting. As long as people recognize that copyrights exist like this because of corporate lobbying and no longer serve the public, they will not feel any guilt or remorse for violating those copyrights. If it's done on a large enough scale (Napster scale), this kind of civil disobedience could eventually help change the laws of this country. Let's just hope that the people of this country still have the power to stand up to the corporations of this country.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Great question. I've wondered it myself quite a few times. I've always assumed the answer was that the reps really don't want to explain why they vote the way they do. It's easier to just kiss babies, shake hands, and spew rhetoric to get reelected than to actually be accountable for how you vote. Then there's the fact that some legislation, even important legislation (case in point, the DMCA) are passed by a voice vote, with no record left of who voted which way for the law. I think that is positively criminal, but it happens. I'd like to see something done about that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem is not that someone will copyright it after it becomes public domain in the US, the problem is that if the US has a shorter term length than Europe, nobody will copyright works in the US. They'll copyright them in Europe instead. This creates a standoff between the US and Europe. The US can say, "We only honor copyrights for 14 years." Then the EU says, "Well if you won't honor our copyrights for our full 90 year (for example) term, then we just won't enforce US copyrights here at all!" Then the US says, "Fine, then we won't enforce EU copyrights here either!" Then we end up with a really ugly situation. What needs to happen is that we need to convince our government to convince other governments that copyrights last too long now and that we should have a much shorter term for them. Unfortunately, with so much money at stake, I fear the kinds of heinous crimes that will probably be committed to prevent such a thing from happening.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Look, you're not subsidising the business. Open Source software that is freely available to the public is a good thing, regardless of whether or not a company finds a way to profit from it. A company gets a tax credit for donating computers, money, etc, to a charity. Why not for donating a software program to the public? It doesn't necessarily mean the money will have to be taken from someone else either. That's up to the government, and ultimately us as voters, right? I'm sure we'll all grieve that some Senators' pet projects will have to find funding elsewhere, but we'll survive.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As you know, copyright term lengths have grown incredibly since they were first established. Given that copyright was intended to benefit the public by making more works available to the public, how can a term length longer than most human lives be justified? Isn't this basically as bad as a perpetual copyright, especially in light of the fact that every time the leading edge of copyrighted works are about to become public domain, major copyright holders lobby Congress to extend the terms again, even retroactively?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
. . . in other words, he's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"A single bullet placed right where it needs to be is much, much more valuable than 50 sprayed in the general area."
- apparently, you've never heard of "supressive fire".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
about all the bible says about fair use, is that you can (and should) copy the bible, and spread His word, but if you change one bit of it, add to it, or subtract from it, you're fucked.
I guess the council of nicea is probably looking at some hard time in the hot room.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??)
I had no idea.
So I went to the Federal Highway Administration's web site (www.fwha.dot.gov) and found out that there are 43,000 miles of interstate they maintain, and they have a budget of $4.073 billion dollars allocated for interstate maintenance. So I did a little calculation.
Assumptions:
A lane is ten feet wide.
Everyone on the gold-paving project is working for free. The entire infrastructure costs nothing. The *only* cost is the cost of the raw materials (i.e., gold).
Values:
Cost of gold: $260/oz
Miles of interstate: 43000
Dollars available: 4073000000
43000 mi (of highway) * 5280 (feet per mi.) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) * 10 (feet wide lane) * 12 (in per ft) * 2.54 (cm per in) = approximately 2109270620160 square centimeters total in the Interstate Highway System
4073000000 (budget) * (1/260) (oz per $) * 480 (g per oz) * (1/19.3) (cc per g) = 389605415.811 (cc)
389605415.811 (c^3) / 2109270620160 (cm^2) = .00018471096 cm thick
Yes, folks, that is about two millionths of a meter thick. Damn those wasted dollars.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
I'm the lobbiest lobbyist!
Causation can cause correlation
I am refer to the subtitle of this article that suggests that our government should provide tax credits to companies engaged in Open Source development.
In light of the recent relevations that many of these Open Source companies are not now, nor appear to ever, be profitable. It seems like this suggestion punishes companies and individuals who have chosen a business model which is self-sustaining by promoting unfair marketplace competition.
Is it really the goal of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the market place?
As one of your constituents, I would like to ask if Congress took into account that the action of enacting the DCMA would prevent people from enjoying the movies that they bought (as well as audio CDs from some recent comments from the RIAA).
I have also noticed that the Cable companies would like to restrict cable subscribers from taping shows that they would like to see. How are they getting by with this considering Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios.
So my question is this: What do you think about the new abilies of the TV studios, Movie Studios and Recording Studios to control when/how/where we can view the items that we purchased and how do most of your colleagues feel about this?
--
There seems to be more and more of an attitude in the Capitol to pass laws like the CDA, DMCA, etc. without a thought of their constitutionality -- lawmakers seem to be taking a "let the courts sort it out" approach.
