CBDTPA / SSSCA Won't Be Passed This Year, Say Leahy

filrock writes "It looks like we'll have a little breathing room before the CBDTPA/SSSCA becomes law. Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is against the bill. Read the article on Wired. Good to see someone in the Senate with some common sense."

Comments

Common Sense?

[Warped-Reality]

Real common sense would prevent it from being passed at all

Re:Common Sense?

[jo42]

Not only should it not pass, it is fundamentally illegal. The US Senate, or Congress, does not have the legal or authoritative right to pass a law that dictates the wherewithal of computing to the rest of the world.

Yankee Go Home!

Re:Common Sense?

[dxkelly]

What does common sense have to do with the government?

Re:Common Sense?

[Prior Restraint]

Sorry to nitpick, but your post demands it.

Laws, by definition, are legal. I think you mean the CBDTPA is unconstitutional.

The Senate is not distinct from Congress, it is a subset. The other half is called the House of Representatives (the House, for short).

Again, Congress can grant itself any legal authority it chooses. Its only restrictions are from its constitutional authority.

Finally, they aren't trying to dictate anything to "the rest of the world". Read the bill. Just dictating things to their own country will suffice. The massive peer pressure the U.S. exerts will either get everyone else to fall into line, or they'll find themselves ostracized by the world community.

Damnit

[Burgundy Advocate]

And I was so looking forward to owning pre-ban computers!

New and Improved

[dattaway]

They are working on a better offer we can't refuse.

What does he want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leahy will only pass a bill with such a name as the JLTDMCAWWTTTAAOYRAMAP (Just Like The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, We Will Try To Take Away All Of Your Rights As Much As Possible)

Re:What does he want?

[MillionthMonkey]

What, no Unicode or extended-ASCII characters?

Re:What does he want?

[rmohr02]

Try JLTDMCAWWTTTAAOYRAMAPWLNPKEWTBDSA:
Just Like The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, We Will Try To Take Away All Of Your Rights As Much As Possible Without Letting Normal People Know Exactly What This Bill Does (Screw Americans)

Re:What does he want?

[frank_adrian314159]

What, no Unicode or extended-ASCII characters?

Nope! They're un-American! Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk...

Don't let your guard down

[chennes]

This only delays it a year, which is a notoriously short amount of time. We can't say to ourselves "Good - now I can go back to bed." This give all of us another year to deluge our representatives with letters expressing the danger of this legislation. We can't keep relying on people like senator Leahy to save our asses for us. WRITE!!

Re:Don't let your guard down

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

And don't forget that this thing could still find its way into another bill as an amendment. That's how the CDA was passed, as an emendment to the 1996 telecom act.

OT: If one of the admins is reading this, could you go in and delete or modify the post that screwed up the page formatting?

Re:Don't let your guard down

[NitsujTPU]

We can't rely on letters either. Since few people understand what this all means, or even that it's happenning, it won't be a problem in campaigns, and since those involved obviously don't care what the people think, they won't ride on the side of their constituents.

Re:Don't let your guard down

[qurk]

I hope they don't pull something like that and get this bill passed in such a manner. That would be very very very low life. This is a huge bill, they are pretending that all the electronic devices covered are like a little local business they can spank instead of billions of dollar companies which do a lot of business outside the country as well.

Lord knows I stopped watching T.V. for 3 years after I got the internet, and since I started again my brain is slowly starting to rot.

Computer/electronics/software > movie/music/T.V.

This is your brain. This is your brain on T.V. (sizzle)

Incidently I booted up windows and dug out internet explorer to see what you were talking about, that page widening sucks :( If it realy bothers you the windows 0.9.9 mozilla milestone is very good!

Re:Don't let your guard down

[Anonymous Coward]

For some of us, anyways, Mozilla sucks worse than the page widening.

Actually, what sucks are the brats who 'run' this site who refuse to implement the fix. One of their buddies comes up with a new way of hacking the code, and as long as it only breaks the Windows browser it's fine with them.

That's really petty, kids.

Re:Don't let your guard down

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Yeah, it may be sneaky and underhanded to attach a bill to another one to get it passed, but it happens all the time. This is done in precisely this situation, when the bill would be dead otherwise. This often happens with budget bills because the president is often under pressure to just sign them in order to keep the government running, so someone will load them up with junk that wouldn't otherwise get passed.

We'd better be vigilant, or this could happen here.

Re:Don't let your guard down

[Dyolf Knip]

This is a huge bill, they are pretending that all the electronic devices covered are like a little local business they can spank instead of billions of dollar companies which do a lot of business outside the country as well.

I could have sworn I came across a comment by Hollings along the lines of, "I can't believe that some teens in a basement somewhere couldn't pull it [SSSCA tech] off." But I'm having the damndest time finding the link. Have I just been hitting the magic mushrooms a little hard lately or does someone else know what I'm talking about?

Good, but not the end of things

[Jouster]

It has been the case, on several occasions, that bills have been sent to the "wrong" committee to avoid a hostile chair. Since the Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican and is known to be tightly linked with Hollywood, this seems a very real possibility. The only thing stopping it is that the bill has already been assigned, but when the next round of bills comes to the fore, watch for incorrect assignment to occur.

Jouster

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Just want to set your facts straight: The Hollings bill is a Senate bill; there is no Speaker in the Senate, only a Majority Leader, who is a DEMOCRAT -- the party closer to Hollywood. You can bet the Republicans, who get less that 30% of what Democrats get in soft-money from Hollywood, will favor tech (really big-business) over content (somewhat big-business).

Slacker

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican and is known to be tightly linked with Hollywood

Except that the vast majority of the sponsors of this bill are Democrats. As were the big cheeses behind the DMCA.

I understand why you think that Republicans are evil incarnate. I can't understand why you apparently don't feel the same way about Democrats.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[nathanm]

Since the Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican and is known to be tightly linked with Hollywood, this seems a very real possibility.

First, the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), has absolutely nothing to do with what bills get discussed in the Senate!

Second, maybe you should do a little research before you make accusations. This list of the top 20 industries that contributed to Hastert doesn't even include the entertainment industry. Compare that to the contributor list of the CBDTPA's author, Sen Hollings (D-SC), which lists TV/Movies/Music as the 2nd highest.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[SEE]

Well, this is actually the Senate, which means it's the Majority Leader, Gephardt, and he's a Democrat.

But, yeah, he's linked to the entertainment industry. They're his #8 contributor, as can be seen here

He's, in fact, the third-highest reciever of media contributions in the Senate (TV/Movies/Music #3.)

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[jonblaze]

Dick Gephardt is the Minority Leader in the House. You're thinking of Tom Daschle, the Majority Leader in the Senate.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[dinotrac]

Ummm...

Getting closer, but still no cigar.
Dick Gephardt is the Minority Leader of the House. Yes, he is a Democrat.

Tom Daschle is the Senate Majority Leader and, of course, he is also a Democrat.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[RManning]

Since the Speaker (who decides where bills go) is Republican ...

Actually, if you read the article you'd note that this is actually much more supported by the Democratic party, not the Republican.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[PurpleFloyd]

The dangerous thing here is that this issue is not split along party lines like most others. It all depends on who gets money from the entertainment industry, not who is a Democrat or Republican. If you start thinking of it along party lines, you will end up missing half the sponsors of the bill.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, Hastert is #3 overall in the House for TV Production according to that web page.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[0x0d0a]

Um...for the past few years, the Dems have (in my eyes) favored tech (and freedom on the 'Net like no taxes and funding for public library/school Internet connections). Now, granted, this is almost entirely because of strong Clinton-era pro-Net policies, but even so...

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[DavidTC]

In your eyes, blah blah blah, whatever, but the Democrats are almost the only people pushing this bill. I think it has one Republican sponsor.

Of course, Leahy is a Democrat, too. But before you try to get a party to fight a bill, maybe you should check if they are the ones pushing it in the first place.

