Slashdot Mirror
Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad
corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."
Third post?
Count for anything..?
Finally, Fox does real journalism, instead of that crappy "let's put some perky models in front of a camera and have them read the news".
I would be really dissapointed if Hollings is ever re-elected. The point of an elected government is to get rid of those who want to lower our freedom, and this guy is definetly going down that road, and dragging everyone he can with him.
/. all we want, but if we don't send the message in our ballots also, we have given up the battle.
We can rant and rave on
I sincerely hope that the people in his district are well aware of Sen. Holling's attrocities.
Teamwork is a bunch of people doing what I tell them.
Well, the Democrats invented the internet, don't they have the right to regulate it?
You are receiving this message because your browser supports Slashdot Sigs and you have Slashdot Sigs enabled.
I understand that Fox News likes to portray itself as the "alternative" news source, free of "liberal bias" (but only because they wouldn't be able to compete with other real news organizations if they didn't do something to distinguish themselves :) but did anybody else find this article more of a hatchet job than an intelligent article about the SSSCA?
:)
I mean, c'mon, linking to a Wired article and then speaking endlessly about "opportunities for Republicans" doesn't sound like an informative article about the evils of the SSSCA. Maybe they forgot about the other evil crap that John Ashcroft has brought us: the PATRIOT Act, monitoring of cable modems, what have you. It's clear that neither party is wholly clean of messing with our rights, but this article just skews the discussion into endless political ranting. Kind of like this topic will devolve into, I foresee.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
"So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough." ;).
"This partiality is a betrayal of principle."
"Talk about screwing the little guy:"
"denouncing the "spyware" already on Windows Media Player "
{a few snips from the article} Can I get an AMEN! It is now offical, I am becoming a republican.
To bad there a 'cowboynealican' party...
The article only mentions Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and two other Democrats, not the whole party as the article title seems to suggest. Then the article makes a blanket statement about how much money the entertainment industry gave to Democrats (which I will will admit is a little suspicious).
On that note, I'm not defending these Democrats that are in the pockets of the MPAA, et al, but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD.
Nosce te Ipsum
...before it gets Foxed.
Tastes Like Chicken
Few journalists will get the chance to report on the SSSCA - even fewer will understand what it is like this reporter. I often find myself being overly cynical about journalism for a number of reasons, but this article hits the issue right on the head.
Frankly, I'm not so worried about the implications of this legislation. If it passes (unlikely), it'll just get attacked in the House or defeated in the courts if it somehow makes it past Dubya's desk.
It's more that SC (and the US in general) has a gentleman like this steering legislative policy on something that didn't even exist when he was celebrating his 60th birthday. I'm not saying older folks can't learn, but in this case, I think it's safe to say that SC is not going to become a technology center (nor will the United States remain one) as long as its legislators insist on kissing up to interests that have less consideration for the proper deployment of technology than they do for the protection of their short-term revenue streams.
Anyway, God help us all. Fritz is a nice man, but he should be ignored on this issue.
Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., is at it again. Although he represents South Carolina, Hollings is sometimes known as the "Senator from Disney" because of his eagerness to support the interests of the motion picture and record industries and their lobbying arms, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Record Industry Association of America.
Hollings' loyalty to Big Entertainment -- which favored him with contributions of nearly $300,000 in the past election cycle -- was manifested last fall by his championing of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, which would mandate the inclusion of copy-protection in every digital device and every computer operating system.
And Hollings has proved that he is true to his salt, by holding hearings in support of the same idea last week, hearings at which he made no secret of his siding with the entertainment industries and against the interests of consumers.
This might seem odd for a senior member of the Democratic Party, which usually styles itself a friend of the little guy, and it can't simply be explained away as an eccentricity his -- Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected).
And the money seems to be the explanation here. A Wired article on the hearings noted that in the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans.
So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough.
This partiality is a betrayal of principle. As such, it represents a real political opportunity for the Republicans. Democrats do like to portray themselves as the friends of the little guy and the protectors of ordinary Americans against greedy big business -- as demonstrated by their posturing over the Enron collapse. But as Ken Layne pointed out last week, the entertainment industries make Enron's management look like Boy Scouts.
Talk about screwing the little guy: audits of record companies routinely indicate "errors" that are always in the companies' favor. (Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending). Accounting is byzantine enough to make Enron's look simple.
Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount. Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week. And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.
"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" sounds like a pretty good slogan, and it's one that Republicans could use against Democrats nationwide. A few smart Democrats, like Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, realize this. As Boucher puts it, these companies are "seeking to use their copyright not just to obtain fair compensation but in effect to exercise complete dominance and total control of the copyrighted work...I have told the heads of the major labels I think this is a major mistake that will engender a major public backlash." Unfortunately, Boucher seems to be a voice in the wilderness within the Democratic Party, which has forged a symbiotic relationship with the entertainment industries over the past few decades.
But what's bad judgment and betrayal of principle for Democrats is a political opportunity for Republicans, who can capitalize on that "backlash." Imagine this scenario: the Department of Justice investigates the record and motion picture industries for fraud, where artists are concerned, and price-fixing, where charges to consumers are concerned. (There wouldn't be anything bogus about doing so: I mentioned the vulnerability of the record industry to racketeering charges a few months ago at an entertainment-law panel discussion that I was moderating, in the hopes of stirring up a hot dispute between lawyers who represent artists and those who represent record companies. But, strikingly, everyone there agreed that the record companies were vulnerable on this ground.)
Meanwhile, Republican legislators denounce these industries for trying to take control of individuals' computers, denouncing the "spyware" already on Windows Media Player that tracks what you listen to, and promising to outlaw such intrusive technologies in the future. Democrats are left with a choice: side with fatcats, and against consumers and popular artists, or turn on a constituency that has been a major source of campaign funds.
Such an approach would turn the Democrats' greatest political weapons into vulnerabilities. Are the Republicans smart enough to do that?
The Recording Industry Ass. of America and Motion Picture Ass. of America seem to have stepped in it here. Going after people's ability to make mix CDs may finally wake up the general public to their game. The .23 cent royalties on downloaded songs give the lie to their mission to "protect the artists". Saying that music piracy is more important than AIDS makes them look like the self-absorbed pricks that they are.
Is it just me, or do they seem more and more desperate with every passing day?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
FWIW, the "partisan opinion" in question is small-"L" libertarian Republican. What the author is arguing isn't just that the SSSCA is bad. It's that Republicans should take advantage of the fact that Democrats' support for the SSSCA makes Democrats look to be in bed with Big Business. I, for one, find it nice when either of the duopolistic parties adopt pro-freedom positions. It gives me hope that someday they might do so out of principle rather than just because it makes them look good. Is a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know.
Take from the article, for instance:
Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week.
Okay, assume that statement is fully true, and major labels pay radio stations big bucks to play their manufactured hitmaker of the week. This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?
Wrong.
Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'
The same with Hanson, Britney, 98, blah-de-freakin'-blah. Someone's listening to this crap. And you know what? It's trendy to call it crap. But when a radio station, that makes money off ad revenue, has to choose what to play, it's either going to choose the mainstream 'crap', or the indie 'interesting' stuff. The rest of what will happen is left as an exercise for the reader.
Other things pointed out in the article are just plain criminal, however:
Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount
and
And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.
Blame the MPAA for a lot - the DMCA, copy protected CD's, starving artists that sell more than 50,000 records, but not for the bad taste of the little girl down the block.
FOX has a rep for being to the right and this tends to back up that perception.
Many here will love the article because they agree with the conclusion that the law is a bad one but overall the article has little to do with copy right protection.
The author is merely reflecting on poliitical ramifications for the Republicans and Democrats. In the process we see that Washington no longer worries about right vs. wrong- but rather solely on what will bring in votes and or money. Here the democrats have a bit of a pickle because they may have to choose rather than have both.
I remain confident that the American people will be screwed regardless-- while the parties fight over their little kingdoms.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Seriously folks, with the money they are making, the the arguments against them and the turning tide of public opinion on one side and their soft money contributions on the other.... I hope we the public win.....
May be as Chris Sprigman says, this may happen if campaign reform takes place.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
Slashdot, as can be found out by looking at the Presidental poll from the 2000 election, is mostly democrat. Yet, the bad guy in SSSCA is a democrat, and the Republicans for the most part think the bill would wrong the American public.
Republicans help big business! Democrats help the common man! Perhaps we should re-evaluate their views.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
-- Find the Truth...
That is indeed a good slogan. But they could draft Charlton Heston as a spokeman too.
:(
How about:
"Keep your stinking laws off my computer you filthy apes!" (the real "Planet Of the Apes")
"Pop culture is people!" ("Soylent Green")
There have to be some good possibilities from "the Ten Commandments" and "The Omega Man", but I just can't think of them...
It's a pity those quotes couldn't be used while playing the clips from the movie they almost came from - it wouldn't quite make the fiar use criteria.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Clearly the article's main point is slamming democrats and the SSSCA is merely a tool to do that; entirely in keeping with FOX News' basic ultra-conservative viewpoint butt... The points are still basically correct. I'm a resident of CA and the most effective way I can figure to make my point is to send Rick Boucher a few bucks and then tell Barbara Boxer he got her money and if she wants it back she needs to get a clue.
This is all great news anyway - the best way to stay away from corporate ownership of your computer and data is to stop buying their crappy content, which will have the beneficial side-effect of promoting indie artists.