The problem with this, apart from its mockery of "congress shall make no law...", is that it leaves the law in limbo for the months or years that it can take to get a final judicial ruling on the law's constitutionality. We won't have final word on which bits of the DMCA pass constitutional muster, for instance, for quite some time, even though a lot of us have projects or even livelihoods that depend on that outcome.
What can we do to discourage congress from ignoring the Constitutional import of its actions and leaving us in legal limbo waiting for the courts? What sorts of arguments can convince ppolitical parties and elected officials to listen to the Constitution as much as they listen to their donors and constituents?
--G
To call Carl Malamud's proposed tax credit a subsidy is a bit of hyperbole, and clearly intended to inflame the community. Nevertheless, it's important to set the record straight.
The tax credit Carl proposes doesn't subsidize open-source coders any more than the various deductions offered to business, large and small, subsidize them. It's a deduction. If it passed, and I spent a thousand dollars ($1000) on a computer to use in open-source coding, I wouldn't have to pay taxes on that thousand dollars. Depending on my tax bracket, in order to buy that computer without being able to deduct its cost, I might have to make up to fourteen-hundred dollars ($1400), just so I can give a thousand ($1000) to the computer company and four-hundred ($400) to Uncle Sam.
Now, Uncle Sam isn't giving me that four-hundred dollars. He's just agreeing not to take it from me as long as I'm using the money for open-source work.
This whole idea is important because many open-source coders don't want the hassle or overhead of creating a business entity just to be able to deduct the expenses involved in delivering code to the community. I, for example, would not benefit from this credit at all, because I already have a sole-proprietorship established under which I do all of my consulting and open-source work. All Carl's proposal does is extend what people like me can do to ordinary folks who just want to write code and don't care about generating income and revenue from it.
I think he means going to a voting booth at a registered voting location, and using their computer (connected to the internet), rather than the current analog methods. I don't think he was referring to voting from home.
Work is for people who lack the imagination to play.
I don't know what exactly it is called, I'm not an accountant either but I was informed that it was new for this year and it specifically applied to Internet purchases.
This year, in my home state of Ohio, the legislation introduced a "Voluntary" tax on Interenet purchases. That is, I can tell them that I purchased X amount of books online and they'll tax me accordingly.
Even though this tax is "Voluntary" I have been informed by my accountant that I have to pay this tax, reguardless. Thereby, my state is taxing purchases that were made "out of state" as it were.
My question is, how do you feel about taxation of the internet, specifically "Voluntary" ones like the State of Ohio has implemented?
Hi yourself, george, ethereal here.
Perhaps if you didn't WRITE in a collection of words that ARE randomly all caps or ALL LOWERCASE, and avoided THE ad hominem attacks, YOU would be more likely to not appear to be a TROLL.
Thanks! (p.s. damning the Bible probably isn't scriptural either, george :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Does your office actually respond to email in a meaningful way other than the obligatory email autoresponse?
Why in your opinion are dead trees still a more viable method of getting heard by representatives and senators?
This subject was addressed to some extent in a recent article here on slashdot
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Nit Picking, but I believe that EBCDIC pre-dated ASCII. If not, they certainly started at nearly the same time. IBM introduced EBCDIC for it's 360 line, and if ASCII came out at about the same time, the machine designs had probably been finalized years earlier.
Also, I don't believe that IBM kept others from using EBCDIC.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You can say what you'd like about the man, but Congressman Boucher is fighting the good fight on this one, even if you don't agree with his politics. At least show some respect for the man, he's gotten to the point where his opinion matters.
I'm guessing that not too many people take you seriously if you sprinkle "egg-sucking" into your political rants.
The DMCA is an atrocity and I'll happily back anyone who has the nerve to to stand up to the corporations that are trying to take this country over.
Also, you might want to do some research before you sing praises to John Warner. You'll note that John Warner voted for the "Flag Desecration Amendment", and obvious attempt to even further limit free speech in this country by limiting criticism of the United States. You will note that Rick Boucher did not vote for this Amendment.
Maybe you should write a letter to Warner and ask him to start standing up for your rights once in a while instead of doing his best to pass legislation to take them away.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
I know the DMCA does not recognize computer code as protected free speech, which is why I asked the question.
Sure, code is just instructions, but so are recipes, and I haven't seen any cooking books banned recently. Books about step-by-step drug manufacture, lock picking, and weapon creation are protected by free speech laws as well, and these books are no more than instruction sets.
Instructions are legal, even if following them isn't.
As far as the DMCA is concerned source code is NOT a creative work
Look at who is backing this law, it sure isn't programmers! The intent of this law, I believe, is clearly biased toward large corporations and serves their interests at the cost of the people's freedom. Of course the DMCA doesn't recognize source code as a creative work, it doesn't benefit them to do so.
Big money has perverted the government's intentions to give copyright holders some protection on the Internet into a law creating a full-blown digital police state without even marginal protection for the software infrastructure that holds it all together.
That is the problem with the DMCA.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
Congressman Boucher--
I applaude your questioning of some of the facets of the DMCA, and as a resident of Virginia, I am quite proud that an elected official from my state is one of the first to question these overly restrictive copyright laws. Your fight for the people will not go unnoticed.
