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."
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
"a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know." A US Representative, Barney Frank (D), was recently quoted during the campaign finance debates as saying: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue." Neither party's hands are clean when it comes to the current Orwellian state of affairs in the US. It's a shame that people are ready to throw away 200 years of hard fought battles defending civil liberties, all because of fears of terrorism and a digital economy. The framers of the consitution were defining guiding principles, not specifics. They must be "rolling over" in their graves.
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.
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!Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
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!
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
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 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!
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.
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 dunno...how about
I think either of those would do.
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."
Who are these strong you're talking about? Who are these weak?
I'm sure you'd agree that the bill of rights is valuable, and having some way to enforce that is necessary.
The Constitution allows for its own enforcement. The Federal government was strong enough to stand up to Standard Oil at the turn of the century and break it up, so I don't see how expanding the Federal budget by so much over the past hundred years to continue to stand up to the strong is really 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.
The items you mention (apart from the military) are local issues, best handled by local governments. This decentralization of government business acts both to be more responsive to localities and to reduce the amount of cash flowing through the Federal government (which is a good thing).
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!
Nice straw man. 1. No one said anything about the "original Constitution", just the Constitution as it now stands, which allows for womens' voting and the equality of blacks (btw, they were counted as 3/5ths a person). 2. Of course there's a limit to this "small government thing", of course we have to allow for modern things like the Air Force.
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.
The soft money problem and the dramatic escalation of money needed by politicians was caused by their mucking with the system in the first place.
I have a significant problem with the government restricting political speech by controling how people spend their money on political advertisements and campaigns. I'd be happier if they removed restrictions, but mandated the strictest of reporting, so that you could know who gave what to which parties/candidates.
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.
So, the government will now be in charge of the debating process? I think that a little government intervention in the political process goes a long way. I don't vehemently oppose your suggestion, but don't really embrace the idea, either.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?