While there's no doubt that the Democrats mentioned in the article are hardly acting with consumers' best interests in mind, it's laughable to believe that Republicans are going to lead the charge in the other direction as the author seems to suggest. Both parties are so in bed with big business that the difference between the two is is like vanilla vs. french vanilla.
C'mon folks... you absolutely have to "follow the money" when looking
for political motivation. From Enron to SSSCA. Nobody should be shocked when
they hear something like this. Its just an extension of the old golden rule...
he who has the gold, makes the rules. Unless the people (perhaps with help from
the hardware manufacturers) vehemently make their views known, there will be
people like this who try to run through legislation designed to screw the little
guy.
We obviously don't count as much in the process. Voters are needed to be elected...
but MONEY is needed to get voters to vote for you. They don't get money from
the voters. Besides... they figure we'll forget and just vote for the incumbent
anyway.
I'm babbling...
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
Come on, DOJ, let's have some RICO investigations of the MPAA and RIAA! Here's a chance to make up for dropping the ball in the MS case..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
-- Find the Truth...
Democrats betrayed their principles?
How could that be???
[/sarcasm]
Do something about it!
t .html
Visit the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_sssca_aler
I used that page to send a few emails to my Congresspeople. And they are listening!! I got this reply from Senator Maria Cantwell:
Dear ---:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.
The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. My staff has been in contact with the Senator Hollings' office, one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens. You may be interested to know that Sen. Hollings held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee to address this issue on February 28 (To view statements and testimony from this hearing, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.htm)
I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the law facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.
At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell United States Senator
If this is not blatent bias I don't know what is. Has anyone watched foxnews with their token liberal here and there and actually thought it was ever purposedly objective? This is an attempt to make rebulicans shine on a issue that touches a group that are mostly apolitical and secondly lean toward the left.
To my question: In other countries as I understand it there is a known bias for the mainstream news organizations in some countries that is open. Does it make news more poignant to come from an openly slanted viewpoint that has the freedom to question relentlessly other viewpoints or is it better to be in world with, psuedo-just the facts sort of news reporting that may use more subtle mechanisms to undercut other's viewpoints?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Not that any of the other bug news channels are either, but Fox News' idea of fair and balanced just means that they tilt right as far
as CNN tilts left.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
What's that? They gunna put lots of soft porn around the article?
How we know is more important than what we know.
"But what's bad judgment and betrayal of principle for Democrats is a political opportunity for Republicans, who can capitalize on that "backlash." Imagine this scenario: the Department of Justice investigates the record and motion picture industries for fraud, where artists are concerned, and price-fixing, where charges to consumers are concerned."
While the entertainments gave the republicans over 10 million, that buys something .. don't ya know!;-).. Most of all the gravey money for their stages elections!!
Its John Kerry from Massachusetts. Dumbass.
And he may be one of the few columnists out there that hates the RIAA as much as the Slashdot crowd.
I thought a little background on him would be appropriate since all the claims of conservative bias and such started being flung around.
-- null
"...Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected)."
Isn't the rule of the Sith that there can be only 1 Master and 1 Apprentice. I see three here.
If you're a democrat, it would seem that you should blame your
representatives.
Which is why the two party system sucks.
Both parties are run by whores. It's the way the
system works. Screw them all. It's idiotic to
assume that a rep or a dem would act any different.
I thought people at slashdot knew this by now.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
Just a quick note for those complaining about how this has a "right" slant to it, it is most likely because it is in the "VIEWS" section of Fox News. Look at the pretty little graphic at the top of the screen, it says it plain as day.
This is a new one for me:
Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount.
Ok, I guess I can understand if they're shipping fragile records. (Still wouldn't you take better precautions?) But CDs? If 15% of the CDs you ship are defective when they reach the consumer's CD player, something in the chain from CD press to consumer needs to be re-examined. Of course, the RIAA isn't *really* claiming that 15% of the sales are of "broken" merchandise, it's just a good way to say: "Hey Mr. Artist, we're only paying you for 85% of the royalties we owe you."
Then again, if they introduce copy-protected CDs in wide release, this breakage number might just skyrocket.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Okay, assume that statement is fully true, and major labels pay radio stations big bucks to play their manufactured hitmaker of the week. This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?
Wrong.
Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'
Wrong.
Think about this: why do people say "I want THIS one!"? I don't know of anyone who trolls the local music shop buying albums because the cover art is keen or because the band has some uber-cool name like "59 Pink Wallabies". People buy records from music stores because they say "Hey - I recognize the name of that band. I heard them on the radio on the way to work yesterday." Give the local "interesting" stuff some air time and their albums (assuming they aren't crap) will go flying off the shelves, too!
philmills
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, will be quoted out of context on
An article like this actually gives me some hope for the usefullness of today's media.
Here we have the biggest media whores of all Fox news, always willing to do anything to further Murdoch's conservative agenda, always willing to suck up to the prez and accuse any one that doesnt of treason.
And yet they actually run an informative article on a subject that is basicly taboo in most mass media.
Of course they did it for all the wrong reasons. They want to attack Hollins who has been quite aggresive pursuing the Enron people.
But still they wrote the article and somehow informed their audience of some important issues. Of course as an anti-SSSCA it is a pretty bad one. It does not really explain what exactly is wrong with the SSSCA. Instead in standard smear campain tactics describes some unrelated wrongdoings of the music industry (well they may be related somehow, but the article doesnt explain why and how).
The whole article is written in an annoying political commentary style, where it says "this may help republicans and hurt democrats", instead of saying "this legislation is bad for us we should not let it be enacted".
Yet i still thing this article is useful, because it brought up the subject in the mass media, an environment where it is basicly taboo.
MOtherboard makers should be forced to release tecnicle data needed to make open bioses. Crappy bios's is attributed to unhappy computing.
I'm in the market for a 150$ and under dollar k7-linux mainboard, which one should I get?
is finally getting main stream attention and you guys are bashing FOX. All news organizations are biased one way or the other. The article I admit is not the best piece of journalism ... but it still is an article in major press about the SSSCA and how really bad it it.
Would the SSSCA apply to government purchased electronics like satellites and electronic military equipment in things like night vision goggles, fighter planes or smart bombs/missiles? I definitly wouldn't want a missile or bomb to hit an enemy area unexploded, and then have our enemies pick apart the electronics to play copyrighted movies and music illegally.
Then I put on a suit, because you can get away with anything if you're wearing a suit. Suits lie.
is the much larger issue. it's not just that our politicians make decisions on theese entertainment industry issues based on who they take money from... it's part of almost every major vote they make. I wonder what Hollings would champion as his cause, if nobody *told* him what causes to pick.
It would be great to see finance reform, it would shake the way theese guys do their jobs up quite a bit, and surely could clean up a bit of the corruption that is present.
Heck i saw a truly telling story at DSLReports last week on the Tauzin-Dingell vote and how it passed based on contributions from the Bells. Is this how we want to choose what laws get passed?
quoting so, those not at -1 can see:
You Americans think that CNN is on the left?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this some kind of joke? Do you really believe that?
The scary part is in America right now, it IS on the left. Really.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
You're screwed.
sulli
RTFJ.
in the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans.
;)
:D
Surprising. I just assumed that the Republicans were sucking down more RIAA/MPAA money than the Democrats. (For the record, i'm an independant, so i'm not trying to criticize one over the other. I hate them equally. [j/k]
Is there a lawyer in the house? Are the RIAA/MPAA actually doing anything illegal, or are they just being generally slimy-yet-law-abiding? If they're actually breaking laws, I say let's skewer them.
Ya know, I ocntinualy write various senators and such on issues like this. Here is what I sent Sen. Boxer (I'm in CA):
I take great offense as a Californian that you support Fritz Hollings and the SSCA. I have been in the music and computer industries in one way or antoher for most of my life. While I agree that 'artists' should get their just royalties, the reality is that they get little compared to the companies and organizations that 'represent' them. The MPAA, RIAA, and Disney are at best case, a sham. They are all self serving and will not stop until they gain control of everyones creative talent. Now that you have joined on to the SSCA bandwagon with, in my point of view, the soul purpose of hijacking my computer (it's bad enough that this already happens in the recording industry itself) so that I cannot make 'copies' - which is totally legal by the way - of music I already *own*! This is outrageous and does NOT benefit the people you serve. Instead, you have joined the long line of politicians and special interest groups looking to serve youselves as well as squeeze every last drop out of anything 'the common man' has. We as a society should place a high value on original, creative, brilliant, and artistic thinkers. Without this, we will be owned by corporations and in the end envelop oourselves. What you support is not sustainable in the long run; we MUST think of the future and what rights our children and future generations will have. In closing I will have to say that I will bring this issue up with friends, family, co-workers and the like and remind them that you are not someone with the thoughts of the average citizen in mind, but someone who has sided with the corporations in the quest for domination and control over all.
One nice thing to think of tho is that if we have the source code, we'll pretty much always be able to bypass. At least there's still some hope...
I am a staunch Democrat and always have been, but on this issue I must agree with the "fair and balanced" Fox news and I bet that most other Democrats would also. On most issues Democrats consistently come out in favor of consumer's rights. You only have to look at historical examples ranging from automobile safety to the breakup of AT&T to realize that the precedent strongly favors the Dems. For the most part we are in favor of government assistance in balancing the playing field (mostly by trying to check the interests of big corporations). The Microsoft trial is a great example. The case was vigorously pursued by the Clinton administration and it looks like the Bush administration is basically giving up on it.
That's why the SSSCA is such an interesting case. It looks and smells very bad indeed when you have prominent Democratic leaders like Hollings, Boxer and Kerry falling in line with the people who gave them huge amounts of money.