I have a question pertaining to uncompiled code and freedom of speech. My understanding is that source code is just language, like that of an essay or poem. Essays and poems cannot (for the most part) be "banned" by the government as they are First Amendment protected speech.
How is it that high-powered organizations like the MPAA have won lawsuits against web sites that have done nothing more than make a link to uncompiled code? Aren't these sites and the programmers that wrote the code protected under First Amendment free speech?
Thank you for your time, efforts, and hopefully your answer.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
Assuming your talking about a gun, it's not made for the express purpose of killing a human being. There is also hunting, which is legal (and actually a good thing when moderated), and target shooting is pretty darned fun. Can it kill a human? Sure...so can a car or anything else for that matter. It's all how you use it.
Hey...technically you could kill a man with a DVD, although that could get pretty messy.
Dude, you can't use quotes like that.
Simple: Get Slashdot to interview them, post a message, and get it moderated up to 5.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
What I would like to know is how we as normal citizens can let your collegues know that we want the DMCA fixed? Besides writing my representives, what can I do as Joe Citizen to help get this issue the attention it deserves?
> The M16 and the AR15 are automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles actually designed to injure.
Perhaps that's part of it, but I think the biggest motivator in the historical adoption of assault weapons is the lowered minimum standard for the quality and training of the soldier who uses them. During the latter part of WWII lots of countries were dredging the bottom of their manpower reserves and having to rush the draftees to the front without sufficient training, so there was lots of appeal to the idea of a weapon that just sprays lead everywhere rather than requiring an elevated degree of marksmanship in the bearer.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Congressman, I think that most people on Slashdot feel that their opinions are not widely known, or understood in Washington. What do you feel is the best way to inform our representatives of how we feel? It seems like writing a letter isn't any good without a significant campaign contribution. Is there a better way?
The main problem with at home voting is that you don't have the same level or privacy. I'm not talking about hackers, I'm talking the potential for a relative to look over your shoulder and see who you vote for, while exiting from a voting booth, you can always lie. If you think about the implications, and the exponitial effect of millions of controlling relatives/spouces/parents, this could create serious problems. So until we can vote with thought recongnition private devices, I wouldn't support such an idea.
If all of the cost and security questions surrounding internet-based voting suddenly went away (i.e., it was cheaper and just as secure as, well, butterfly ballots), what would be the next obstacle to overcome? Do you think politicians would really be open to making voting easier, or would this get the same lip service as campaign finance reform?
Thanks!
Brent Ozar
What's your damage, Heather?
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I will agree to screwing the Dems, the party is rooted in a statist philosophy. The Republicans, while surely straying off course, are not a lost cause. At the root Republicans are libertarians. This is the party that freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote, it has in the past and still does holds as core value economic and personal freedom. Admittedly there are many Republicans for whom this does not hold true, and they need to be pushed back. Libertarians should join the Republican party in hopes of turning it around rather than abandoning it as a lost cause.
The citizenry will never be sufficiently aware of technical issues. It is best to elect representatives who are.
Most people, when envisioning the various dystopic futures our web-wired world can lead us to, are afraid of the internet and its ability to increase the government's ability to monitor and control its citizenry. In practice, however, it has been the corporate sector that has been pioneering the invasion of privacy with various monitoring tools developed for purposes that at first seen innocuous, but which grow more worrisome with reflection. Likewise, corporations have begun to exert increased control over what is said about them on (and off)line through SLAPP suits and other "legal" means. What do you propose to do about corporate spying on the individual citizen, and its cousin, corporate censorship of critical speech on the internet?
Think Different
Current policies have tended to concentrate on the protection of copyright grantees (e.g. protection from having their product undercut by counterfeiters) without regard to the fair use rights of consumers (e.g. the right to make copies of purchased recordings for backup or to use them in different devices, such as transferring CD tracks to an MP3 player). What policies would you favor to protect both?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Write the descriptions on $100 dollar bills.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I am concerned about the on-going attack against the public's rights under copyright law.
1. The Legislature recently passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, extended copyrights to far beyond the "limited times" mentioned in the Constitution. This act does not "promote... useful arts"; it promotes individual gains. Disney has borrowed greatly from the Public Domain and returned nothing. Bach's heirs didn't expect to be rich from their father's work; they wrote their own. Art and science used to belong to the people (after 28 years). Now it belongs only to the richest corporations. No works produced after 1910 have entered the public domain because the term keeps getting extended. A society with
no Public Domain art is bankrupt.
2. The Courts have recently upheld the portions of the DMCA that prohibit "circumvention devices". In effect, these provisions remove our "fair use" rights under copyright law to produce critical reviews, parodies, and scholarly derivative works. There is also no provision for the release of protected works when the copyright expires.
3. The FCC (part of the Executive Branch) has approved the use of "content protection" as part of the broadcast HDTV specification. This ruling destroys the public right to record broadcasts and view them at our leisure (a right upheld by the Supreme Court in the Betamax case).
