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."
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.
That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.
This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Bumper stickers would be awesome, I'm intrested!
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
The article was not about "the evils of the SSSCA," but instead was about "opportunities for Republicans" to take advantage of a political position taken by the Democrats that goes against the Democrats' normal instincts. Given your tone, I wonder if you would consider the article a rant if the parties were reversed?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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
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.
They both fuck the consumer. Only difference is how.
Ridiculous comment. I believe if you do your research you'll find that the Clinton Democratic administration is the one that funded 18 out of 20 Enron ventures, and propped that company up, while the Republican administration of former Bush Sr. funded one out of 15 proposed, or around that number. I also believe Enron contributed more to the Dems than Repubs. And at any rate, I'm not accusing either Dems or Repubs of anything at Enron...
Enron is a result of dishonest people, period.
cabodog77
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid." -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
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??
Check this out: FAIR Special Report: The Most Biased Name in News. Fox has a history of misrepresenting the facts.
Triv
The individual limit is $1000 per donator per candidate per election cycle. There's also a total limit per election cycle, if memory serves. It doesn't matter that much if you're Bill Gates or not, however, if you're looking mostly at your own representatives (1 Fed rep, 2 state senators, and 1 Pres.).
It does matter to a certain degree in that if you don't have that much discretionary spending, you may not fill the limit... but the limit is not THAT high(*). Somebody who is upper-middle-class could probably meet contribute on a fairly regular basis if he put politics at a high priority, compared to eating out less, being more discriminating with music and movies, and so forth. Or toys, like graphics cards (how much do the latest nVidia ones cost?) and digital cameras (which go into the thousands...).
(*) The current version of McCain-Feingold will double it, to compensate for the complete removal of soft money donations to national political parties.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Just for the record, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. Their product is not usually distributed on the radio or by mp3.
The RIAA, the Recording Industry Associaton of America, is who you're talking about.
They both, as oligopolies in copyright based businesses, support SSSCA and contributory copyright infringement lawsuits against P2P networks that allow the sharing of copyrighted material.
Rule 1: Forbid for-profit and tax-exempt corporations from participation in the political process. Corporation may not contribute to political campaigns, lobby government officials (elected or appointed), or pay others to do so. This would mean that if Michael Eisner chose to testify before Congress, Disney would need to record that time against his vacation or paid sick time, or not pay him for that time at all.
I think this would go a long way towards taking politicians out of corporate pockets.