The author also tries to compare this to the Enron debacle--please...how many people lost their life savings here... But I do think that they have one thing in common. They are both fabulous examples of why we need meaningful campaign finance reform.
Being Caught with 1 "illegal" copyright work: $25,000
Being Caught 3 years later with an "illegal" copyright work: $75,000
Total: $100,000
For 1000 mp3s: $100,000,000 (100 million)
And according to the SSSCA, an illegal work would be an mp3 of a song on a CD that you yourself bought. Or when the "secure content checker" written about in the SSSCA is on all computers, an illegal work is a work it doesn't recognize, such as a term paper you wrote 5 years ago.
$100,000 for trying to read your own paper.
The Original SSSCA.
Statement of Yakval Enti, spokesman of the MPAA (Mnemonists, Praise-singers, and Anthemists Association) to His Highness Hammurabi, King of Sumeria:
Your Majesty: I wish to call you attention to a severe threat to the security of your kingdom, and the livelihoods of thousands of your subjects.
After Shamash sets and the people kick back after a long day of growing millet, they desire entertainment. Their favorite forms are stories, tales, and sagas, told by the members of the MPAA. Talented boys spend up to 12 years learning the tales by heart at the feet of the masters. Any evening MPAA members can be found in the taverns singing the old tales, praising the praiseworthy, and creating new tales from the old.
This system has worked well since the beginning of time - there were storytellers at your coronation, there were storytellers at your father's coronation, and there were storytellers in the caves of our ancestors.
This natural arrangement is now threatened from an unexpected direction - the scribes and accountants. The geeks' system of recording numbers and quantities has been perverted to freeze speech onto clay.
Understand the threat to our business model. At the moment, if someone wants to hear 'The Tale of the Ox, the Ass and the Sumerian', they find an MPAA member, pay him, and sit back to listen to the whole four hour saga. While anyone could recall and tell others the general outline, only MPAA members know every detail and can give the listener the whole story. If you want to hear it again, you pay again. Thousands of MPAA members rely on this fact for their livelihoods.
With the recent invention of "writing" the system is in danger of collapse. We've found that some scribes are actually "recording" entire sagas onto clay. Any scribe can "read" these out to people for free or for money, complete and word-for-word, without being a member of or paying the MPAA! A scribe who has obtained a set of tablets of an story can even read it an unlimited number of times, or (worst of all) make copies. This is starting to have an economic impact on our membership. Consider Rimat-Ninsun, whose masterwork "The Epic of Gilgamesh" took him three years to create, and who looked to it to put bread on his table into his old age, as he told it for money, or let others tell it under paid license after learning it from him. 'Gilgamesh' is now circulating on 12 clay tablets, and Rimat is starving. Who will bother to create new tales if they are just going to be written down?
"Writing" presents insidious dangers to your kingdom as well. It can be anonymous. Before writing, any message arrived with a person to speak it, who could be held accountable for their speech. With writing, it is impossible to tell what scribe "wrote" a message. Anonymous threats, kidnap notes, and untraceable sedition are now possible. Clearly "writing" carries with it far greater problems for our civilization than it does advantages.
However, scribes, accountants, and their skills are essential to business, contracts, laws, and the collection of taxes. We just need to make sure that they are controlled properly.
I therefore propose the Scribal Stylus Safety Control Act. (SSSCA). This requires every scribe to have an MPAA approved, "literate" slave with him at all times, peering over his shoulder. If a scribe is seen to be "writing' something other then accounting information, for example a story (stories are the province of MPAA storytellers), or a message (which should have been given to a paid mnenomist for delivery), or anything seditious, then the slave will take away the scribe's stylus and call the authorities. I ask you to have this Act "written" into your Code of Law.
Is this difficult? Yes. Is it expensive? Yes. However, it is clear that without strict controls, widespread "writing" will not only destroy the entertainment industry, it will threaten civilisation itself!
---
Disclaimer:
The above are strictly the personal opinions of myself, and I'd be astonished if my employer had any official position on the matter (so don't pretend otherwise).
Feel free to copy this document in its entirety, with proper attribution.
Peter Trei
ptrei@rsasecurity.com
I just read some sad news on Slashdot - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King joke was found old in its posting home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will not laugh - even if you did enjoy this joke, there's no denying it's old. Truly a Slashdot icon.
Fear of a clear planet!
For all the typical Democrat bashing in the Fox "news" article, it doesn't mention a single Republican who is actually against this POS bill. In fact, the only one who is actually against it is another Democrat.
The author states the Republicans have an "opportunity" here because they're fed up with Democrats occasionally failing to live up to their "for the little guy" rhetoric. He thinks the public prefers Republicans who are quite forthright about selling laws to the highest corporate bidder.
It's kind of like saying people weren't mad at Clinton for cheating on his wife - they were mad at him for not divorcing her afterwards - like all the holier-than-thou Republican politicians do to their first-wives.
In my darker moments I wonder if he's right. But we'll see come election time.
Come on now, how about "Redundant"? It appears that FOX News is perfectly capable of handling a little slashdotting. Aside from the copyright issues, no need to screw them out of ad revenue.
There has got to be a better comment to blow some modpoints on...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting talks about how Fair and Balanced Fox News is.
Vote Repulsocrat!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hey There,
Everyone is mentioning that this is an opinion, which is correct. However, there is a little link at the bottom of the article for replying to the author. If you click that link an email is also sent to FoxNews. If enough people send email in response to the author, I think it would send a message to Fox to put an actual reporter on the story. I have a feeling at least the O'Reilly Factor would pick it up. Just my two cents.
Joe
His post had it right. Probably a typo. Dickhole.
To bad fox is only printing this article to bash Democrats. They don't care about the SSSCA nearly as bad as the fact that a key Democrat supports it. If it was the other way around, fox would be talking about something else.
...when it reaches the O'Reilly Factor, *then* it's a story!
Read the following:/ 03/14/payola /
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2001
Then come back and talk about payola.
jello.
aka aron.
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a version of which is posted at http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html Think of your reader.
ummm
-
would mandate the inclusion of copy-protection in every digital device and every computer operating system
-
record companies
... want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money
looks like slashdot has been trolled by FOX news!Actuallt, the Republicans ARE leading the charge in the House against this bill. House Cool to Copy Protection.
This story is from 4 March 2002. Not complaining that my submission was rejected then, I probably detracted from the facts too much when I submitted.
Anyway, the information is there, cheers!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
You want balance, you should also be reading from some conservative ones too, and most of all - THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Here is the text of a submission I just made to Barbara Boxer's website.
(If you're going to write, PLEASE be a grownup: typical Slashdot flaming gets us nowhere.)
----
Dear Senator Boxer,
I was a bit surprised to hear that you are favoring Senator Hollings' SSSCA bill. While there are real concerns about illegal file-sharing, an overly-broad and intrusive bill like the SSSCA is absolutely not the way to go about it.
As a technical professional (software architect, security and database systems), I strongly believe that putting hardware copy-control devices into general consumer PCs is a terrible idea, one that will help stifle creativity in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Code is speech, and there are many people who are quite passionate about this issue, and others having to do with free and open access to technology. I, for one, am made very uncomfortable about mysterious black boxes, legislated into hardware, over which I have no control.
The problem is that the PC is a very general device, and requiring "certification" for every operating system/hardware combination will merely enrich the mainstream at the expense of the cutting edge. This sort of legislation is very dangerous to the continued health of Silicon Valley innovation. Our neighbors to the south in Hollywood have legitimate concerns, but harming one signature California industry to help another strikes me as the wrong approach.
Thank you for your attention,
Andrew MacBride
there was a poll on who you would vote for, and the vast majority picked gore. Where do YOUR unfounded opinions come from?
I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant or something, but... Isn't taking a boatload of money in exchange for making a law basically corruption?
You may call it "campaign contributions" but it's fairly obvious to anyone what the real purpose of the money is. Hell I wouldnt be surprised if the (RI/MP)AA was writing up the laws and having Hollings just sign on the dotted line.
If it's so bloody obvious that the guy is "bought" why on earth is no one raising an awful ruckus about it? Well shit if the guy was getting a BJ from some intern (which doesnt hurt anyone) all hell would break loose, but since he is "just" getting money from Big Business in order to make a law for them, I guess it's all ok!?!?
I'm from Portugal and AFAIK there isn't anything like that here, if some politician was caught receiving money from a big company in exchange for trying to make a law that favours it, well it would be an enormous scandal!
Why isn't anyone arresting that Hollings idiot?
What on earth are your laws like, that they permit your politicians to be so obviously and openly corrupt??
*gurgle* -- I tyhnk that SSCA and Rupeert murodock are BAD.
I just got off the phone with the Technology affairs guy in Barbara Boxer's Washington office. He is denying any support of SSSCA by Barbara Boxer at this time. I read him the accusation from the article and gave him the info. He was less than happy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While there's no doubt that the Democrats mentioned in the article are hardly acting with consumers' best interests in mind, it's laughable to believe that Republicans are going to lead the charge in the other direction as the author seems to suggest.
Sure they will. If it will help them garner more votes in the next election, they will use this as a club to beat down the Democrats. Though, you are right, neither side is really any better than the other. All our polictical system really is, is an attempt by the people to play the two sides against the middle, and hope that we end up with something at least palatable, if not good. And that is exactly where politictal commentary like this comes in (it is really a political piece). It helps to set public opinion against something that is disagreeable, and at the same time helps to present the Republicans with a perfect opportunity to slam the Democrats with it. This makes it more likely the that Republicans will take up arms on this one and probably kill it. Was either side really more moral or better than the other? No, but in the end the people won on this count because the bad bill was killed, and that is what we are after.