Is seems that all three branches of our government have turned against us. What can we do take back our rights under copyright law, without breaking the law?
--
My word processor was written by Stanford Professor Donald Knuth. Who wrote yours?
Well, seeing as how the citizenry are where our representatives come from, what hope have we got of getting techno-savvy persons in office??
/."
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
First you seem to have many reservations concerning the DMCA. However, do you think we are better off with it? Candidly, would you rather see the DMCA amended in the manner you propose, or would you rather see the DMCA abolished completely?
Secondly, you support the "fair use doctrine" and also feel that methods to circumvent protection measures such as CSS should not be criminalized; at least in as much as the goal of such circumvention is within the spectrum of fair use. You also support watermarking and other methods to protect the copyrights of digital media with the reservation that the rights of home recording rights are not impeded.
However, both digital (CSS) and traditional analog (macrovision) protection schemes are fallible. Clever individuals can circumvent them, either for illicit purposes or not. Decriminalizing methods to circumvent these "protection schemes" does little to protect the copyright holder's interest outside the scope of current law (not in the DMCA). Would your proposed amendments to the DMCA protect from prosecution *any* individual who devised a circumvention method (for any purpose) and distributed it freely. A prime example of this is software such as the DeCSS.
This is of course, assuming they are not guilty of other infractions that do not fall within the scope of the DMCA with regard to creating or distributing a circumvention method.
Spyky
Sir, with respect to the FBI's deployment of DCS1000 (formerly known as Carnivore), is there some technical reason why the emails harvested by this system cannot be narrowly limited? In other words, if the FBI can get a warrant to search specific location involved in a criminal investigation, why can't this system be limited to only searching specific email being sent or received by a certain account Instead of filtering the enatire mailstream of a given ISP?
We're through being cool! Eliminate the ninnies and the twits! -Devo
If this is true, then ignore the question, the reading I had been doing suggested that it winnowed through the entire email feed.
We're through being cool! Eliminate the ninnies and the twits! -Devo
Given the recent extensions of copyright and patent protections, both in time and in scope, and the indefensible behavior of the offices of the Government charged with administering those systems in granting overly-broad patents and excessive copyright renewals, will Congress act to reform the intellectual property system in the United States?
Thank you for your time.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
they don't... what they do is they decide on how the internet can be used within the United States...
The vast majority of the readers of slashdot are in the US, so its quite relevant to ask questions of a man who has direct influence on what we can and can't do in the united states.
Besides, whether you like it or not, if one country starts making laws about how to regulate the internet, other countries may very well take the success or failure of those initiatives into account when they make their own laws... so this should be relevant to you too.
-- Point? None! Cob.
Since the internet is a global phenomena, a global resource, a truly profound asset for humanity regardless of class, creed, race, or heritage, the question before any regulation is even considered should be "How does this regulation serve the whole of humanity?".
Were this question to be answered in the affirmative, then the world would agree, and applaud the action.
The internet has united humanity worldwide. This must be understood and acknowledged before any actions are even considered.
Given the above, my question is this: What are your considerations prior to deliberations on internet related issues?
Great Replace Microsoft with Source Forge. Don't let socialists like Boucher confuse the issues. I am all for open source. Don't let the government corrupt it with the money they raise from for-profits.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Would it make sense to say that corporations have the "right to the pursuit of profit"? Or would saying that make corporations more powerful than they are now? (What has the "pursuit of hapiness" clause meant for the specific rights of individuals?)
The shareholder is always right.
What if the laws were not passed for corporations, but for individuals? That then would include corporations and individuals in the same group.
A business has a right to be paid. An individual has a right to be satisfied (pursuit of happiness is a serious issue not the butt of jokes its been in the past).
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I hope this sort of question makes it to the "cut list" for this interview!
[
You know, this is something I really don't understand. The law doesn't say you can't be a monopoly; it just says that if you are a monopoly, then there are additional things you can't do. The governments' case is that Microsoft is a monopoly, and they did do those things.
So what if we get another monopoly ? Maybe the next one will actually obey the law. If there must be a monopoly, at least it will be a law abiding one.
In the abortion debate, Roe v. Wade used privacy rights derived from the Bill of Rights as a legal foundation from which freedom of choice could be defended. What specific portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights do you see as focal points for constructing a legal framework that protects individual privacy in the years ahead?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
As far as the Internet encouraging participation in government, do you see representatives becoming obsolete in the future? Why can't we just have permanent polling places where you can stop by once a week/month and vote on the issues that would normally be decided by representatives. We have a medium that would allow everyone to participate directly, why not use it? What do you think about the feasability of such a system from a political standpoint? (all technical details aside) It seems like this would solve almost all kinds of corruption, etc.
State-run certification authority in US can prevent the growing monopoly of VeriSign and also can give a good example for other countries (including mine) to do likewise.