And the Dems have been in Hollywood's pocket much longer than they've been for 'tech issues'. People talk about the 'liberal media', but it's actually the other way around, the 'liberals' are very pro-'media'.

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[cyclist1200]

Uhh...where does the Speaker of the House even come into this? The article is about SENATOR Patrick Leahy (D) who happens to also be chairman of the SENATE Judiciary Committee. If he doesn't like the bill, it will likely die in committee (at least until next year).

Re:Good, but not the end of things

[cyclist1200]

Oops. Sorry. Please ignore parent. That's what I get for posting before I've had my morning coffee.

a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

if anything, this will perhaps have a reverse-effect - people will see its postponed and forget about it, then when it comes up again in the future less fuss is likely to be made...

perhaps.

More common sense needed...

[dciman]

Now, someone in the congress should take notice to the obsurd proposal the RIAA has to charge extra fee to internet raido stations. The Screen Savers had the founder of WOLF FM on the other night talking abotu this issue and it amazed me. The guy does this out of his own pocket basically and already pays the normal fees that any other broadcast radio station pays. Now they want to charge him MORE than that, on a per user basis that is retroactive back to 1998!!! He would have to literally pay millions of dollars if he wanted to stay broadcasting.

This is all about the RIAA wanting to put indepent people out of business...period. They want to control every outlet that consumers have to get content.... and it is disturbing. People need to get their haeads out of their asses and stop this. Call your Senator daily....write letters....send email... and spread the work. We shoudn't have to deal with this "everything in the world must be copy protected crap."

Re:More common sense needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boycott the RIAA.

Re:More common sense needed...

[56ker]

What's to stop people buying imported non-copy protected goods? I mean any law that tries to just have blanket copy protection is written by someone nieve, misguided or both!

Re:More common sense needed...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It would be illegal to buy imported non-copy-restricted goods too.

Re:More common sense needed...

[Sloppy]

Now, someone in the congress should take notice to the obsurd proposal the RIAA has to charge extra fee to internet raido stations.

They aren't trying to charge "internet radio stations" a dime. They are just trying to overcharge people who broadcast their (RIAA's) stuff. If you are not engaging in promoting RIAA products, you don't pay RIAA anything.

That's why I don't give a flying fuck what happens to the broadcasters that are whining about this: because they're just working for the RIAA anyway.

If you're actually doing a worthwhile broadcast, then you already have your neighborhood underground metal band's free permission (or at worst an incredibly cheap license) to broadcast their music (or you're broadcasting your own content) so this doesn't affect you.

It is a complete non-issue for everyone except RIAA tools.

What are his motives?

[Screaming Lunatic]

Leahy says he will block the bill, but he doesn't state why. What are his intentions? Does he feel the bill is just a plain bad bill or is their some lobby group he is looking out for? I think it's usually the latter when senators try to block bills. Or it could be just partisan politics. PK

Re:What are his motives?

[sconeu]

I doubt it's partisan politics, since 5 of the 6 sponsors are Dems, and Leahy is a Dem.

OK, we've got a reprieve. Now USE THE DAMN TIME WISELY!!!!

Re:What are his motives?

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

Leahy is an oddity in Congress. He's someone who seems to have his principles and sticks to them. He really seems to understand that there's such a thing as the First Amendment.

I wonder if there's a chance that Slashdot could do an interview with him. I'd like to see that happen.

Re:What are his motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could it be partisan politics if he's in the same party as most of the bill's sponsors?

Re:What are his motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see that happen.

And I'd like to see my cow milk itself.

My point? If you want to get ANYTHING done, you have to (help) MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Re:What are his motives?

[Brendor]

As a Vermonter, I have heard nothing but good things regarding personal repies to e-mails by my friends and family. The Senator is also known as a savvy web user and his site can be found here. I would like to see his responses to Slashdot's questions also.

Re:What are his motives?

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

How am I supposed to set up an interview with him on Slashdot? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to do that, but that's something the admins will have to do.

Re:What are his motives?

[tfoss]

Amen.

Makes me proud of my Vermont heritage. Remember The other senator from Vermont caused a pretty big stir when he stuck to his principles as well.

Leahy is one of the few politicians who can give politics a good name. In high school, he came to speak to our black history class (mind you, a class of 15 people, not the whole school, not an assembly) and discussed racism and politics. From that time on, I have had immense respect for him, while his policies and actions such as this only deepen it.

-Ted

Re:What are his motives?

[RussP]

I'm curious how Leahy voted on the recently passed campaign finance reform law. You know, the law that prohibits issue advocacy ads for 60 days prededing a general election. The one that excises the First Amendment. How did this Free Speech champion vote on that one? Anyone know?

Re:What are his motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

With respect to the idea of having him interviewed...I think that we really want to avoid having him associated with "us" too closely. The more factions are seen to weigh in on one side of an issue, the more weight it seems to have.

Re:What are his motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to get rid of the East Coast Milk subsidy program. It artificially raises the price of Vermont milk. It's an antiquated law from back in the day when milk for the east coast had to be produced close to the market, due to a lack of modern refrigerator.

Nowadays, all it has become is a pork-barrel thing for Vermont politicians to hand out to the citizens of the state.

Ben and Jerry's ice cream should be made in Wisconsin, away from artificial government subsidies on milk. The Vermont economy should not be propped up by government mandated high prices for Vermont milk.

What does this all have to do with the above comment? It's all about the lack of 'sticking to principles.' Cut 'em off, and let 'em suck air.

Re:What are his motives?

[Martin Blank]

Leahy was a co-sponsor and voted in favor of it, and also voted for the Shays-Meehan bill. He's been an advocate of campaign finance reform for at least the last couple of years.

Re:What are his motives?

[RussP]

Thanks for that information. That says it all. How many ignorant Slashdot readers consider Leahy a champion of the Free Speech when he is a co-sponsor of a CFR bill that tramples the First Amendment? Amazing!

Re:What are his motives?

[Prior Restraint]

CFR bill that tramples the First Amendment

Okay, I haven't read the text of that law (no longer a bill, btw); I only know what pundits on TV say, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

In all the discussion and debate about this law, I was surprised that no one ever mentioned Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. Maybe it's totally inapplicable (IANAL, so I wouldn't know), but it seems relevant to me. At the time, the press was constantly parroting a line from Justice Stevens' concurring opinion: Money is property; it is not speech.

The only part of this new law that raises constitutional questions are those about the "blackout period" on TV ads. Maybe those will get struck down as unconstitutional, but the Court tends to be very precise about that sort of stuff. They'd cut out that one piece, and leave the rest of the law intact.

Re:What are his motives?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'd like to see my cow milk itself.

There is probably a way to do that. Human males "milk" themselves obsessively. If there is some way to transfer the motivation to a cow, you might get your wish. We need to genetically engineer cows in such a manner than their udders become intense erogenous zones, and then plaster the insides of the barn with cow porn.

Sounds silly, but it just might work...

After the election...

[JordanH]

If it comes up next year, it will be after the midterm election. Congressmen are a bit more easily swayed by grass-roots campaigns before the election.

What this means is that we really need to spend the time getting organized and involved.

Re:After the election...

[martissimo]

if ti comes up after the election it also leaves time for the voters to speak on it with what really counts... our votes!

but the voters wont consider this bill in voting unless thoose "grass-roots" campaigns continue, and continue vigorously, and take it to the politicians in the way it matters most...voting!

Thank you Senator Leahy

[jmorris42]

A Democrat that still believes in the Constituition! Just shows they aren't all like Fritz "the Senator from Disney" Hollings. Keep writing those cards and letters folks, but send them to the Senator from Vermont in the form of thank you notes. He will now be the subject of extreme lobbying efforts by Hollywood and the DNC so he could use some encouragement.

Re:Thank you Senator Leahy

[dattaway]

And remember, everytime you buy a movie, a starving lobbiest from Hollywood will thank you.

Re:Thank you Senator Leahy

[MAXOMENOS]

A Democrat that still believes in the Constituition!