Ya, its a screwed up system, but its all we have at the moment, so we'd better make the best of it. The only power "We the People" have is our vote. It may not seem like much, but en masse they can be very convincing to a carrer politician.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
was that story posted on Fox news? I couldn't find a link to it at all from their home page just minutes before posting this. It's great that some journalists are able to see clearly, but how the hell is anyone going to read this if they can't even get to the story?
If these walls could talk they'd probly still ignore me. --MF DOOM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/0 7/ret.afghanistan.fighting/index.html
Incidentally, both national parties are racing to collect as much soft money as they can before McCain-Feingold has any chance of kicking in. If it's passed and signed as-is, then that's the end of the road, and that money will instead be going to state parties and interest groups.
I wonder if that's a factor in the timing of trying to push this particular legislation.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Check this out: FAIR Special Report: The Most Biased Name in News. Fox has a history of misrepresenting the facts.
Triv
Ironically, Fox News' parent company News Corp had its senior executives testifying to Senator Ernest Hollings' committee that high-tech companies were hypocritical for suing others for intellectual-property violations while failing to develop software or hardware to protect entertainment.
Looks to me that Fox News enjoys the freedom to tell the truth, even if the business end of the company seeks political intervention as a solution to a market problem. I cannot say I feel the same for other so called Networks who lean left and don't admit it.
I do have to say that our industry would do itself a huge favor by developing technologies that allow for better protection of intellectual-property for all types of electronic content. Not only will it move us towards wider consumer use of technology, but will protect intellectual-property from misuse which leads to high costs for all of us.
Question is: How do we protect free speech and the rights of intellectual-property owners? That is the next billion dollar high-tech industry!
Fark is all about farting and boobies. Nothing wrong with farting and boobies, but.
When the issue at stake is the ability of Americans (sorry non-Americans, I'm not trying to exclude; I'm just keeping an eye on the proper scope of the original topic) to have free and unrestricted access to products that to not represent a threat to Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, and when the legislation ITSELF is a threat to those three principles of Americanism, we need honest debate like this.
Now, occasionally we need to blow off some steam with OT rants and humor, but lemme be pretty clear: this issue is too important to blow off.
Ok, I'm done...
I'm finding it pretty ironic that the main protection for our rights against corporate abuse is other corporations. Intel protecting our rights against Disney. AOL/TW protecting our rights against Microsoft.
Sure, the corporations are all acting only in their interests, not ours. But whatever happenned to our elected officials protecting our rights? (rhetorical question, btw)
How is this surprising for the democratic party? Generally, they are the ones that think that a free market can't solve its own problems.
Creating more laws and restrictions is the way that business is done, for him and his colleauges.
Moderation totals: +5 troll
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Is it time to pull a Galt's Gulch? The trouble with this bill is that no one outside of geekdom really understands it. It took me about a half hour to explain to my mother, so thirty second sound bites just won't work to get our message out.
But there's another way to get their attention. The result of this bill will be to criminalize all free operating systems. So let's just talke all those free operating systems offline for one day and see how the world copes. On one particular day everyone who runs a Linux or BSD machine takes them off the net. Let's see how well the world can cope without these illegal and unethical machines.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Wait, but payola IS completely active and rife in the industry--you don't even have to "assume that statement is fully true."
I used to work for a college radio station as the programming director, and major labels were ALWAYS trying to push their schlock on our station by offering me free tickets, trips, etc. And we were just a college station, for God's sake--think about how it is with major metropolitan areas.
And you're kidding yourself if you think N'Sync (or any other boy/girl band, for instance) got to be where they are solely because of their "catchy hook." Yes, that helps, but something had to get it out to be heard in the first place. It's THIS step where payola is key--if no one hears it for the first time, how are they supposed to be drawn in by the hook? They can't. Therefore, record companies offer initiatives to radio stations to insert these "hitmakers" into the playlist. Plain and simple.
There are a lot of bands out there that have great hooks in their songs too, they just never see the light of day because their distribution doesn't allow for nationwide airing (read: their labels don't have multiple millions of dollars to get the songs heard on radio, etc).
It's an extremely crooked industry.
I think the members of the RIAA and MPAA have forgotten the rule, and decided that they can get away with cheating everyone all the time.
In Canada, radio stations are required by law to play a specific amount of Canadian made music. Although this is not particularily in line with traditional capitalist behaviour, very very popular acts like the Barenaked Ladies and Sarah Maglaughlan (however you spell her name) would never have become as popular as they are if it weren't for the Canadian content regulations.
there was a poll on who you would vote for, and the vast majority picked gore. Where do YOUR unfounded opinions come from?
Alright, based on that little piece of logic, because Clinton won the 1996 election there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans and Democrats will win every election. That little tenet holds true until...hmm...Oh, the NEXT election, where the Republicans won the presidency.
Can't you see how the fact that most slashdot voters found Bush specifically hard to vote for doesn't mean that they're mostly Democrats.
This will probably get modded down as 'offtopic' or the like, but I'm so tired of seeing these "make sure to visit eff and write to your congressman" posts. Yes, it's true, but as a longtime resident of the District of Columbia, who should I write to? I don't have a representative, senator or anyone else in congress and I can assure you that reps from other districts only care about feedback from their constituants. So when I want to voice my opposition to SSSCA I should...? What?
Just another case of me not being allowed to participate in the democratic process.... Taxation without representation is alive and well in our nation's capital.
Ahem. Sorry 'bout that. I just needed to vent for a moment there.
-Mark
Is how the article touches on corruption in the recording industry.
If a big deal was made about how record companies were not only exploitive, but participating in illegal activities, it would cut the legs out from under their arguments.
Payola and 'breakage' are just the tip of the iceberg. Lets hope a more credible news source picks this up and turns the big labels into the next Enron.
The Internet is generally stupid
I think O'Reilly needs to take this guy on. See how long he can last..
Did you know that Olestra causes Greasy Arse Syndrome? So much so that Depends is about to ship their new "G.A.S. diapers" to Walmart stores.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
There's a difference between a liberal citizen and a liberal congressman. Liberal citizens generally want things to work nice (without compromising our environment), and have a nice world to grow up in, instead of a cement/oil palace that conservative citizens want. Conservative congressmen just want money and power and liberal congressmen want fame AND money and power.
Great.
I would say that the scary part is the CNN would be on the right in Europe!!
Btw, I'm also curious if the post knocking the US gets modded up, and this one gets modded down.
tits and ass.
see, on fark that would be boobies and heineys.
but if that's what it takes to avoid the SSSCA, I'll take it.
I was disappointed by the piece. The writer is a lawyer (or so they claim), but he comes through more like a politician to me. The article itself is full of FUD and name calling, and has little actual facts.
Still, I have to wonder... maybe that's what it takes to defend our freedom.
I'm against FUD. In an ideal world, I'd like to see informed people pressuring their representatives. But it's not an ideal world, and in real life, if you pit our serene facts against the MPAA and RIAA's FUD, they'll win. So I have to wonder if a little FUD on our side will even the stakes a bit.
Maybe not FUD, maybe just a little hysteria, I don't know. But to me, almost anything would be worth it to get that bill killed (and tha DMCA repealed). Heck, independence was won by killing, so I guess freedom has to be worth a little exagerating.
Now, flame away....
are for the SSSCA
During last Thursday's hearing in the Senate, it was the Democratic members of the committee who proclaimed the need to legislate -- while Republican senators such as John McCain (R-Arizona) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) said they "would be extremely hesitant regarding any proposal for government to mandate copy-protection technology."
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
One paragraph of the article said:
Talk about screwing the little guy: audits of record companies routinely indicate "errors" that are always in the companies' favor. (Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending)
This brought back some memories of conversations I had while consulting for one of the major record companies. Not only is the slanting of "errors" in the favor of the companies common, it's completely intentional and so common that the industry has a name and an acronym for it.
The term is "settle on audit" and the acronym, obviously, SOA. What it means is that if a particular clause in an artists contract is too much of a pain to apply correctly, or even if the company just feels like it, they deliberately choose to err in their own favor, with the idea that when (or if!) the artist chooses to pay a third party auditor to come look at the books, they'll just negotiate a settlement.
In some cases, the contract clauses are so bizarre and impossible to apply that this actually makes a twisted sort of sense (what would really make sense is to write contracts that can actually be executed), but the record companies apply this technique in lots of other situations as well.
And, if that weren't enough, they also make absolutely no effort beyond the minimum required by the contract language to facilitate these audits. One common practice is that when the auditors request sales records, rather than giving them the information in a nice, easily-manipulable electronic format (which is what the companies use to look at and process the data themselves), they print it all out and provide it in paper format, sorted in some less than ideal way. For a major artist that has sold millions of CDs these paper records can fill dozens of large boxes -- truckloads of paper. And the auditor is paid by the artist, typically by the hour.
I guess in one way all this chicanery is actually in the artists' favor: The artist never has to wonder whether it's worth it to pay an auditor, because however much the auditor charges, they can always be sure that the record company has screwed them for worse, so they'll come out ahead in the end. I pointed this out and the folks I was talking to said that there was some debate over that point, that maybe they'd be better off playing it a little closer so that some sizeable percentage of audits showed no underpayments. But they're pretty sure they get to keep more of the artists' money this way.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Just because they're not implicitly saying it's quid pro quo doesn't make it NOT quid pro quo.