Be sure you have this straight: Congressman Boucher supported the anti-spamming bill, so he is in favor of massive government regulation of the internet. He believes that the government has the right to tell people who can send mail to whom, and what the content of the message should be. He wants more government regulation of the internet, wants to take more rights away from the users, and hopes to make the government have bigger, more overreaching control of the internet.
Hardly a relevant topic. The main source of copyright controversy on the internet is Napster, and almost all of the violations committed on Napster are with recently copyrighted material. Nobody's getting rich off old copyrights from the 1920's or 1930's - 99% of stuff being traded on Napster is from the past couple of years. The length of copyright is not an issue at all in the matter.
The appeals court main concern in the Microsoft remedy was that we're just replacing one monopoly for another.
The prevailing software business model is unique with it's "proprietary lock-in". Assuring lack of competition in software applications.
Proprietary formats, standards, protocols, etc... lead to the "software vendor lock-in". Microsoft didn't invent this... they were doing ASCII along with everyone else when IBM was doing EBCDIC (Later, of course, MS with their monopoly would do TrueType while everybody else had already standardized to Postscript). They're also not the only software vendor to do this: every Unix consortium is comprised of vendors using one hand to shake, the other to stab in the back (trying to get others to abide by the standard, while they proprietarily create modifications to the standard).
Open source has a chance to create a level, standards based, playing field. Allowing true, balanced, competition.
When Compaq, and others, reverse engineered the IBM PC Bios, the PC revolution was ignited: anybody could make a motherboard or an adapter card, or memory (The MS OS and the Intel CPU were the only proprietary pieces left atop this open hardware platform). The prices came down, the innovation moved at record pace.
But, even if the current "proprietary lock-in" paradigm ends, the patent office, in granting frivilous software patents, may be providing the next lock-in paradigm.
Can and will congress legislate and mandate the proper regulations aimed at the software industry to end the "proprietary lock-in" paradigm (this also means modifying the DMCA to omit those portions that protect the lock-in) and assure that there are sufficient restrictions in the patent laws to limit the number and scope of software patents?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
IMHO, this is the most important issue facing our nation at this point in time. If America cannot get this straight, how much more difficult to raise such issues in countries where suppression of dissent is overt.
This is not merely a matter of defending old-economy business models in the internet era; code-as-speech can be regarded a baseline necessity for the defense of our political freedoms in future.
illegitimii non ingravare
decode and view
Haven't we got enough trouble with the semantics of this issue already?
illegitimii non ingravare
Whoever moderated this as a "troll" is full of shit. This is a perfectly valid question, you just can't take it because of who is asking the question.
Grow up, you shouldn't be trusted with moderator points.
Oh, this is just lovely. Would this be one of the Reps who doesn't understand bits and bytes?" Must be, since yesterday that was all of them, according to CmdrTaco.
No questions for the Rep. I'll leave that to the US folks.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I am becoming increasingly frustrated as a citizen trying to explain technology issues to my Minnesota representatives. I never hear any responses from them, and I certainly have no indication that I will ever be heard unless I become a lobbiest. My question is, how can people who understand technology issues get in touch with, educate, and explain points of view to their elected officials?
While representatives' votes are certainly a matter of public record
Not for an anonymous voice vote; both the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act[?] and the DMCA were passed this way. What are they supposed to record publicly, the decibel levels of the ayes and nays?
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
in the USA is it legal to possess a piece of equipment designed to kill a human being but it's illegal to possess a piece of software designed to copy the content of a DVD?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
The 7.62, .30-06, 7MM, and the similar WWI - era rifle calibers were designed to allow accurate aimed fire out to 1000 Meters. This is far more range than is neccessary according to modern tactical doctrine. By using a smaller-caliber round that is effective out to 200m, an infantryman can carry FAR more ammo (and other gear) due to the lighter weight of both the rifle and ammunition. This is the real reason the US adopted the 5.56mm round. The wound characteristics it produces was a negligible deciding factor in the adoption of the M-16 as the official US service rifle. Note that the US still uses 7.62 for sniper rifles, machine guns, and any other application where 1000m range is needed.
Personally, I prefer the 7.62 russian (short) for civilan use. It has better range and stopping power than the 5.56 NATO. It's good for medium size game (deer) and ammo is pretty cheap, allowing for frequent practice. The Remington Mini-30 is a very nice all-purpose rifle.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Ruger, not Remington, makes the Mini-30. Brain fart...
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
I believe it is quite relevant, as copyright covers much literature that has been written in the 50s-present era which is not in print any more and not making money, but yet still is controlled by publishing conglomerates. I for one have to sit down when I think that, if copyright existed back past the turn of the century (the last one), then I would not be able to read Shakespeare, Norris, or other great authors without paying upwards of $25 for an edition. Ask yourself why A Tale of Two Cities hardcover book at Barnes and Noble is $6, while the new John Grisham book is priced ON SALE at $29.95. Its because anyone can publish A Tale of Two Cities, not because John Grisham is a whole lot better writer.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
Of course they should. A purchase made on the internet is fundamentally no different than a purchase made via mail order or over the phone.