Yeah, almost as amazing as a Republican that still believes in the Constitution.

Re:Thank you Senator Leahy

[Anonymous Coward]

How lame. We're getting partisan moderation on /., now. Losers.

A lobby?

[looseBits]

If Leahy is supporting a lobby, where do I sign up?

Wouldn't it be nice if us geeks had our own PAC? Are there any lawyers / former congressmen / aides out there who would represent the /. lobby?

This is a shame.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a shame. The sooner we can establish rules and regulations on the "free" exchange of copyrighted material, the better off EVERYONE will be.

Including you, the consumer.

Re:This is a shame.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...by Anonymous Coward..." *grinz*

-phox

Ah the American Legislative System...

[GearheadX]

That's one of the little wonders of the American legislative process that sometimes works both for and against us. When it comes to laws, a committee can take that sucker and kill it graveyard dead, simply by refusing to look at the blighter. Sure, it allows a minority of people in comparison to the whole body to have a great deal of control over the passing of new law, but sometimes you need one cool individual in a whole mess of chuckleheads to save everyone some greif later down the line.

THANK YOU, Senator Leahy.

Re:Ah the American Legislative System...

[Firehawke]

It seems to me that at this point we should be wondering how long he could possibly hold up to his principles. Congress has no place for a man with morals. They'll chew one up and spit them out rather quickly; it's happened before, and will happen again.

Re:Ah the American Legislative System...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny?

Frankly, it would be funny if it wasn't so true.

Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop buying CDs, stop going to the cinema, and stop renting movies. And get as many people as you can to do likewise. Letters to representatives are all very interesting in theory, but there's nothing that will ruin a company like no-one buying its products. (you vote out one side, and they'll just bribe the other one...)

So, all of you fellow nerds who are against SSSCA et al who are continuing to buy such should be extremely ashamed of yourselves. I've never bought a CD and I've never rented/bought a movie, and it's been *years* since I last went to the cinema.

So, I can do it, can you?

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

And in case anyone's thinking that they have to buy music from the Big Five, I just purchased a CD from my upstairs neighbor last night. He's in a band, and they're trying desperately to get some exposure. I paid $5 for the disc, and you know what, it's damn good. There's one song that could actually take off, given some airplay. My point being, you can find good music all around you, if you're willing to look.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[Lonath]

I can't tell if you're serious since you're posting AC...but you should boycott Star Wars and get everyone you know to boycott it, too. Boycotting anything else would just be a blip on their screen, but SW is hardcore geek material.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[Kwil]

So help us help the guy out.. give us his web address so we can all check it out and buy.

If he doesn't have one.. you're a tech geek, arentcha?

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your upstairs neigbour should get a website, and sell his CDs online. Then you could link there.

That would make your sharing that with us have a fucking point.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

1. No, he doesn't have a Web site.
2. My point was, since you obviously weren't reading the post thoroughly, is that there are good independent artists out there, maybe closer than you think.
3. Don't go off like an asshole just because you haven't read carefully.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[SomeoneYouDontKnow]

No, unfortunately, he doesn't have a Web site. I need to talk to him about that. I don't know him that well, but since I used to work in college radio, he wants to talk to me about getting his CD out to more stations.

But I can share a Web site of a really good band from Fort Smith/Fayetteville, Arkansas. Their name is Oreo Blue, and they play a rock/blues mix. To tell you the truth, they sound best in live concerts, but they have some really good albums. "Live by Demand" is one of their best, I think. They have some of their stuff MP3'ed on the site, but whoever was doing it wasn't paying attention to the quality because there's often skipping and other errors in the tracks. Still, their music is awesome.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[The Cat]

sell his CDs online. Then you could link there.

Right, so everyone can shriek "SPAM! SPAM!! SPAAAAAM!!!"

No thanks.

Re:Beware the tale of By-Ends. Boycott! Boycott!

[MsGeek]

You don't have to stop seeing movies or hearing music. Just get your CDs and DVDs USED.

And, as another person in this thread suggested, support indie music/films.

Maybe this AC likes his monastic life, but I like my media. This is a guilt-free way of getting around the RIAA/MPAA hegemony while still getting your pop media fix. It might mean you have to wait a while before seeing that movie you wanted to see, but oh well. I sleep better at night this way.

one million dollars later

[jmat]

lets all praise whatever intrest flashed the "right sum" to Leahy

Don't take this at face value

[cwilson]

Personally, I don't trust Senator Leaky Leahy as far as I can pick him up and throw him. Sen. Leahy was kicked off the Senate Intelligence Committee back in the 80's for leaking top secret information to the press -- a leak which arguably resulted in the death of several of our undercover agents.

I think this is just a head-fake.

Interesting...

[lie as cliche]

...considering the source. Isn't Wired owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount / Blockbuster / Showtime / UPN etc.? How nice to be reassured by corporate film interests that we can stop worrying about copy protection initiatives for a while.

Democrats are against this bill

[HanzoSan]

Haha I'm only saying this to piss off right wing extremist types who blame this on the democrats.

Since slashdot is very right wing, expect me to get modded as troll, flamebaiter, etc etc.

Bring it on, i have 50 Karma

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[DAldredge]

The vast majority of sponsors of this bill ARE DEMOCRATS!

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[Reverend Raven]

Slashdot...Right Wing? What? This place is one of the shelters of liberal thought on the Internet, or that's how it seems by reading some comments on here. Anyway, so what? This is nothing more than Senator Depends (Leahy), playing partisian politics as usual by using this issue to get votes for him and his party. That's the only reason kids, he's using this issue to try to support himself (as most Democrats do, oddly enough). When enough people (as in political donors, not the public) cares enough about this bill it'll get out of committe and on the floor, but until then we're going to have "couragous" Senators like this leftist piece of shit using stall tactics as a way to say he's done something on this issue. Garbage.

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[HanzoSan]

Republicans and Democrats are puppets, republicans are owned by diffrent groups thats all, Oil companies and lawfirms own the republians.

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are owned by trial lawyers. So the Republicans will have to share that source of revenue.

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans and Democrats are puppets, republicans are owned by diffrent groups thats all, Oil companies and lawfirms own the republians.

You really are clueless, aren't you? Lawyers are overwhelmingly Democrats.

Re:Democrats are against this bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers are overwhelmingly Democrats.

working for lawfirms owned by Republicans.

Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Bowfinger]

I think the Republicans could really use this as ammunition against the Dems. It would be easy to flashback to the moral majority days and start trumpeting that those "godless Democrats are the handmaidens of the immoral movie industry." It's the lever Republicans need to deflect attention away from their role in the Enron scandal.

IMHO, the U.S. needs one of those hidden reset buttons to set everything back to factory (i.e., founders') defaults. We are truly FUBAR.

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

back to factory (i.e., founders') defaults

Are you having a _complete_ laugh? The American republicanism of the 1780s was about as inclusive as Greek democracy 2000 years ago. If you were an upstanding land-owning white male, hooray, but woe betide you had dark man's blood...

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with the country by virtue of shit piled upon shit piled upon shit, but don't imagine the Glorious Freedom spoken of in history class had any bearing on the true state of affairs...

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

That button does exist. In fact, you'll find it on every single firearm in the United States...

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you having a _complete_ laugh? The American republicanism of the 1780s was about as inclusive as Greek democracy 2000 years ago. If you were an upstanding land-owning white male, hooray, but woe betide you had dark man's blood...

Sigh. It's nice revisionist history if you like bashing dead white guys. Too bad it isn't true. There was no federal requirement for voters to either own land or to be white. Voting requirements were defined by the states, and free blacks were qualified to vote in all of the original 13 states (of course, many still couldn't vote due to the "freehold" requirements). The American revolution wasn't just a "white man's" revolution, and the continual attempt by people to phrase it in those terms disenfranchises a large number of black americans that have very much of which to be proud. Considering that the first person to die in the Revolutionary War was a black american, and that the Constitution itself was written by a man of mixed (black and Scottish) birth (Alexander Hamilton), your claims of white exclusivity don't exactly match up with reality.