For instance, the Senator From Disney, Hollings, gets his $300k campaign contribution from Disney in 2000. A Disney guy says "great to support you, here are our concerns, blah blah..." - the implication of course being that if he doesn't bust ass to address those concerns, that maybe some other lucky Democrat gets the big payola next year.
Just because it's under the surface, doesn't mean it's not there. It's corruption, he's absolutely right.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
for the moment. If this thing becomes a law they will have to build a LOT more prisons. It will be a felony to copy stuff!!!! This means time in the bang-you-in-the-a$$ jail and loss of plenty of rights when/if you get out.
This bill could do more for making this country a police state then Leader has in the past 6 months.
Not to mention that there isn't a single politician out there who really is for the 'little guy'. The steel tariffs proved that the Gov. is run by the Fortune 100s.
Going to a Senator from California ain't going to help. While NoCal is tech-based, Hollywood is pretty much the dominant industry in SoCal. John Kerry, on the other hand,is vulnerable. If I were Michael Cloud, the Libertarian running against JK, I'd make this a campaign issue. Slogan: "John Kerry, selling Massachusetts' future for Hollywood's Present."
Check out my other Tshirts if you want.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The scary part is in America right now, it IS on the left. Really.
um please explain that. what i see is a country led by an extreme right wing leader (athiests arent citizens, the only way to settle problems is thru war, big business rocks, capitalism rocks, etc). maybe i just missed all the humanitarian things bush is doing, so if you could please enlighten me i would be greatful.
-
what a load of BS, Enron did far more damage but sicne *they* gave money to Republicans, Fox calls them Boy Scouts compared to Entertainment Industry. As far as I can tell, the ET hasn't been shredding documents, wiping out retirements accounts, pleading the Fifth, and holding secret metings with the Vice President. What balanced objective reproting--NOT!
Yeah, Cantwell used to own a ton of stock in RealNetworks, as I recall. I imagine she still does. She was with the company when it began becoming successful.
Because of Real's success, she used a large part of her personal cash to fund her election campaign against Republican Senator Slade Gorton. She had to take out a ton of loans from the Democratic Party, but she was elected in the end, albiet by a very, very small majority. Nearly all of her support came from Seattle and outlying areas, Slade won nearly all of the votes in rural Washington.
I'd rather see her in office than Slade, but I worry about how much she'll defend companies like MS, because, well...they're her constituents.
1. Campaign Finance Reform means nothing when you have atleast one (namely the Dems) party who violates, at will, current campaign finance laws already on the book. They are going to bother to obey new laws? Get real.
/., just wait till Federal Election Commission get's their hands on /. for illegal campaigning 60 days prior to an election day.
2. It is the reason that Slashdotters should be screaming against CFR, it will shut down small groups from naming buttheads like Howlings 60 days prior to election day. Is that a good idea? Oh wait, that doesn't apply to Unions. So the media bias comes into play (minus Fox News, they are atleast fair) unlike PBS, CBS and the rest of the "Bias Factor") 60 days before a vote and the Unions get to spend their hundreds of miliions supporting Democrat candidates.
3. If you thought MPAA was bad about DeCSS linking on
Dammy
This is not a troll....
No joke, it's a brilliant idea. Why? Because it will be self-defeating.
Linux is open source. It's an operating system. If it is required to support copy-protection, we can simply remove it.
Or better yet: read encrypted stuff and write it "purely".
Of course, then the RIAA will try to say (RedHat)violated the DMCA. Then the RIAA will try to
1. ban open-source software altogether, or
2. pass an exemption law for open-source OS -- resulting in situation like with DVDs; or
3. declare that content can't legally be used on opensource systems (hmm.. no more disney on the net?)
any of the above could happen, but it would force the RIAA to tell people plainly:
YOU CAN'T USE ANY OS SOFTWARE EXCEPT WINDOWS XP
BECAUSE IT HELPS US PROTECT OUR PROFITS...
OUR PROFITS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR
FREEDOM OR PRIVACY.
I'm sooo scared --NOT! Even if RedHat, etc were sued off the face of the earth, RedHat Linux would never die.
Too little, too late, PLEASE help the dummies pass this law!
And let me tell you something else, there is NO SUCH THING as "fair and balanced".
If you want "fair and balanced", your going to have to read both liberal and conservative opinions and information sources and come to your own conclusions without letting any silly rhetoric of any kind influence your opinion.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Wake me when FAIR effectively brings the issues of the SSSCA or Cash-and-Carry Hollings' agenda to the attention of Joe Sixpack.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Not to be a total troll here, but music piracy and aids are also both kinda low on a scale of importance.
For 99.99% of aids patients (not victims...they only victimized themselves. It IS 100% preventable...they just don't want to hear how.) I have no pity. Name a disease that truely does make someone a victim, and we'll talk. I'd certainly agree with you, actually...but I could honestly give a damn about AIDS.
AIDS is little more than natural selection taking out people who can't behave with self control and common sense.
Did you even RTFA?
Maybe you should also consider that fair.org is biased as well?
But that thought probably didn't cross your mind... you probably just pick a side and close your mind...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The flaw in your argument is that most people don't download music from unknown artists. They download music from artists that they have heard on the radio so the MPAA still has control.
It's not a flaw.. the music industry isn't stupid - they're not reacting to how things are NOW, they're reacting to how things might be in the future.
Think about it: 10 years ago, you're in a band, playing local clubs, and an A&R man comes to see you between sets. He promises you fame and fortune, all you have to do is sign. You read the contract, and note the following:
You pay all costs to record your albums (although the record company floats you a loan first)
You pay all costs to promote your albums
You get 5% of the Album sales (after you've paid off the marketing and recording costs.)
But the record company can get thousands of people to listen to your music.
So you say "umm, no", the A&R man goes away, gets replaced by an A&R man from a different record company who (essentially) offers you the same deal. If you want to "make it big", you have no choice.
Now, fast forward to 2005. You're starting a band, playing local clubs.
The internet is everywhere. Everyone has an MP3 player, and everyone downloads and listens to MP3's.
You're approached by Mr A&R man, and he offers you the same deal he did before.
You look at it, and think:
I'm paying the recording fees myself.
I'm paying the marketing fees myself.
If I do it myself, I can take 100% of the sale.
And I can use the internet to make my music available to millions of people.
Now, which would you choose?
The Record companies aren't stupid. They recognize internet-based distribution as the end of their era. It used to be that they made their money because "they were the only caterer in town." That's not the case anymore.
Fox news isnt mainstream. It's an outcasted news voice which is the only source of news of any contradiction to the democratic party. Maybe thats why it's the only one growing?
I wouldn't say its a "Conservative" news channel, but compared to CNN or Nightly news with Dan Rather, its like the Rush Limbaugh Show of TV.
Unfortunately, the ultimate renderer of "Fever" is dead. Recently so. Unfortunately, too, she's going to stay that way, regardless what FoxNews may have you thinking:
"...(Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending..."
I'm disappointed in Slashdot's readership.
A lot of the comments so far are just reactions to where it appeared - not what it says.
Whatever you think of FoxNews, try to read the article without projecting on it what you think it's going to say. Note that it's really an opinion piece, apparently part of Fox's Straight Talk feature - corbettw mislabelled it in his summary.
The article in my view is really just analyzing the political risks and possibilities for both parties here. The reality is that both the Democrats and Republicans support constituencies at times that are at odds with the philosphies they publicly profess. In this case it's the support that several heavyweight Democrats have been giving to the recording and movie industries for the SSSCA. Glenn Reynolds (the author) really would like to see the SSSCA buried and all he's really doing here is pointing out is that the Republicans could help kill it AND potentially score political points for doing so.
Glenn Reynolds also produces music in his spare time when he's not teaching law. He also runs a 'blogger' website with nearly hourly comments. He's also a Slashdot reader and poster (which is how I first heard about his web site InstaPundit). I've been reading his site since just before 9/11 and he's been consistent in criticizing the record industry for its corruptness and sneaky ploys to take advantage of the consumer. He's hardly a ideological Republican. Mostly he's libertarian and anti-Idiotarian in his viewpoints. In this, I don't think he's that far off from most Slashdot readers. That is, if they can overlook their media outlet biases.
I put these up on my cafepress store, at no profit to myself. I put them at the bottom cost that cafepress charges, so I don't get any commission! http://www.cafepress.com/grubbylaws or you can get there from my Tshirt website Poundingsand.com , and I have other "freedom" type tees as well.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I recall reading an article about Winston Groom - the author of Forest Gump. He had cut a deal with the studio for a percentage of the profit from the movie. The movie generated revenue of over $600 million, but according to the studio, did not make a profit. So, when Valenti states that only 2 out of 10 movies generate a profit that's probably true. Hollywood's accountants may well be the most creative people in the entertainment industry.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I enjoyed reading an article from mainstream media that, for once, gets it almost right when it comes to the entertainment industry's attempts to manipulate and encroach on the rights of consumers.
I say "almost" because I don't feel turning the story into an angle for the Republicans is the correct way to go about this. I think this approach gives the appearance that Republicans should approach this case with an eye for strengthening their political power rather than to show their concerns for the consumers (the "little guys"). This article would probably turn away a significant number of readers who would invalidate the article in their minds as some sort of Republican "propaganda".
