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.
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.
"Keep your grubby laws off my computer"
Anyone want to make bumperstickers of this?
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
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?
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
"So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough."
That's my favorite quote. It made me laugh, then cry. I am glad to see mainstream media ridicule these puppets we call leaders so blatantly. For a second I thought I was reading The UK Register.
It's not fox(x-files, family guy), it's Fox News. They've been doing a lot of very excellent journalism lately, especially with programs like The Oreilly Factor. They were the first to bring up the fact that the Red Cross, united way, and other charitable organizations were misusing donations from the money they collected under the guise of helping sept 11th victims. They carried the gary condit scandal before anyone. Fair and balanced, Fox News takes on both the democrats and republicans, and holds them accountable for their actions.
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.
Bumper stickers would be awesome, I'm intrested!
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...
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
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.
Shouldn't it be:
"Get your laws off my computer, you d*mned dirty CongressApe"!!!!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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
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
Thanks for the stereotyping. I don't know about gessel, but I live in Los Angeles. I must be an ultra-liberal Dem, right?
Wrong, I'm a registered Libertarian.
To use your logic, based on your postm you obviously must be a sister-marrying beer-drinking redneck from the South.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
They have?
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.
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
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.
Omega Man: Hi Big Brother, how's your owner, The Mouse?
Ten Commandments: Let my PCs go!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Vote Repulsocrat!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
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
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
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??
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.
Wait, wait, wait! Hollings is a Southern Democrat, son. Anybody with an inkling of politics will tell you that some Southern Dems are even more conservative than some Southern Repulicans. Making statements like "Can I get an AMEN! It is now offical, I am becoming a republican" is as silly as it is ignorant. Are you going to tow the Republican Party line when it comes to support of the DMCA? Vote for the people who make the most sense, for chrissakes! Don't vote for a blasted party!
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.
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.
Senators have been doing terribly in recent presidential races. Governors/VPs seem to have a much better shot in national elections.
This seems to be the Dem's biggest concern in 2004: lack of decent, available gubenatorial candidates to face GWB.
He (Kerry) may win a primary or two; my bet is on the Dems tring to fashion Al Gore into a "second-time-arounder". Don't think it will work, though.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
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!
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
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.
What exactly is the phrase "fair and balanced" supposed to imply if it doesn't imply unbiased? Faux News chants that mantra over and over again. As for the idiot Bernie Goldberg, try these URLs for kicks: here, and here. There's plenty more on that site as well. Not that I actually expect a Faux sheep be willing to accept an alternate viewpoint.
It doesn't matter anyway. By Republican logic, it doesn't matter how much you get, it only matters if you got any at all. At least that's the stance they're taking with respect to Enron contributions, where the Republicans got ~70% of the total, but Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty.
Fox News Channel does claim to be even-handed, if memory serves, even while some of their commentators were were all-Condit-all-the-time (I mean, *extreme* overkill clearly trying to nail him. Sure, he deserved to be nailed, but beyond his constituents and those who knew Levy, was it really that important? *shrug*)
On the other hand, their broadcast program (Fox News Sunday) is actually pretty decent. Their interviewers seem capable of noticing dodgy, uninformative answers and asking direct questions, even of GOPers like Rumsfeld or Lott. Likewise, one week they might interview an Israeli official, the next a Palestinian Authority spokeswoman.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It is now offical, I am becoming a republican. ;).
Yeah, they've done a great job looking out for our freedom. Republican politicians pander to American voters' xenophobia, homophobia, religous bigotry, greed, and self-righteousness. I'm not a liberal- I think the Democratic party promotes class warfare, race-baiting, and paranoia among every conceivable minority group- but I despise the intolerant views and phony free-market obsession that the GOP stands for. Either party is willing to drop any illusion of having principles in order to wring the last bit of cash out of special interest groups and corporations.
We're pretty much screwed here. Reform Party? Puh-leaze. Greens? Hippy communists. The only hope is to reform the existing parties from within. Let's see how many Republicans vote for McCain-Feingold, and then talk about switching affilitations.
Come on, be fair. More marry their cousins and some of 'em even drink cheap wine when they're out on a date with 'em.
And they all watch Fox News when Pro Wrestlin' ain't on...
That is all.
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
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
Hmmmmm. I seem to remember that the RIAA was once investigated for price-fixing with regards to CDs, but I don't recall the results.
With financing... unless you can show explicit bribery, rather than merely "we're contributing to your campaign because we like your record, or we hate your opponents", or another violation of campaign laws like exceeding hard money contribution limits via the use of straw donors... not really.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Bill O'Reilly brought a USF CS professor of Arabic descent onto his show and accused him of supporting known terrorists- a charge proven false some time ago by numerous other news organizations and federal agencies. O'Reilly said (roughly) "If I were the FBI, I wouldn't let you out of my sight for a moment." The poor prof- who made an ill-advised remark about Israel more than a decade ago and has since recanted- barely got a chance to respond. I used to like O'Reilly, but this episode was sickening. It's as shoddy as Geraldo, and far more damaging. Shame on Fox.
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.
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.
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.
heh...feeling a bit prescient after changing my sig yesterday. :)
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
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
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.
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!
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
Oh please.
Fox news is one of the most unethical, biased examples of crap journalism on the US airwaves. They have to keep telling you they are "fair and balanced" because if you had any criticle thinking skills you'd realize they were not.
I don't know if they were the first to talk about Condit, but they were certainly the last. Well after every other news agency realized there wasn't a story there, Fox News was still beating the horse. Right up until 9/11 they were giving hourly updates to let us know nothing had changed, but Fox News still thinks he is scum.
And don't even get me started on O'Reilly. He's not a journalist, he is a bully. Brings people on the show, makes wild accusations and then doesn't let them respond. If they don't accept his invite to the show, then he bashes them constantly claiming they are afraid of him.
What a joke. Fox News is just an extension of Fox with Cops, When Animals Attack, and Alien Autopsy.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
If anything is "knee jerk", it is your own response.
Papa Kennedy worked specifically to AVOID his sons entering the "family businesss". Furthermore, Papa Kennedy's trade was bootleging not extortion and racketeering. If JFK wanted to "fall not far from the tree", he could have just opened a distillery.
OTOH, Bush II does seem to be rather a clone of his father who was also president less than a decade before. Also, Bush II makes no attempt to distinguish himself politically or ideologically from his father.
When has Bush II ever shown himself to be his own man? Why should we expect him NOT to pander to the fundie xian elements of his own party (like his dad)?
Perhaps if there was some elected office that papa kennedy held we might infer from that what his sons would eventually do.
Otherwise, you're trying to compare apples and battleships.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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?
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.
FoxNews use the slogan "Fair and balanced" (not to mention "We report, YOU decide!".) So, yeah, they do deny that they have a conservative slant.
The NYT may occasionally dare to criticise Bush (apparently), but they're also the people who reported the results of the 2001 Florida recount as being that Bush would have won anyway, going so far as to lie about what one of the judges intended to do concerning going for a state-wide recount at the time of the election. There's a campaign over at Media-Whores Online to have the NYT print a retraction.
They're certainly "middle of the road" in the sense that they'll prostitute themselves to whoever/whatever's in power, regardless of political affiliation.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you are seriously claiming Fox News isn't worse scum than Condit you have some serious mental problems.
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/
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