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting requirements were defined by the states

Yes, and you can't have a constitution which guarantees equality to all men if voting requirements aren't federally defined, can you?

and free blacks were qualified to vote in all of the original 13 states

Oh, free blacks. That's ok then.

that the Constitution itself was written by a man of mixed (black and Scottish) birth

And the man who wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was quite the supporter of slavery...

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[The Cat]

What part of "all men" wasn't explained?

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and you can't have a constitution which guarantees equality to all men if voting requirements aren't federally defined, can you?

Ummm, why not?

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, and you can't have a constitution which guarantees equality to all men if voting requirements aren't federally defined, can you?"

Ummm, why not?

If it leaves it open for different people to have different rights then it doesn't in any sense "guarantee" equality for all men. No idea if that's what it's supposed to do, but the person you were replying to was correct in what he said.

Re:Republicans can use this as ammunition

[e. boaz]

The US already has one of those hidden "reset buttons" to set everything back to "factory defaults". It's called the 2nd Amendment, which protects the individual right to keep and bear arms (check out recent court cases before you flame this, namely U.S. vs Emerson.)

Fight it at the constituency...

[loucura!]

Most of the USian population could care less about time-shifting, or space-shifting, they don't care about fair use rights, they just want their entertainment in pre-packaged slices, like 'American' cheese.

Buuuuut...

Most of the population 'hates' pr0n, especially the Southern Baptist Convention and their ilk.

Too fight the CBDTPA, we should mount a campaign against it claiming that it protects the illicit profits of pornographers, after all, what is most traded on the Gnutella network?

Re:Fight it at the constituency...

[Anonymous Coward]

USian? We're expanding beyond America now? Cool.

Democrats are evil too

[HanzoSan]

The republicans however arent as educated evil.
Bush and his friends dont really know how to handle technology at all, then you have the democrats who understand the technology but want to control it like China.

Both sides are wrong, we dont really have a side which understands the technology yet understands our rights. We need a new party in government.

Re:Democrats are evil too

[Chris Johnson]

I say we take over the Greens :D

Re:Democrats are evil too

[Sophacles]

But we just CAN'T have a 3rd party with a lot of power. That would ruin the binary political system.

Re:Democrats are evil too

[Anonymous Coward]

The republicans however arent as educated evil.

Yes, HanzoSan, we can tell how educated and intelligent the Left is by your great spelling and grammer.

*Major eye-roll*

Re:Democrats are evil too

[Anonymous Coward]

While there may be more democracts who understand technology, the majority of Representitives do not understand the issues at all, or even try to. And believe me, this is the case for many important issues. Until we are ruled by an super intelligent oligarchy, this will be the case.

Leahy vs. Hollings

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollings, Hollywood's darling, shuts the door on Tauzin-Dingell, while Leahy heads this mess off at the pass. I believe this is what is referred to as "checks and balances."

This really wasn't the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of this bill wasn't to get passed, it was to make the next bills concerning this topic look less radical. I'm not going to find the link but in a recent cnet article they said how "Fritz" Hollings was a powerful influence because of his ability to point out an extreme and then get an alternative that's not quite as radical passed.

we need advertising.

[HanzoSan]

money needs to be spent on ads
why wont intel and others help pay for these ads?

reading the article would have been a good thing

[GePS]

I'll summarize from the article

Republicans have a good chance at gaining control of the senate over this issue. As long as they stay on the right side of this bill (no pun intended :-), they can make a rather sweeping and rather correct generalization that the democrats are puppets of hollywood and possibly win back the senate due to the very small difference between the seats.

We could have a Republican Senate next year....

[coltrane679]

which would mean that Leahy is OUT of his control position. A third of the Senate is up for grabs in November, and there is only a one seat difference now (and, as you might recall, the Democrats only have control now because the Senator from Vermont, Jeffries, switched parties last year). There is also a possibility that Sen. Miller of Geaorgia, a Democrat, may switch to the Republicans. I believe the Republican Senator who would take Leahy's position is Sen. Hatch of Utah.

As a libertarian I really don't take a partisan view of such things--I view the Republicans and Democrats like the Bloods and the Crips, or the Corleone and Tattaglia families. I am pretty sure, however, that the DMCA passed the Senate (and House) while they were both controlled by Republicans, with Hatch then in the position that Leahy has now. Of course it was signed into law by Clinton, a Democrat. See my point about the Bloods and the Crips...?

Re:We could have a Republican Senate next year....

[Chris Johnson]

Well now that's interesting, because Orrin Hatch is not happy about what happened to the DMCA he helped to create, and he has NO love for the entertainment industry. This is the guy who has been in support of Napster. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that he would support this in any way.

Rather nice that no matter who ends up in the control position, they don't trust the entertainment industry (they'll take the money, but it doesn't guarantee 'results', evidently)

Re:We could have a Republican Senate next year....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senate vote on the DMCA was 97-0 in favor. It didn't matter who controlled the Senate.

Your Crips & Bloods analogy is correct, however.

Re:We could have a Republican Senate next year....

[ender81b]

Well now that's interesting, because Orrin Hatch is not happy about what happened to the DMCA he helped to create, and he has NO love for the entertainment industry. This is the guy who has been in support of Napster. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that he would support this in any way.

Not happy about how the DMCA is being used eh? WTF. He supports Napster yet drafts a bill that destroys any chance of a service like napster ever being used. I think Sen. Hatch has pulled of a nice spin campaign to sway voters. SOmethign like this:

• Take Hollywood's/recording industry/software industry's money. Draft/Pass bill
• Decry what they are using your bill for. Claim it was never intended for that purpose
• Tell all your constiuents you will 'fix' it if you get reelected...
• GO TO 1

Re:We could have a Republican Senate next year....

[Elf-friend]

which would mean that Leahy is OUT of his control position. A third of the Senate is up for grabs in November, and there is only a one seat difference now (and, as you might recall, the Democrats only have control now because the Senator from Vermont, Jeffries, switched parties last year)

So for once Vermont, which is #49 in population now (I think Alaska passed us), is having real influence. It's even in a good way, for once.

[Takes a second to bask in the glory of being an 8th gen. Vermonter :-) ]

On the other hand, I don't like either Leahy or Jeffords much (and I've met them both, which tends to happen when you live in a state with only 600k people). BTW, Jeffords didn't actually switch parties, he became independent. I geus he figured being independent works for Bernie (as we all call Rep. Sanders, our lone congressman). Of course, many of us are pretty sure we only elect Bernie to keep him out of Vermont for most of the year (haha, only serious, as they say).

I believe the Republican Senator who would take Leahy's position is Sen. Hatch of Utah.

That it would be.

As a libertarian I really don't take a partisan view of such things--I view the Republicans and Democrats like the Bloods and the Crips, or the Corleone and Tattaglia families. I am pretty sure, however, that the DMCA passed the Senate (and House) while they were both controlled by Republicans, with Hatch then in the position that Leahy has now. Of course it was signed into law by Clinton, a Democrat. See my point about the Bloods and the Crips...?

And most Vermonters would tend to agree with you, IMO. We are kind of on a right-ward swing (well, the people not so much the government, yet), right now, but nobody here much cares for the partisan stuff. Actually, that's why the Democrats are in trouble here: they passed a couple of infamous, liberal laws that most of the public doesn't like ("hates", might be a better description). They lost the house in 2000, an may lose the senate (and probably the governor) this year.

To stay on topic, I think that you mention the big problem, that both parties have sold out. We all know the Republicans are all rich folks, but look at the Dem's: the party that has stood so long for unions and better wages and such, has leaders like Kennedy and Gore - old-money. So of course they are going to be in with the Hollywood crowd. In fact, given the leftward leanings of the entertainment industry, the Dem's may be even closer tied to them than the Republicans. On the other hand, the Republicans, who were the party behind aboliton and anti-trust laws, are now tied to the business interests, so you're screwed either way. DMCA and this new one both seem to get bipartisan support. It's very discouraging.