Also, I don't think enough information was conveyed regarding what exactly the SSSCA does, except that it has something to do with "computer laws". By putting such a broad generalization on the SSSCA you water down the effect the article has on the readers. In the past several laws have come to pass which many individuals and organizations within the technology industry have vehemently fought against and lost when the safety of children or safety from terrorism was made as a major point behind the bill. This is not happening with the SSSCA, however there's been such a saturation of computer laws dealing with terrorism and child safety in the past that the general public will probably gloss over any new story on the subject. To most individuals it's just another story on their local news to ignore.
Perhaps that this article appears on FOXNews.com is something like preaching to the converted? At any rate, I think this story could have focused more on what the SSSCA is and why it's bad for consumers, rather than just telling the reader that it's so.
I think getting more information out to the general public, in terms they can understand, is really the only way to approach the SSSCA and other such acts.
They make a lot more sense now, don't they?
Should be some sort of limits as the maximum amount of money that can be used, as well as maximums from any one source, as well as industry. Of course, industries will collude together, and offer contributions that "have no monetary value."
It could be a start though.
Of course, it is hard to find enough Republicans and Democrats that would be willing to give themselves such cuts...
Heck, we might even get ourselves into a position where there is more than two major, influential, political parties in the United States!
"Gosh, I'm glad that we aren't being brainwashed by that evil cult anymore..."
*They start watching TV*
"You are watching Fox!"
"We are watching Fox..."
Anyone remember some artist by the name of "MC Hammer" (no, well, you're not missing anything...but that's not the point)...
Record executives found him playing in clubs, and for a long time he refused any offer to sign. He realized that selling 50,000 CD's on his own (and he was doing it, out of the trunk of his car)would make him *MORE* than if he signed and sold a million for the record company. They had to THROW money at him -- like a football star -- to get him to sign. Of course, we know where his career went from there...(Be careful, that coffee's hot! Can't Touch that!)
Point is -- most artists could support themselves, if they're good enough at marketing themselves and they get a good following. Distribution isn't the problem--it's marketing. Most would rather pass that responsibility to the Record Execs, who'll later take 90% of the profit.
Its right wing conservative intolerant nazi racist christian baby-eater lies and shock tabloid.
I dunno. The movie industry is pretty worthless to California compared to the tech industry. If the tech industry went under California would suffer a lot more than if the movie industry went under. Also the tech industry is a LOT richer (i.e. more donations). If Boxer had two IQ points to rub together, she wouldn't give a flying fuck about what the movie industry wants.
For once I'm backing the Republicans on an issue they seem to feel strongly about. Of course, there could be corporate interests behind this, but they're still on the right side in my opinion.
You can tell the it shows up on the conservative radar, because Fox News definitely is slanted to the right..
Grumpy wealthy white males to the rescue!
I couldn't believe this when I read it. I'm a public policy student doing major research on high tech's influence in DC. The Digital Rights Management (DRM) debate was brought to Hollings not by Disney alone, but by News Corp. as well (FOX)! News Corp, and its movie production studios stand to win equally as much as Disney in this debate. I've spoken with hardware makers government affairs spokesmen, and they're ready to fight this to the hilt...and they have DEMOCRATS supporting them!
Talk about bad journalism...
-Ozzy
I must disagree. This is why campaign reform in every form in which it has been proposed is a MUST NOT . Limiting campaign giving is limiting free speech and it makes our politicians less accountable to us. It places near absolute power in the monopolist major parties. It also limits the degree anyone can communicate to the public. The result is that the encumbant automatically gets a major advantage.
An above poster had it right, normal people need to use donations to make their will felt and sever the dependancy of politicians on large corporations, lobby groups, labor unions, run-away government agencies and political parties.
This article explains it better than I. Campaign Reform Bill Is Really "Incumbent Protection Act"
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Further, as a Republican (and both of them are the same), I told them in no uncertian terms that I would NEVER vote for either again. The Allard race is expected to be very tight. I hope my letters were not ignored.
Now for the letter I sent to Hollings, on the other hand...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
What? You thought they were consistent?!? Silly you.
Europeans just hate America, because they are jealous of her success, compared to Europe's gradual slide into irrelevance, and eventually Islamist dominiation.
While I of course agree that the SSSCA is a bad thing, I've entirely given up on Fox News being a credible news source. Everything i've read there has been incredibly biased and non-informative. I wouldn't trust anything from them thank you very much no matter how reasonable it seems.
I am aware that this has nothing to do with europe but it would be worthwhile to write to our democratic representitives here to make sure it stays that way. So here are the links (they're in English) Info on contacting your MP. if you live in the UK (like me) Info on contacting your MEP If someone could post links to sites that help people contact politicians in other contries that would be great.
It doesn't matter if they're fair and balanced--as long as you know their biases.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Fox News is patently right-wing. Its primary goal is revenue. Everything Fox News presents is inflamatory and subjected to some "expert" [read "loud blabbermouth"] person's opinion; little to nothing is presented objectively.
And what's with this: "The point of an elected government is to get rid of those who want to lower our freedom." Does that mean that GWB is gonna lose the next presidential election?
There are some very good ideas in this comment.
CNN is not "left". Last I heard, they weren't editorializing for creating a socialist workers' paradise in the U.S.
"Left" does not mean "not-far-right-wing". Not agreeing with Murdoch, Rev. Moon, or Limbaugh does not make me a liberal. It just makes me not-stupid.
CNN was an network of intelligent reporters. Not "left". If being intelligent locks one out of the right-wing clubhouse, so be it.
Sigh. But now CNN is actively creating a right-wing slant on its network to grab those ratings.
This is why news operations should be loss leaders, not profit centers. Once you become a vendor of junk, all journalistic pretensions are gone.
So Republicans are for corporate welfare (defense industry) and "dirty" industries (oil, coal) while Democrats are for media conglomerates and consumer high-tech. No big difference.
Don't be so quick to portray Republicans as helpless lambs (they like to play the victim to appeal to angry white males). Last time I checked they controled the House and the Presidency. A Republican Congress passed the DCMA. If I had to point a finger I'd point it at them first.
I'd say neither is very interested in the common man except when elections roll around.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Do you seriously think they'll listen? Their staffs just tally up "yes" vs. "no" letters, no matter how well informed and eloquent each letter is...and then, on issues like this where the senators are paid sufficiently, even that won't change their opinions.
Now, if someone would bring up this hypocrisy when it came re-election time and got them voted out, maybe the rest would start caring. But they know their actual legislative record matters little come re-election time.
The numbers are nice. But the important thing now is details on the draft, which were badly lacking. I'm disappointed by this article.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Hmmm. Ok let's do some (quick) math here. Assume that roughly 1 million copyrighted works are (succesfully) downloaded every day - not too high of a figure I believe. OK now let's apply these fines to them:
1 million x 25,000 = $25,000,000,000
Wow! 25 billion dollars a day in fines! 25tril x 365 = 9,125,000,000,000. 9.125 trillion dollars a year in fines. Or, the govt's budget for the next 9 years. I understand now - quick way to kill that pesky 'ol national debt.
And more fun! Assume 60 million people have 100 downloaded copyright works liable for prosecution. 2.5$ million per person. I, personally, have 2,326 'copyrighted' works: 58 million in fines.
Perfect, these fines some perfectly reasonable and just - not extortion no sir.
(Note: I have posted this in another discussion so before you go accusing me of karma-whoring...I don't care if this gets modded up.)
entertainment
Pronunciation: "en-t&r-'tAn-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the act of entertaining
2 a archaic : MAINTENANCE, PROVISION b obsolete : EMPLOYMENT
3 : something diverting or engaging: as a : a public performance b : a usually light comic or adventure novel
Somebody needs to remind the ENTERTAINMENT industry just what exactly their place is in the grand scheme of things! They've bent and twisted copyright laws and now they want to cripple every digital device under the sun, and for what? To protect Mickey Mouse cartoons and a few lousy movies??? NO! It's ENTERTAINMENT! It isn't something that actually matters that much! Yeesh, You'd think that it was a "national security" issue...like protecting nuclear secrets or something!
No Disney, you can't cripple all the computers. People use them to do things that are more important than a stupid cartoon mouse...like helping to treat the sick!
You're using her as bait, Master!
Does anyone know where to get statistics on who does regularly support me, the consumer? I think this would be a really good /. post around the time of the November elections. This would be useful information to have. If I lived in Virginia, my vote for senator would be easy, but what about the other 500+ elected officials in the legislature? I would have thought that voting democrat would be more likely to elect a representative that would protect my rights as a consumer, but according to this article - I'm wrong.
Is that even some of the media companies are balking at this thing. A lot of tech companies (Intel has been vocal on this front) really don't want this thing to happen, because (from what I've read about the bill, I could be wrong) it requires anything with a digital display to have copy protection. This includes things which have absolutely no need or want for it, including medical devices and pocket calculators. It seems to me like Senator Hollings is trying to further his own political career by trying to impress the media companies with some sweeping legislation, maybe hoping to get some large campaign donations, but I doubt he has any real concept of the wide-reaching implications of this bill. It's kind of backfired on him, a lot of major players in the arena have come out as against this, as it's unnecessary and too far reaching. This is an issue that IMO, and apparently that of the industry as well, should be solved by technology, not legislation. Congress should leave this issue alone and let the industry figure it out themselves. Anyway, IANAL, so I could be totally wrong. $0.02 applies.
See Fritz.
See Fritz lie.
See Disney pay.
"...Reduce the power of the government, and you reduce the number of people (corporations) who want to control it. Reduce the people trying to conrol it, and you reduce the amount of money flowing to politicians."