Since you did the quote thing on 'protections', maybe you're wondering if those 'protections' are fair/legal/constitutional/whatever... ?
--
If you could be so kind to name a single piece of legislation that solved the problems it was meant to address and didn't create others...
What's that? You can't?
Any time government has gotten involved with ANYTHING from pollution, currency, privacy, even the size of holes in Swiss cheese, no net good has resulted.
The government can't deliver our mail on time, can't educate our children, can't keep the roads in good condition (did you know the federal budget allocates enough money to federal highway upkeep each year to pay to pave a single lane of each Interstate in GOLD??) - why would anyone in their right mind trust them to "regulate" the internet, open source, et. al. ??
The only thing the politicians are good at is in being politicians - they don't have the experience or knowledge necessary to get involved with any aspect of the internet.
Christ, Al Gore thinks he invented it, the court system seems to think that file sharing "technologies" are going to put authors / artists out of business (why didn't the Xerox machine, VCR, tape deck, CDR, or even the pencil, for that matter, put these people out of business? They ADAPTED!) and Busch decided he's not going to even use e-mail because of an obvious violation of the fourth amendment...
Let's keep the government out of our lives and our paychecks (I for one am sick of having a portion of my paycheck allocated to fighting and supporting people on different sides of the same issue - it happens with tobacco, the EPA, the IRS etc.)
The D's and R's have simply been bickering over who gets to choose how your money is spent. Screw them both - vote Libertarian
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
A recent article stated that most legislators ignore their incoming e-mail because they get far too much of it to read. How do you think that the Internet could be best used to encourage public participation in government? Do you think that there is a way for many thousands or millions of people to participate without overwhelming our representatives, and without having creative programmers and e-mailers skew perceptions of public desires?
The general trend since the Internet became a mass public resource has been for government to attempt to find ways to monitor people using it (Carnivore for example), to listen in on their communications (Key escrow), or to use the Internet as a means to remove consumer rights in favor of total control by businesses (DCMA). How do you feel about these technologies and laws, and how do you propose to keep the Internet a place where ordinary citizens can communicate and conduct business without giving up the rights that they have in the physical world?
Do you prefer OpenNap or Gnutella based leaching clients?
--
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
I'm not a Statist, and I won't argue about it, but you make us Libertarians look very bad.
I agree that there are two more vaguely similar posts...
/. population wants to know.</rant>
First of all, all three were written within two minutes, so it was unintentional, but that is beside the point.
<rant> One post asks how the internet will affect politics considering that they ignore most emails, which, in my opinion, is a whole new question, and the other one asks how the congressman handles the flood of emails he gets. My question asks how my email will get in front of him. That's what I'd really like to know, and from the previous article yesterday, I think that's what the
I don't care if the vaguely similar post gets asked and mine doesn't, but could you include some of my questions that are on the same line and are more specific?
Especially: what is the best way to write to our congressmen to get our perspective read and to receive a prompt reply?
Honestly, I think all three should be merged into a complex question requiring a nice, solid reply from the congressman.
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
We've been discussing how much email our political leaders get, and how it is usually ignored (with good reason).
My question is what is the best way to write to our congressmen to get our perspective read and to receive a prompt reply? Is it better to write a letter, or is email finally finding its nich in politics? What are your stipulations that must be met before you actually read inquiries from constituents?
Please pardon my poor spelling skills (I am an engineer, not a writer).
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Are all the good Christian people now sitting in Congress fully aware of how (C) law helps those cultist loonies at Scientology silence their critics? Coulnd't all these ugly cases be used as an efficient arguing point in Congress?
Do you think there will ever be the kind of grants for coders that artists enjoy? I think that the open source community deserves some sort of government support for all the work that it's giving away.
Would you mind reading the following into the Congressional Record at your earliest convenience? Thanks.
,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
;( F=(S=O>>14&7^O)
:0,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D>>=8
#!/usr/bin/perl
# 472-byte qrpff, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-iap-dvd@mit.edu>
# MPEG 2 PS VOB file -> descrambled output on stdout.
# usage: perl -I <k1>:<k2>:<k3>:<k4>:<k5 > qrpff
# where k1..k5 are the title key bytes in least to most-significant order
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT ="C*",_) [20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>1 2^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E&
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^=R^=11 0&(S=(unqT,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);E
^=(72,@z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12
)+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D -HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
sulli
RTFJ.
The 5.56mm round of the M16 is able to kill very well. But next to The 7.62 of the M14 or the .3030 of the M1 or the .303British if the British Infield it is a wimp. Fast at first yes but not the long-range killer of old. It was designed to wound more than kill. Yes you want to wound your enemy not kill them for the reasons listed before. As for the Flipping aspects of 5.56 it will kill and cause damage but less than a fast big round like the 7.62. A M14 round will hit so hard it can and will kill by the shock wave it causes through the body. Most people are effetely dead before they hit the ground. As for the m16 if kills well at short range when the round is true and fast, but unlike the M14 but it quickly slows down once it starts to Tumble and will make for a very nasty wound that is often faille. I think the 5.62 is a good Idea it is smaller so you can pack more of them it is good at close in but it will not go for miles and miles and miles if it does not hit its intended object. Always a good thing.