I think the only way we'll ever get control back to the masses is to get the far-right (who don't trust the government) and the far left (who don't trust the goverment either) together, I think they'd find they have more in common than they know. Look at the protest of the WTO, who was there: the progressive types, the unions, and the right-wing folks. The problem is that these groups can't abide each other, because of mostly social views.

Heres what we need to do folks

[HanzoSan]

We need a fund, slashdot or some group can setup a fund so we can all donate 10 bucks or so, to a fund, this money money will be used for advertisements. Instead of petitions we need donations which advertise our point of view to the public and tell the public which politicians are on our side and which arent.

We can raise the money online, through rallies, etc etc

We can get this money. It takes a group to colllect the money, a banner for hundreds or thousands of sites to post all over the web linking to this, and just hang the banner on your site. And of course IRL donations

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[speedfreak_5]

If you're going to be raising large sums of money, see what can be done about getting some TV ads to inform the people.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[HanzoSan]

We need someone to step up who has a popular website to do this. Slashdot maybe? **hint**

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[CokeBear]

Send your money to the EFF.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[the_2nd_coming]

and then you need to apply for a non-prof licence, retain a lawyer, etc.

its a lot of work, I was actualy looking into it then I found the digital consumer organization.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[The Cat]

Good idea. Just FYI:

A 30-second midday ad on a nationwide cable network in about 60 million homes runs only a few thousand dollars. Probably be seen in an average of 4 million homes, roughly.

Just a thought.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[HanzoSan]

these orgs dont pay for ads

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[the_2nd_coming]

fine, i was just commenting on how hard it is to start a non-prof

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[HanzoSan]

no one said it would be easy! Sure its hard, but is it possible? Yes. So if you dont want this law to pass, no matter how hard the mission is to accomplish, it wont matter, the benifits outweight the difficulity.

I'm sure some people here have the means to start a non profit.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[einhverfr]

We need a fund, slashdot or some group can setup a fund so we can all donate 10 bucks or so, to a fund, this money money will be used for advertisements. Instead of petitions we need donations which advertise our point of view to the public and tell the public which politicians are on our side and which arent.

Such a group exists-- the EFF.

However, in this case, a better effort might be waged by donating that $10 to your senators along with a letter...

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[leviramsey]

The problem is that the Campaign Finance Reform law that just got passed banned issue-based political ads by non-candidates, IIRC.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[flacco]

A 30-second midday ad on a nationwide cable network in about 60 million homes runs only a few thousand dollars. Probably be seen in an average of 4 million homes, roughly.

Are you kidding me?? Hell, I might pony up a few grand just to tell a bunch of people to kiss my ass on national TV. Well, as many as I could cram into 30 seconds, anyway.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[evbergen]

A slogan might be handy for a billboard campaign as well.

The law's new name seems to offer a lot more possibilities for that than the old one. Things like "CBDTPA: Consume Broadband only like Digital Televison, or be Punished in America", or "Consumer Broadband Doubles Tariff Per Annum", or "CBDTPA Changes Binary Devices To Perverse Apparatus" spring to mind.

You can probably come up with much better ones.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was seen in 4 million homes, it wouldn't be a few thousand dollars. The kind of numbers you get on cable, especially in mid-day, are more like in the hundreds of thousands, which is virtually nothing to national advertisers, hence the low price.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[Prior Restraint]

It doesn't go into effect until November, conveniently just after this year's elections.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[Zorbo]

I'm glad you're volunteering! How should we contact you?

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[The Cat]

Wrong.

The numbers are authentic. You are mistakenly assuming that all cable stations have the same ratings, which they don't.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[speedfreak_5]

I think that Nationwide is a good idea, but it might be a better idea to run local ads to "test the waters" and see how people react to a computer being neutered. So if the ad doesn't work too well, redesign it and save yourself a few thousand dollars.

Re:Heres what we need to do folks

[leviramsey]

Also, that provision will be ruled unconstitutional anyway...

Its time to act. We need to collect money for ads

[HanzoSan]

Someone set up a non profit of some sort, allow us to donate money, I'll donate $5, everyone here donate $5, then when morpues and others go down we link to that site, millions donate $5, next thing you know we will have millions of dollars.

We use this money to create ads, the ads will tell the public whats going on, how they wont have freedom on their computer anymore. Put the ads on MTV, and on shows college kids watch, let them start a real grassroots movement.

We just need to get the word out.

That wont work

[HanzoSan]

Because the Democrats could do the same thing using Enron and other companies. You act like only the Democrats are puppets. Doing that would be commiting suicide for the republicians because the democrats will do the same thing, and both sides will lose out to a third party.

Re:That wont work

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats are as deep into the Enron scandal as the Republicans are. Just look at what was going on between Enron and the Clinton administration. The Dems can't afford to make Enron an issue because they'll be dragging themselves down with their opponents.

Re:That wont work

[Anonymous Coward]

Enron gave as much or more money to Democrats. Hell, they received a much warmer reception in the Clinton than in the Bush White House.

I think the Enron scandal should be made a big issue. Not because I think it will help the Democrats, but because I think it would blow up in their hypocritical faces.

JeffORDS not JeffRIES

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Sen. Jeffords, Not Jeffries....just so we are clear. Thanks.

Re:JeffORDS not JeffRIES

[coltrane679]

Yep--sorry.

Re:JeffORDS not JeffRIES

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Senator Jackass, actually.

What a fucking flake he turned out to be.

Hm mod this guy up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a really good point, it could all be a trick, a decoy, in chess often its wise to make yourself seem weak so you can strike your enemy when his guard is down.

Perhaps this is to get us to stop fighting, to calm us down so they can sneak the bill past us without us knowing.

Re:Hm mod this guy up!

[guygee]

"Thats a really good point, it could all be a trick, a decoy, in chess often its wise to make yourself seem weak so you can strike your enemy when his guard is down."

Exactly right. Didn't the DMCA pass by voice vote, in the dead of night?

Silly doctors, its not mutation lol

[HanzoSan]

Libertarian, another name for anarchist

Re:Silly doctors, its not mutation lol

[coltrane679]

Close...an anarchist that owns property (and likes it).

Re:Silly doctors, its not mutation lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian, another name for anarchist

Liberal, another name for a pig.

And...

[alzoron]

a third party taking control is bad?

Above is flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure its worth moderating because its an obvious troll (or is it flamebait?). Either way, its a joke. The person obviously is trying to start a flame war, but frankly, he's done such a poor job.

I can give him help, but its not worth it as someone like this is probably suffering from a brain tumor which makes him far less clever and likely to be good at flames and trolls.

Maybe you can moderate this one as "pitiful"?

Careful..

[Kwil]

It could backfire. The last thing we need is some porn industry exec saying, "Yeah! People are finding it too easy to get our stuff and aren't paying for it.."

I think it would.

[TheFrood]

Because the Democrats could do the same thing using Enron and other companies. You act like only the Democrats are puppets. Doing that would be commiting suicide for the republicians because the democrats will do the same thing, and both sides will lose out to a third party.

Enron isn't really relevant to the lives of most voters -- or at least they don't think it's relevant, which amounts to the same thing for political purposes. The collapse of Enron really has no effect on the life of the average American.

The CBDTPA, on the other hand, has the potential to directly affect the lives of anyone who buys a new VCR, computer, TV, MP3 player, car stereo, etc, etc. -- basically damn near everyone.

If it comes down to an Enron strategy for the Democrats versus a CBDTPA strategy for the Republicans, the Republicans have the advantage. And since there's no third party that's even close to winning a single Senate seat, I doubt that anyone would be pulling their punches.

TheFrood

Re:I think it would.

[MAXOMENOS]

Enron isn't really relevant to the lives of most voters -- or at least they don't think it's relevant, which amounts to the same thing for political purposes. The collapse of Enron really has no effect on the life of the average American.