All right, finally we have a good debate. Ok, you've stated how libertarians see it. Now socialists, like me, say "Without a strong government, the strong are free to hurt the weak and the weak have no way to defend themselves." I'm sure you'd agree that the bill of rights is valuable, and having some way to enforce that is necessary.
Furthermore, I suspect most people would agree that some amount of government will always be necessary. I.e. we will always need a military to protect ourselves and a police force to stop the occasional nut. Y'know, traffic lights so we can drive the streets in safety. Garbage collection so the streets aren't full of trash.
So in other words, there's a limit to this "small government" thing. Yes, going back to services specified by the constitution as you propose would be a smaller, but it would not be better. For example, there was no concept of an Air Force in the original constitution. No internet. No kiddie porn. Hell, blacks were considered 2/3 of a person and women couldn't vote!
No, that's no solution. What we need is to remove the power of money in the government, not less government.
Here are some ideas that make sense to me:
1)Let's pass some legitimate campaign finance reform legislation. Maybe McCain-Feingold is a start.
2)Let's open the debates up to any candidate that has gotten on the ballot in >50% of the states. Ok, so maybe they won't win, but at least we can find out what they have to say.
3)(from Michael Moore's new book) Everybody, run for office THIS YEAR. Run for "precinct delegate", you might even win. Take control of your local (Democratic or Republican) party by attending meetings with 10 (or so) of your closest friends and using procedural motions to bring the debate around to the issues that matter to you. And write to your congresspeople, senators, president, governor, assembly, etc. Call them. Do whatever it takes. And vote! Every election, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!
Go Hollywood! Maybe Disney should change their logo to the ol' Stars and Bars. Senator Holling's choice of allies has always been interesting: first the KKK and now the MPAA. In the 1960s as governor of South Carolina he put up the notorious Confederate flag on the state capitol, and now he's violating people's rights all over again. Just goes to show what sort of people we're dealing with.
I understand that some /. users, like Mr_Matt, like to portray themselves as intellectually superior, or at least more so than those technophobe "lusers", (but only because if it came right down to it, they wouldn't be able to compete with folks who actually use factual information and reasoning to form opinions, before blurting them out.), but did anyone else find this particular post a little more stupifying than usual?
:)
Since I don't know your name, you flaming coward, I'll just call you "Strawman" since you're very good about constructing strawman arguments that suit your purposes, without ever requiring the inconvenience of engaging your brain.
Maybe you've read the thread by now, and have since changed your mind, but in case you missed it (hint: you missed it) the point of my post was that since this was an op-ed piece, and did not contain any specific arguments against the SSSCA, it wasn't really what the Slashdot headline said it was. RTFH (that's read the fucking headline): Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad. And the op-ed piece didn't do this. But thanks for pointing out the obvious. At least you posess some cognitive skills.
And as for not being able to compete with people who use factual information and reasoning - you're free to your opinion, but if it's not worth putting your name to it, then I'll take it for what it really is: the rantings of a coward, the words of someone whose image is more important than their ideas. Sam Adams had some words about people who prefer quiet prosperity to the animating contest of freedom, and if you're too chicken to participate in that contest, then frankly, shut up.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
I don't know what planet you're on, but the SSSCA here on Earth is more terrifying than any legislation that Enron could have bought.
Think about it. All hardware and software made today would be illegal to make in the US in a post-SSSCA world. No more open PCs. No Linux. No Apache. No perl. No slashdot (which uses Linux and Apache and perl).
Think about it.
It was a well known fact that Dubya was setting huge records for the amount of campaign donations he was sending. It was bandied about as if it was a good thing that he was backed by so much money! Yet he still got elected (well actually he didn't, but got close enough to slide into office).
Now if the American public are so sick of money politics? Why did they vote for him? He was not an outstanding candidate, at times he struggles with the English language.
Either American's must like money politics, or they are fooled by the glossy ads and B.S. sound bites?
Or perhaps the 50%+ who don't vote do so for a reason?
Either way I don't have much faith in the system changing from within.
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
If my memory is correct, Computer Tech and Entertainment are about equally sized as California's two biggest industries. Entertainment might even be a little bigger.
Followed up by Defense, Agriculture, Government itself, and Biotech, in no particular order.
I also think that you are entirelly incorrect about the size of donations. Traditionally tech has not been a great source of money, because the people are largely ambivilent, and that's only changed in the last few years, as they have figured out that they have a lot at stake with the government. Meanwhile Hollywood has always given lots of $$ to the Demos. Just look at Feinstein's anti-tech positions (Clipper, Key Recovery, etc) over the years.
If best sounding name mattered, how did Anthony Weiner (D,NY) get elected? Is the 9th district of New York packed with gays?
What it does explain is that Republicans did not get their share of bribes from entertainment industry, and now can use the case against the Dems. On the next election cycle, GOP will be properly lubricated as well, and will shut up and pass any law RIAA/MPAA wants..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Ye Gods! This is aimed more at the comments below than the parent of this post. Here we have one of the 24 hour news networks actually getting this story right, and what do we get? A bunch of pissing and moaning! "Ewwww! Fox News is right-wing! Republicans are BAD! They like John Ashcroft! We don't need THEM!" Pardon my fucking french, but get the fuck over yourselves and quit pissing on the only goddamn network that actually gets this issue! For fuck's sake! Who else IS going to be on our side on this??? CNN? I think not. ABC? not very likely! There are so many fools who would rather sit in the corner and boo-hoo and bitch about how the big media types are trying, once again, to give all of us the sausage aenema and there is no shortage of bed-wetters who would rather hold their breath till they pass out then even consider that the republicans can be useful to stop this. Psst, here's a hint, THE DEMOCRATS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE OTHER SIDE! Who is going to be able to counter them, Ralph Nader?! Put down the bong and go buy a clue. This is how things are done in the system. You make your alliances where you have to. If stopping this gives the republicans a political club to beat Hollings and Disney with, then we should be helping them drive the rusty nails into business end of that club! Yes, the system is corrupt. Yes, the people you ally yourself with today might be on the other side of another issue tomorrow. Yes, they are all paid professional liars. But this is one issue where you may just have to hold your noses and play the game. The good does not have to be the enemy of the perfect. A little pragmatism can go a long way. [/soapbox-ranting]
I couldn't really give a crap whether or not the "article" was slanted. What really makes this worthy of Slashdot is the clear evidence that the "know-not's" out there are hearing about the basic freedoms being taken away from them. So far, the cries of indignance over corporate tyranny of the digital world have been heard from the easily ignored "nerd" circles.
Maybe when John Q. Public learns (via Fox News, and hopefully others soon) that pretty soon he won't even be allowed the fair use of his property he was promised, there will be a out-cry.
Republican? Democrat? Forget the politics; if they're for destroying MY freedoms, they gotta go.
-- Halivar
One the silliest expressions used in America is liberal media. The word liberal itself has been so abused and twisted in the last few decades, you'd think the Ministry of Truth had decreed its meaning must be changed. Liberal has become a contemptuous epithet for opposition to economic liberty, Constitutional principles, and even religious expression.
This is a parody of the word. Liberal has to do with open-mindedness, dedication to principles of intellectual liberty, and a strong regard for human rights. Over the last two and a half centuries, expanding the franchise, achieving religious liberty, defending human rights, and concern for the environment were all liberal causes. Not a bad record, that.
How was this fine word reduced to shabbiness? The answer is through endless repetition of the parody in magazines, newspapers, and on television. That's not exactly prima facie evidence for liberal bias in the media.
Nothing has changed to erode the truth of that wonderful remark about freedom of the press existing for those who own one. In fact, with massively increased concentration in the ownership of American corporations, including the news business, the remark is more pertinent than ever.
Just reeling off the names of some major owners of America's press and broadcasting tells a story. Rupert Murdoch (Australian billionaire newspaper magnate), Disney Corporation, Dow-Jones, Tribune Corporation, Knight-Ridder, Hearst Corporation, and General Electric. In what possible sense are any of these liberal?
Even the New York Times, often regarded as the liberal paper in America, a paper whose very name causes sagebrush politicians to curl their lips in contempt, is actually a very cautious one, as befits the flagship publication of a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
The Times always defends the establishment. It becomes positively hot and bothered about supporting often-abusive institutions like the FBI over the rights of individuals, as in its hideous, long-term attack on Wen Ho Lee.
Where's the liberal bias? In pompous editorials that read like press releases for the American Imperium? In a slick magazine whose mostly-vapid stories float in a thick ooze of advertising for expensive clothes, perfumes, and furniture? In a letters column whose writers often use two lines to give their titles? Try finding a tough op-ed piece in the New York Times. They're as common as farts in a church service.
Ah, there's public broadcasting, isn't there? But America's public broadcasting is the most sanitized, politically correct that I'm aware of. Public television is hopelessly fluffy, featuring gorilla pictures narrated by authorities like Martin Sheen and puff-piece investigative reports.
Its evening news specializes in pseudo-debate, invariably with dependents of the two parties exchanging slogans. The program focuses on Beltway babble rather than investigation. Holders of think-tank sinecures are regular seat-fillers. American public radio, which does a better job than television, still lacks breadth of view, lacks bite, and, for the most part, contains precious little not found in mainstream media.
America's public-broadcast officials collapsed in a heap when Newt Gingrich and his band of Texas Visagoths attacked them about running a sandbox for yuppies, and they haven't recovered yet. Public broadcasting has lost much of its government financing over the years, and it lives under constant threat of losing more. After all, the party in power doesn't even pay its UN dues. What's support for public broadcasting compared to international-treaty obligations?