I know Jim Allchin's comments do not seem important to many of you readin this post but remember how we laughed at the dmca opponents?
I figured, ya right. Whats next, hollywood and the RIAA would sue us for copyright infringment for playing dvd video's or listening to mp3's? Come on and get real.
The very scary thing is that is exactly what happened. If Ms sucessfully lobies congress, Linux and apache may be outlawed to protect Microsoft's interests. Mod him up and if McCain's campaign finiance reform bill never comes into existence we can all remember his post when Linus is arrested and slashdot is ordered by a federal judge to install w2k/IIS to run slashdot.
http://saveie6.com/
The increase of free-access communication creates "virtual communities" in which a special interest group (say, Open Source Supporters) can congregate. However, since representation is distributed by district, this group has difficulty being represented since it may lie in the minority in many voting districts.
;)
Do you think the possibility of the creation of region-less senators or represenatives exists?
Except in the case of local or state govenments, it seems unnecessarilty arbitrary to elect representatives by state.
AFAIK, it'd be easier to get region-free DVD players than representatives.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Try telling a salesman, "Most of you guys cheat the customer" and see what kind of service you get.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
It appears to me that the public-at-large's perception is that the sole use of DeCss is to make illegal copies of DVD content (if they're aware of it at all). It certainly is the popular medias and many politicians perception. I've read in the press, a number of times, that DeCss is used to de-crypt DVDs. While this is true, the connotation is wrong. Only twice can I recall that it was written that DeCss was used to create software to play DVDs.
There seems something profoundly unfair in allowing an industry to sell a product in the marketplace and place restrictions on it's lawful use. I can't understand what the movie studios have to gain from limiting HOW their content is played.
Is it your belief that DMCA was applied correctly in this case? If not, what changes to DMCA would you like to see being made and how much support from other legislators do you have?
With the recent story on the flooding of emails to representatives, I want to know how you deal with that flood? Do you rate snail mail a higher priority than email?
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
Today, people may argue with a lot of the laws being passed but it seems to me that at least lawmakers now understand what it is that they're trying to control - that it's not television and that it's not inside the United States. Is that perception correct? Do most members of the House and Senate at least have a rough idea of what the internet is? Do all of them at least have a high-ranking staffer who does?
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
What is your opinion on taxing products purchased via the internet? Should they be given the same 'protections' and standing as mail-order purchases?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Sir,
Do you still feel that the congress represents the opinions of the American people as a whole, or has it strayed into power for it's own sake. I ask this, as I look at the taxes taken directly out of my paycheck, because it adds up to sums that the government could NEVER collect from people if they didn't take it away from us before we even get it.
-Spackler
First off the weapons you are talking about are the same, one is the military version that has a 3 round burst setting(M-16A2 the only one in production.) As far as designed not to kill, the 5.56mm(.223) is one of the deadliest rounds made. It's short and light weight, so once it impacts its target it will flip end over end. Most rifle rounds will pass thought causing very little tissue damage. This is a weapon that IS designed to kill. In war you don't want to wound your enemy, a wounded person can still kill you!
Greetings,
How do you feel on-line privacy should be addressed?
Through guidelines, or legislation and regulation? If the latter, what would you like to see included in such legislation and what type of enforcement mechanism should be used to maintain such laws?
Thank you,
-nowt
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
Why does the U.S. Government feel that it needs to impose restrictions and regulations on something that it has no controll over? How can we pass laws that will not be relevent to many of the people that they would supposedly affect? We would have to be one unified governing body acting as mankind and not as individual countries to restrict or govern an organism like the Internet.
---> suck it
As a resident of another country - also a so-called democracy - I've been watching with positive alarm as US citizens' rights get further and further eroded by big business interests. Any advice for the rest of the world's geeks? Should we just be pumping out code and documentation that makes a mockery of US Law? Or are there more direct ways of voicing our concerns?
...
Yes, there is. First, you have to take off your non-US head that says "don't sue". Put on a US-head that says "sue anything that moves". We don't understand anything else, and will ignore any other methods.
So, sue for your rights. Sue over US corporations using your personal information without your permission, if you're a citizen of the EU or Canada.
Then we'll pay attention and fix the problem.
But not before
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
hi rares marian (george here)
you said:
"a business has a right to be paid"
i would say, now what in the hell. this is NOT true. a business has a RIGHT to OPERATE. it does NOT have a "right to get PAID!!" so say i go into business selling bottles of cat urine or pictures of my wife, i would be a LAUGHINGSTOCK. you are saying that no matter HOW ridiculous my business is, i have a right to get paid. god no, that is not even CLOSE. i will get paid if my business is SUCCESSFUL, if not i will close up shop and move on with my life, THAT is how things work.