That's going to vary by geography. The Enron debacle has created a major mess here in Oregon, where PGE (an Enron company) increased our rates 30% just prior to the colapse (coincidence?) and thousands of people lost their retirement savings. That and the rotten economy (8% unemployment, lots of empty store fronts) are going to hurt Sen. Gordon Smith's (R-OR) chances in November.

Your average voter in, say, Kansas probably won't care about Enron either way. It's just too complicated.

Similarly, the Republicans will be nuts to play the CBDTPA card; unless El Rushbo picks his words very carefully, most GOP faithful won't have the first damn clue what the hell CBDTPA even does. They (like most Democrat faithful) might assume that it's there to make cable TV cheaper or to put criminals out of work. Some of 'em might even say it's no big deal, since everyone uses Windows anyway.

Re:I think it would.

[jo42]

> The CBDTPA, on the other hand, has the potential to directly affect the lives of anyone who buys a new VCR, computer, TV, MP3 player, car stereo, etc, etc. -- basically damn near everyone.

...basically damn near everyone outside of the US. The US Government does not have the legal or authoritative right to do this!

Re:I think it would.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have the power (important difference; governments never have rights you see) to enforce this outside the US. However, they do have the power to enforce this inside the US, which will pretty much force this to start spreading outside the US. This is just an economies of scale thing; it's much cheaper to run one big production line than two slightly different ones.
That doesn't mean the DMR will be active on the hardware outside the US, but it will probably be there, and it won't take other governments long to start getting ideas.

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[Anonymous Coward]

We just need to get the word out.

And who's "we"? Do you have tapeworms or something?

Doubtfull

[Veramocor]

Republicans have more open seats up for reelection in the senate this year. They should get a stonger control of the house however.

Re:Doubtfull

[coltrane679]

Normally your assumption is correct, especially in an off-term election (a non-presidential election year) when the party with more seats up is the same as the President (as is this case this year). But nobody knows how GWB's post 9/11 "wartime" popularity will trickle down--these are not normal times.

Reprise of intelligent comments by HanzoSan...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Sound of crickets chirping)

They're just so dumb...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was suprised to read in a previous /. comment that the RIAA had once tried to stop radio stations from playing music. I can just see the argument:

"You can't just GIVE AWAY our music by broadcasting it on the AIRWAVES for FREE!!! It'll bankrupt us! Why would anyone ever buy anything when it's free on the air?!!"

Of course, radio eventually revolutionized and revitalized the music industry.

For them to do the same thing to Internet radio suggests they might be borrowing pages from the Scientology PR department's playbook. Foot, meet bullet.

Whoa... nice idea!

[Danse]

For them to do the same thing to Internet radio suggests they might be borrowing pages from the Scientology PR department's playbook.

That would be cool. Maybe then the CoS would go after the RIAA for "borrowing" from their playbook! We already know how touchy they are about their various documents :) Anybody have some good ideas about how we could engineer a conflict between the RIAA/MPAA and the CoS? We could rid ourselves of some of the worst organizations around if we could get them to destroy each other!

I live (and vote) in Vermont...

[dpilot]

and comment on the web site added that this issue is about to make me a single-issue voter, like no other has in all the years I've been voting.

There's more at stake here than just our computers. This is way more important than just "News for Nerds."

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[burtonator]

Someone set up a non profit of some sort, allow us to donate money, I'll donate $5, everyone here donate $5, then when morpues and others go down we link to that site, millions donate $5, next thing you know we will have millions of dollars.

The music and entertainment industry can clearly outspend us on this issue.

If we are going to collect millions of dollars, I would rather see this money go to the Electronic Freedom Foundation

We don't have to wait for anyone to setup donations. You can donate/join the EFF right now.

we need ads to counter ads from the RIAA

[HanzoSan]

When we protest, they'll call us unAmerican communists, with pictures of nazis and hitler on channels like MTV and so on.

Just like the "Dont do drugs or support terrorism "commercials.

Sure we should support eff, but we still need to advertise.

Not Gephardt. Tom Daschle is the Majority Leader.

[sulli]

that's all

Flag-burning

[Trepidity]

As I recall, this came up with the anti-flag-burning amendment as well. Though he had (along with most people) supported the amendment in previous years, last year he spoke out against it at a veteran's rally and voted against it, since he said it wasn't worth weakening the Bill of Rights over.

good cop/bad cop

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another variation on good cop/bad cop. This is an election year. What do politicians need? Money(and a bitchslap, but that's beside the point). How do we raise money? Let's introduce a bill that a big industry/heavy contributor really wants. Let's get hearings. Make noise. Shake the money tree.

Now that the money's been shaken loose, lets look at reality. This could cost us votes. Many seats will be won or lost by slim margins. Can't pass this bill this year. Or let the debates continue closer to the election, some sheep may actually have memories...

Did we get the headlines/attention/money we needed from Hollywood? From Sony? From Disney?
OK, now lets bury this sucker. We'll bring it up next year. Not an election year. We can pass a modified version then. Shake more money loose. Fill the coffers with honoraria. And shift donations to slush fund/campaign workers cash payment fund.

This is Congress.

They knew exactly when they would introduce this bill. Exactly when they would have hearings on this bill. Exactly when they would get the money. Exactly when they would kill this bill for this election cycle. And already have a target for re-introduction next year, so they can insure that money tree will grow new greens.

Seventy year old senile old men couldn't give a rat's petuty about low level controls on hard drives. They just wanna shake that money tree. And wield the power. Be it in congress, or on the local co-op board. That's all they have left. They can't chase interns around the chambers any more. Bad publicity is detrimental to their re-election efforts.

A letter to Feinstein

[Voivod]

I'm sure it'll just end up in a wastebin somewhere, but I just wrote the following letter to Diane Feinstein, who is my representative.

---------

Dear Mrs. Feinstein,

I'm just writing to let you know that I will not be voting for you in the next election. I've been a Californian all my life, and have always voted on Democratic party lines. However, due to your shamefull sponsorship of the so called "Digital Television Promotion Act" which is a direct attack on not only the technological innovation which makes the state you represent great, but also attack on the lives and careers of millions of the citizens you represent, I will never again vote for you.

Looking at the giant campaign contributions you have received from media groups, I somehow doubt that your decision was actually based on considering the pros and cons of the bill. In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in facts on the situation, I beg you to do a little research into the repeating, inevitable reaction that media groups have shown throughout this century to new technologies, from VCRs and digital audio all the way back to the original record players, change threatens the pocketbooks of these industries, and they fight with all their power against these ultimately unstoppable trends. The sad thing is that in almost every case these dinosaurs ultimately benefit from these trends in reaching broader audiences with more interesting products.

Are you blind to the fact that this last cycle was fought just 20 years ago, and that expensive Senators such as yourself rallied along side the movie industry to fight off the horror of the VCR, which (they claimed) would bring an end to American culture in waves of piracy? Instead, now billions of dollars each year are added to the banks of these same media companies because of that innovaction which they fought blindly to stop. What happened to that world where every living room was to feature a "copying device" (VCR) which would drain the entertainment industry dry? Today, the cast is the same, the script is the same, but the new terror is the threat of that den of piracy known as the Internet.

Looking back, you may see your own reflection in the voices of senators from 20, 50 or even 80 years ago, who having found themselves solidly in the pockets of these frightened elephants proclaimed that no effort should be spared to protect these monied interests from the horrors of change. Have some shame and reconsider your foolish stand with them, so that they will again wake up and take advantage of this new medium instead of fighting it. In any case, you have lost my vote, and it will be a happy day for me when you are out of office.

Sincerely,

Re:A letter to Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, screw that bitch Feinstein. Never shall she receive another one of my votes.

Re:A letter to Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote:

"I'm just writing to let you know that I will not be voting for you in the next election...

...due to your shamefull sponsorship...

Are you blind to the fact...

...you have lost my vote, and it will be a happy day for me when you are out of office."