Is Dan Rather a Republican? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? ask readers who think they have a definitive point, but the point they make is quite different to the one they think they're making.
Who cares what these gentlemen are as long as they do their jobs? What is it about the right-wing (conservative is really too gentle a word) that insists on knowing the details of one's political ties and bedroom habits? Isn't this a little like what you would expect in the old Soviet Union? And who has more influence on the overall character of a news organization, a paid news reader or the guys paying the bills? Anyone with a very good job doesn't have to be told not to seriously irritate the boss.
Reflect on events over some decades and ask yourself about the American press's liberal role in them. Did the press ever tell us what happened in the Gulf War? Has it given us much more than Pentagon press releases on Afghanistan? Does the gloss on the Middle East ever go beyond what you'd expect from the State Department?
Did the press ever reveal to the American people what a manipulative monster J. Edgar Hoover was? Did the press tell people, while he was destroying people's lives, that Joe McCarthy was a desperate drunk trying to revive a failing political career? Such questions are endless, and the answer to virtually all of them is no.
source: John Chuckman, Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckmanmedia.html
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
I couldn't find any reference to this during a quick goolge and MRC.com search.
Sig goes here
Well, I suppose it's a good thing that this has finaly turned into a partisan issue, rather thern simply a non-issue on most politictians minds (copyright control? great!). We get the whole conservative thing backing us up, ergo the FOX news artical which disses democrats because thats what fox news does. The SSSCA is just another issue for them to do it on.
r taxes/anti-war-on-on-drugs/etc" without being bound to things they don't want.
I'm not a big fan of republicans in general. I'm all for fiscal responsiblity, but socialy I'm a liberal. I guess that would make me more liberatarian in outlook, but I don't have a problem with taxes and social welfare as long as their resonable and effective.
What would be really nice would be to beable to choose individual issues rather then just two groups, so someone could choose to vote for "pro-choice/anti-copyright/anti-deathpenalty/lowe
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You're an idiot.
Just like the original thread poster said, you're pissed that Fox News had a good piece, and thats all you can see.
Fox stories aren't rewrites from the Clinton News Network (CNN), so they must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Thats a perfect example of attacking the messenger, not the message.
I thought FOX would never take on a story like this, given thier history to be slanted to the right...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
At worst case scenario you can copy anything you can hear. Hook up a microphone and record the songs coming out of your speakers. No way around that. None. That's worst case. You should be able to run rca cables from cd player and record to your computer with less loss than if what you lose when you compress it into mp3 anyway. What's the big deal?
So the federal government scales back, the US moves toward industury self-regulation (or lack thereof), and the RIAA and MPAA fill in the power vaccum.
In the meantime, we can take razor blades to our CD's. That way we'll be ahead of our time.
This article never really gives a good coherent explanation of why the SSSCA is wrong.
An interesting point is that if the campaign finance reform bill is passed, Republicans will have the upper hand. They get a much larger percentage of their donations through small "hard money" contributions than the Democrats do.
The purpose of Reynolds' article appears to be to convince Republicans to oppose the SSSCA by appealing to their hatred of Democrats. He has chosen the perfect venue for such a ploy, since no one left of Jesse Helms takes Fox News seriously. Why this was posted to Slashdot, I'm not sure -- perhaps we just like it when our pet issues get picked up by the big media.
As for the substance of the article, Reynolds seems to be making a cynical attempt at painting Democrats as corporate shills. Of course, as everyone who's heard of Enron knows, the Republicans are much worse. Still, if Republicans side with the angels on this one, perhaps the SSSCA can be derailed before "Heil Valenti, Heil Rosen" is added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
Network of intelligent reporters ?
Haha.
Sure, if you assume that intelligence can only be found on the left side of the argument.
Not surprisingly, 92% of CNN media people voted Democratic.
No wonder you find them "intelligent"...
PS.
Bottom line: you are so fucking biased it is not even funny.
No clue about what? Europe is leftist leaning, sure, Ayn Rand's "People's States of Europe" have largely come to be, in practice if not in name. America is more moderate leaning, and plummeting towards Europe sure, I'll give you that. what am I missing?
Actually there is a loophole in it. Politician are "allowed" to raise money for "non-paritsian" groups. However, I have yet to see a good definition of this, or a truly "non-partisian" group. So Republic can raise money and then give it to the NRA, the democrates the NEA. Soft money arose because of an out cry against hard money. Soft money is the current loophole. If they plug this one, expect them to open another.
So, if the Movie moguls are to be believed, they are loosing money to online piracy. But, acording to several articles, this: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&arti cleid=VR1117794880&categoryid=-1&cs=1 (registration required, free 30 day trial) is just one example, their profits this past year were record setting. Piracy is hurting them, profits are increasing. Hmmm...
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all." St. Oran
This is 3rd-hand info, but I was told once how actually no movies make a profit. Anything that would be a profit gets moved into partnership companies, etc. That's why no one asks for percentages of the profit any more.
These folks have been playing creative accounting games for decades. Enron and Arthur Andersen are bush-league compared to Hollywood. Their support of politicians (mainly Democrats, the number of significant actors, producers, directors etc. in Hollywood that are active Republicans can be counted on one hand) combined with using their fame is what has kept them from being investigated and prosecuted six ways from Sunday.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
If you're Sony, and you're making $4.6 billion in music sales but taking in $40 billion in sales from electronics, who are you going to listen to: the music industry complaining about people downloading music without authorization, or the electronics executives trying to make better, more expensive CD burners and MP3 players?
If Senators keep selling off to Disney and the RIAA, and with the help of unbribed-but-clueless Representatives that can be brainwashed by any well-produced snowjob, the SSSCA can actually get voted.
If this danger materializes, Intel and other electronics giants could see their income squashed by this law that demands the death of the PC and of all digital electronics as we know it. So instead of letting this happen, the electronics company could buy a few major studios. After all, all the movies's box-office revenue for 2001 amount to less than a quarter of sales for Intel.
Let's hope it comes down to a pissing match between the electronics and the media industries. IBM or Intel can buy a blocking share in Disney with their paperclip budget, and the MPAA seems to have forgotten it. Or maybe they are trying to extort some money from the electronic industry? Afer all, it worked in Europe, where a tax is now levied on CD writers and blank media.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
...that they want to control ALL possible content viewers and copiers, regardless of if you use them to view/copy their corporate content or not.
I can't believe these lusers in Congress. It's amazing that Fox is even printing this story seeing as how they are just another member of the global media conspiracy
And, that's because they don't want it done to them when they're running for re-election. It's going to boil down to someone other than a person running for office or acting on their behalf to make this work. I, for one, would do so.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You want a real free election? It was held in Nicarauga. They had 6 parties, all on the ballots, they all got equal TV/radio/paper time to present their case...and even with US bombing of the country they elected the Sandinistas by an 87% majority. :) ...Of course, 6 more years of US bombing and they changed their minds about who to vote for.
What they realized: If they opened up the elections to money, huge outside influences would fund campaigns...(Foreign powers) So they eliminated money from the process. They passed a law saying the people owned the airwaves - everyone got TV & Radio time. *(sound familiar)? They passed a law saying newspapers had to give a certain amount of advertising to political candidates.. In many respects, the elections in Nicarauga were the freest in history anywhere, and certaintly the freest in Latin America.
The truth is: Republicans, Democrats, and corporations (the 4th unelected branch of the government) are afraid of real democracy.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
From another post:
No, Bush truly is not "extreme right wing", he's actually closer to down the middle. Aside from that, your definition of "right wing", "conservative" is full of misconceptions. You and many other "left wingers" might be dedicated to humanitarian ideals, but government involvement in everything is not the way to go about that. The United States was founded on the ideas now called "conservative". Read the Constitution if you doubt that. There's nothing there which gives the government the right to do "humanitarian" things. These are left to churches and other private organizations, where they belong, and where they actually get done. Government involvement only does the opposite, allowing those in power to get rich while the rest of the world suffers from excessive taxes and inflation.
From another post in this thread:
Sadly, no. We live in a progressively socialist society. We (at least the US) started out capitalist, but with things like the IMF and World Bank, we have been progressing down the road of Fabian Socialism for many years. "Fabian" is the term chosen by the Fabian Society, led by such English socialists as Sidney and Beatrice Webb and George Bernard Shaw. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrocosus was the Roman general who won the Second Punic War against Hannibal:
Thus, the Fabian goal is the same as that of the Communist Bolsheviks, but their means. are through propaganda and legislation rather than violent overthrow.
The stained glass window at the Beatrice Webb House in Surrey, England, shows Shaw and Webb reshaping the world on an anvil, with the crest of a wolf in sheep's clothing in the background between them. It also portrays the masses below them, kneeling to worship books advocating the theories of socialism.
Through such institutions and policies as the Federal Reserve, FSLIC, and FDIC in America, and the IMF (also see: here) and World Bank internationally, America and the rest of the world have been submerged in the "ideals" of socialism.
For more information, if you want to be an informed and educated individual rather than another mindless person screaming "right wing extreme!", do some research on the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks, socialism, the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, other policies instituted during Roosevelt's socialist "New Deal", the IMF and World bank established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 by Fabian socialists at least two members of a Communist espionage ring in Washington, among other things.
For a start, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island to anyone who thinks we truly live in a free-market, capitalist society. The author, through much research, exposes the mechanisms which are making this society socialist (which is to say, liberal, aka "left"), and which have been the cause of massive inflation over the years by creating oney out of nothing.