-gbd
hi spanish inquisition (george here)
now WHAT in the HELL!! let me see here. this is NOT that hard. defense of ones family is a DECENT thing. it is scriptural. copying a god damn dvd is not even close to the same thing and is DEFINATELY not scriptural. why dont you read your damn bible you friggin moron!!
your bud
-gbd
Microsoftie Jim Allchin has recently stated that he sees the need to 'educate' the federal legislature about what he feels like are the 'dangers' of open source and free software.
Do the majority of legislators have an opinion on open source or free software? If so is this opinion negative or positive. What's the best way advocates of open source software can get their opinions heard when the 'closed source' companies such as Microsoft have so much 'Soft Money' to throw around?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
And secondly, yes, this is exactly how I address a United States Congressman. If the relationship is unclear, allow me to spell it out for you: He works for us, and however much I might like Representative Boucher's enlightened approach to technical issues, I don't feel the need to couch my deep and irate dissatisfaction with the poor practices and performance of the U.S. Congress in genteel terms.
Further, I'm interested to see how he responds - will he dodge the issue, or address it? Whether you're too shy or cowardly to bring it up to a Congressman's face or not, well-monied special interests do buy legislation, and that is a problem. Since I personally get screwed out of tax dollars and civil liberties when this happens, I don't think I'm out of line to bring up the issue in a plain-spoken manner and ask that it be addressed.
That, and today I'm just in the mood to take advantage of the First Amendment while it still exists in substantially it's current form. So go screw, Miss Manners.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Yes, I did. Most of them are. I still don't understand why you think I should be dishonest in my assessment of the performance of people whose services I am paying for. I simply won't lie about it, and I won't treat them like porcelain figurines just because they happen to be elected officials. They put their pants on the same way the rest of us do...
Try telling a salesman, "Most of you guys cheat the customer" and see what kind of service you get.
On the other hand, a good and self-examining Congressperson (or salesman, for that matter) might actually have noted the problem and be willing to take pains to differentiate himself from the pack.
The fact of the matter is, if he's honest and even half wise, then logically he should understand the question, not take it personally and address the issue. If he balks, then that doesn't mean he's dishonest, but might suggest that he hasn't thought through (or does not wish to think through) what is probably the single largest issue that concerned and engaged citizens have with the U.S. Congress.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Thanks for your time,
- Brad Heintz
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Many American citizens, unfortunately, don't have sufficient education or interest to be able to assess how technology legislation affects them, their wallets, and the media they consume, and the mainstream media don't help them understand the technical issues, the legislative process, or the influence of money in politics any better.
My question related to this is: What can the more technically-aware citizenry do to steer the law back to a more reasonable course? How can we convince or coerce our elected representatives into replacing sane limits on copyright, sane policy toward retail taxation in digital markets, and a sane approach to regulating the Internet that recoginizes the opportunites and limitations inherent in the medium?
Thanks,
- Brad Heintz
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
My understanding is that Carnivore already does what you want it to: it catches mail to or from an account which they have a court order to monitor. It's just like looking through real mail with a search warrant.
Scratch-o-Matic
Evil is the money of root.
Recently in the UK, sites have been forced by court ruling to name people who posted 'anonymously' on their sites. These people had not done anything illegal, but had been abusive. Where does the US sit on this issue?
Presumably you force sites to name people who are commiting illegal activity, but can you force a site to name someone who hasn't said anything illegal, but is being defamatory or misleading?
I probably should have posted this as AC...
"God is dead." -Nietsche
If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
I thought the word was: foreign
tsk... only speak one language, and cannot even do that properly. And then say they lead the world into the future...
oh dear...
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Hoping not to offend anyone...
Why does a US politician decide on the internet? I always thought that the net spread beyond the US...
Wouldn't it be good to have global legislation? United Nations maybe(hmmm maybe not)?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
Let me preface this by saying that I respect copyright, and feel that creators deserve a limited period of time to enjoy sole profits from their works. However, it's become obvious that special intrests have corrupted the copyright system to insure that they can receive sole benefits for long after our founding fathers intended. My question for you is twofold: How long do you feel is an appropriate amount of time for copyright protection, and is there legislation pending to fix the problem with copyright?
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
What is your opinion of the "Gore tax", aka the e-rate Internet access subsididy? Specifically, how do you view:
- The fairness of the tax on telephone users;
- The value obtained for the money distributed via the tax;
- The various bills pending to attach strings (such as Internet filtering) to this money?
Would we be better off eliminating the e-rate and getting rid of the subsidies and strings, or is this worth trying to fix the problems while keeping the busybodies in check?--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I think that in the digital world there is a need for verification. Digital signature technology provides a way to solve this problem, as far as it can be solved, but there is still the problem of certification: Someone I trust has to verify that a given signature belongs to the person who claims to own it, otherwise I can't really use it for something important.
We get passports from the state. Do you think we will soon get our digital "identity cards" from the state?
Would you consider a state-run certification agency?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.