Writing a letter such as this doesn't accomplish much. You are very critical of her actions. You won't vote for her again. You'll be happy when she's gone.

Now think what would you do if you received this letter? Circular file it.

Perhaps a better letter would have conveyed your disappointment in her previous support of the bill in question. And your hope that she would consult with more of her constituents when considering the bill. And your hope that she would ensure that other constituents similar to yourself would have the chance to convey their thoughts to her and her staff. Perhaps even be offered the opportunity to testify against the bill.

This will have her thinking that maybe more of her constituents think the same as you do. And maybe even if she is going to vote for the bill anyway, it might make it useful to have some of her constituents offered the chance to testify, and air their views. She may not offer this to you, but it may help get one or two additional people up on the hill to testify against this bill. And that's all it may take to turn the tide. Or change another senator's opinion. She may think that she needs another body up their testifying so that even though she votes for the bill, at least it looks like she's considering whether to go for it or not, and it looks like she's giving a fair chance for the opponents to make their case, while holding out her back pocket for the honorariums/slush fund/retirement fund.

Not meant to be critical, but since you are actually writing the letters, it would help us if you (and others) wrote letters that hold out the promise that she may win you and others back in the voting booth by her actions, and it will help tremendously if you or others are given the access necessary to testify in session, or get on the news, etc. I think your letter will get circular filed. And deny access to her office and testifying by others if she just gets a very critical letter. Just trying to help you, and us.

.

Re:A letter to Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

--"all the way back to the original record players"

You might actually want to mention that it runs all the way back to player pianos...

Re:A letter to Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

You voted for her before? Lol, idjet

Confused Voter

[halo8]

so..

Republicans Like G.W. Are all in facour of Big Buisness Oil, Defense contractors, Guns, Smokes ect.. ect.. and belive in out dated morality (re church stuff) and are normally the bad guys?

Democrats like B.C. Are in Favour of the Eviroment, ppl's Liberties and freedoms ect.. ect.. and arent on a holly moral crusdade
But NOW they support Hollywood ???

so whats a poor liberal minded geeky voter supposed to do?

Re:Confused Voter

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "Quit being a Fag and join the party for people with more than 80 IQ points?" That'd be a start.

Not all Reps are the bible-thumping ignoramuses that Bush Sr. was.

But all Dems are the ignorant, freedom-hating soft-moneyed cowards that brought about such utter idiocy as the Narcotics Trafficking Act and the Brady fucking Bill, which only makes LAW ABIDING CITIZENS leap through fucking hoops to defend themselves, while criminals have EVEN EASIER access to black guns than they did before.

Pull your head out of your ass, If you're one IOTA concerned about maintaining personal freedom, become a Republican, or at least a god damned Libritarian.

Democrats are the Maoist Socialists of our day.
Jack Valenti is a Dem, as is Hilary Rosen... Don't associate yourself with these monsters.

Re:Confused Voter

[Anonymous Coward]

green party. Green party is against soft money in politics period.

Re:Confused Voter

[Chemical]

Kinda OT:

One thing I always wondered about is how the demos became known as the "environmental" party, seeing as how most built-up, polluted metro areas are the places with the highest concentration of liberal voters. Conservative voters typically populate rural areas, places that actually have an environment left. It's all the people driving around Los Angeles and San Francisco in their SUVs who claim to be the environmentalists. I'm not saying that it isn't true, I just think it's really curious how that works.

Oh and personally I believe republicans do a much better job at defending your personal freedoms (particularly freedom of speech) than the democrats. The demos answer for everything is to censor, ban, and outlaw anything they disagree with. Heaven forbid anyone says something that offends someone else. Better censor them.

Also it's kind of sad how many people such as yourself think that "church stuff" is "out dated morality". Even if you don't take Christian beliefs to heart (I myself am not a Christian), most of their "morality" is just basic human decency. It's discouraging that people think that being honest, kind, and respectful is "out dated".

One final note: People with spelling as bad as yours should not be allowed to vote

Re:Confused Voter

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll form the Avocado Party.

We'll be for all the right things. Join up with Me and you can have a political party that supports all the right issues, all the time.

It won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of electing anybody, but we can feel good about ourselves.

Re:Confused Voter

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the Toricelli rule, that effectively straightjacketed the CIA for political/liberal correctness. That Mario Biaggi descendent insisted on crafting a rule that was signed by whitewater Inc. that said that the CIA couldn't associate themselves with unsavory characters unless the local office consulted with, and got the approval of the director first. Guess who has the spy info we need? Unsavory characters.

his defense, when he's not busy defending himself from bribary charges, is that this did not prevent dealing with informants, there was not one request for permission to deal with an informant.

If you were a field spook, would you have your supervisor ask the director if you could deal with an informant who is a drug dealer or murderer? This sent a clear message. The message was not ask permission, the message was DON'T deal with these informants.

Yet NJ will re-elect this cockroach.

.

Re:Confused Voter

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when the leader of the Green Party lines his pockets with government handouts from various agencies.

Good letter to send to congressmen?

[_bobs.pizza_]

Would someone who is well-informed about the issues at stake please write a non-flamebait, intelligent letter that perhaps some of the other ./ readers could customize and use to send to their own congressmen?

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

-999999999, Saying something bad about a Democrat

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[Chemical]

If every Slashdot reader donated $100 or so to some anti-MPAA fund, then we would really be a force to be reconed with. The problem I see is finding someone with enough integrity to give that $100 to, knowing that it would be spent wisely.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a **AA company puts out a new shiny object? We slashbots must RUN to the store & get it!

Consider This FUD!!!

[IQ]

This looks like a classic bit of diversion. OK Geeks its ok now - stop making so much noise. Then when you lease expect it... Am I paranoid? No. I just know that Hollywood paid Lots of Dinero for this bill. And it will pass. Just when you least expect it. Maybe it will be the House version this time with Yet Another Acronym Crap sprinkled on top.

Appreciation

[Popocatepetl]

I think it is important to encourage this sort of action. You might want to not only write senators to discourage them from approving this bill, but also write to let those that dispay a clue that their position is appreciated.

Re:Appreciation

[Kirruth]

Encouragement by letter works really well - everyone likes to hear positive support, especially if it is well expressed and thoughtful. Politicians especially need the strokes - its mainly why they went into the business.

Foregone conclusion?

[dohcvtec]

It looks like we'll have a little breathing room before the CBDTPA/SSSCA becomes law. Does this seem to be the consensus? That it's only a matter of time? Maybe I'm just not up on my politics, but it seems to early to be accepting this as a done deal. Maybe the poster's point should have been that we'll have a little breathing room before the long , drawn-out battle over the CBDTPA/SSSCA really starts.

Re:Foregone conclusion?

[shawnseat]

If you are looking for "consensus," you aren't looking at the right site. ;) But realistically the only thing between this bill and passage is a divided Congress (and the House of Representatives may well go Democratic this cycle). Democrats are beholden to Hollywood's money and Republicans are beholden to shareholders -- and a lot of people own media company stock. As Will Rogers said, "We have the best Congress money can buy."

Commerce Clause

[yerricde]

The US Senate, or Congress, does not have the legal or authoritative right to pass a law that dictates the wherewithal of computing to the rest of the world.

However, it does have the right to regulate what flows into and out of any of the 50 United States under the Commerce Clause.

Re:Commerce Clause

[Dyolf Knip]

Not only interstate but intrastate commerce as well. It doesn't actually say that in the constitution, but they do it anyway. Usually on the basis that what I do entirely in one state affects commerce with other states.

Democrats no longer Populists?

[smagruder]

It's a shame to see the Democrats commit the final p-off to the Populists it absorbed a century ago. I'm wondering if it might be high time to create a new Populist Party for the 21st century. A party that fights for public interests and the public domain. A party that fights overextended corporatism and wins. A party that's centrist, practical and a breath of fresh air!

I must be dreaming... :)

Re:Democrats no longer Populists?

[Teknogeek]

http://www.lp.org

And Bono too

[yerricde]

Didn't the DMCA pass by voice vote, in the dead of night?

Yes, along with the Mickey Mouse Monopoly Extension Act.

Metal Gear Solid 2....

[BlueboyX]

'The Sons of Liberty'

The way you describe the situation sounds alot like the storyline you get at the end of the game... I guess our political problems are so bad that people in a country on the other side of the planet are making videogames base on it. :P

It's not common sense

[discogravy]

...they just want bigger bribes in from the music/movies companies.

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[JordanH]

Collect money for issue ads. Great idea! Free speech! Grassroots movement!

Meanwhile, the Congress has just passed Campaign Finance Reform that the president has promised to sign. It'll take effect right after the 2002 November elections, before the CBDTPA/SSSCA will come up again.

CFR will make it illegal to run issue ads 60 days before election day. Somehow, we're all worked up about the CBDTPA, but when Congress attempts to rewrite the Constitution and curtail free speech right, it gets ignored here. In the post CFR world, grassroots movements are going to have to organize differently than sending your 5$ in the the EFF or other organization that you'll hope will run issue ads to get the word out.

I applaud Leahy for opposing the CBDTPA, but he's a supporter of CFR in it's present form. I give him a failing grade for protecting our basic rights, but he's in good company with practically the whole Democratic Party, John "Keating 5, stop me before I sell out again" McCain and George W. Bush.

Yet another way to see it....

[BlueboyX]

I actually did read this bill. If a bill like this MUST be passed one way or another, this was the bill we would have wanted to go through. It did have alot of good stuff in there. It required open source (although that part wasn't defined properly for legal format - a sign that the whole thing was BS as you said) and that the protections were required to not hamper generation of your own files. The description basically said that popping in something cheezy like alot of SDMI implimentations we have seen is simply not acceptable.

The 'less radical' alternative they may pass later will almost certainly be worse than this bill.

economically incorrect

[BlueboyX]

Here is a level that this bill doesn't make sense on that most people don't bring up.

Hollywood thinks they can make a ton of $ by making a multimedia machine, but they have all failed in the marketplace. (CDi and DivX) People don't want stripped computers and restricted players. They want the 'real thing.'

So now they are trying to force us to buy their multimedia player machines via force of law. The computer hardware industry picks up the tab for the funky hardware, and Hollywood gets the profet of selling the restricted media.

Well, there is one thing wrong with that plan. The computer hardware industry is in trouble; why buy a 1.5 ghz machine when a 350mhz machine can run word and play mp3s? The comp hardware industry is having trouble selling superior hardware right now; it certainly can't sell 'restricted' hardware! IOW, the industry can't get people to buy better hardware, they dont have a chance of getting people to buy inferior hardware. They simply won't buy; they will keep playing mp3s and typing in word on their perfectly fine 650mhz or 350mhz or whatever. It whether the protections are effective or a pain in the neck isn't really important. What is important is that people don't like things that are 'restricted,'that normal people ask the local nerd what computers to get and that right now nobody feels like they MUST get a new computer.

If the US public is forced to either buy 'restricted' computers or none at all, it will be none at all for several years. This could quite easily bury the computer hardware industry in the US, which in tern hurts the software industry.

So exactly what political party wants to pass the bill that destroys our tech economy?

Re:economically incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that if the bill passes, various forms of content will not be viewable on a machine that doesn't have the new 'copy protect' hardware.

Soooo, if the bill passes, everybody will need to buy that new 'media' optical drive and that new 'media' hard drive in order to do anything with the new online content.

In other words, the hardware vendors cash in, in the final analysis, if the law passes.

Who loses will be the hardware people if nothing changes. They NEED something new to come along to compel more than just incremental upgrades.

Parliamentary tricks

[russotto]

Don't celebrate yet; there are any number of tricks that can get a bill around a stubborn chairperson. I suspect we'll see Hollings offer this one up as a substitute on the Senate floor for a broadband bill that he dislikes -- Tauzin-Dingell.

Geeks of the world unite

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking for a political alternative ?
Maybe we, the "knowledgeable few" should
start acting responsibly, and above all
in a united manner against the corporate
enemies of progress.

By progress I'm talking about the free
exchange of cultural "goods" worldwide
so that even the poorest can - enjoy/learn from -
all these massive resources that come from those
of us who have access to permanent links to the Net.

It doesn't mean that new content will disappear,
it means that those who can afford it, share it!

The middleman has to go and that is why he is
fighting tooth and nail to keep his privileges
through legislation that he is trying to get
passed thanks to money-based lobbying.

I am no commie retard but it is about time
that we, the tech heads, took over some of
the power whose abuses we are always complaining
about!

Of course they wield big bucks and, as they say,
money talks.

The only way around this is to encourage (inform!) artists to refuse any arrangement with the middleman, and make sure they are appropriately rewarded.

Rewards nearly always come in the form of royalties on sales.
What are we waiting for to create an independant paypal-like micro-payment system based on what people actually "consume" ?
You can bet the major pigs are busy trying to make
sure they set it up first and then lock us into it.

Nothing can change if you don't start by BOYCOTTING these companies.

For me, this doesn't mean punishing yourself and
your friends by not going to see the latest movie
in a theatre, but getting more out of what is already spreading through alternative networks
(and which is what you really want, not what some
marketing asshole has decided to let us see).

Not starving the creators of content, but pushing
them to realise their own responsibility in the
current situation.

Digital Rights Management ! HAH !

How many times do I have to pay for something
before I have the right to download a copy of it
in a different format because the medium has
changed ?

THIS IS WAR AND MEDIA IS ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES
OF THE MINDCONTROL WORLDWIDE PIGGERY IS EXERTING
ON THE MASSES !!!

ANGER IS AN ENERGY ! USE IT !

Uncommon Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they have common sense, alright. Its just not employed for the benefit of the consumer or the public.

Enron's VERY relevent...

[Svartalf]

They had their hands in a lot of people's cookie jars.

Electric companies.
Gas companies.
Telecom companies.

Heck, they even were arranging deals with at least one of the big-4 media producers.
Don't be at all surprised if the collapse of Enron impacts your rates on a few things.

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Slashdot reader does not take a monolythic position on this or any other issue.

Some of us even like closed source. I like Open Source software as an intellectual excercize, but have little interest in it as production code.

I am not alone in this respect.

More info on Leahy's stance on DRM, etc.

[VIIseven7]

Here's Leahy's 14 March 2002 testimony from his site. Basically, he says that the agrees with Hollywood on everything except government intervention. He says that government shouldn't get involved because it's "not close enough to the marketplace" to regulate DRM. Fair 'nuff.

Talks at the end that the gov't is "ready to help move these private sector discussions to a timely conclusion." Since that Zinni guy's not doing anything, think they'll send him in?

"No taxation without representation"

[mfago]

Where is _MY_ representative? Disney bought mine.

Unfortunately, I live in Pasadena. Writing letters to my congress people Boxer/Schiff about DMCA/SSSCA is futile.

dmca

[JDizzy]

I still don't understand why the MPAA et'all need this law? I mean isn't the DMCA enough. Can the media companyts still create secure hardware without the law? If the media companies created a new hardware platform with built-in watermarking, digital signatures, and encryption... would it not be proptected with the existing DMCA if anybody attempted to research, or study the device? I'm very unlcear why this law is needed when the media companies are free to create any hardware of their dreams. Why would they need to destroy the areana of general purpose computing? To force somebody to add security to any device that can store bits is a very fundamental thing! Thanks in advance for any answers. =)

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure this is something everyone can agree on. And even if your right, if all the Slashdot readers who do agree with this donated $100, that would still be a vast fortune.

EFF link

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a sample letter here.

Bah

[Snover]

Dude, boo, you SO stole my joke.

Let them pass the stupid law

[Anonymous Coward]

But put in one amendment. The RIAA and other organizations will have to pay each vendor for the additional costs of adding in the security encryption.

Extortion.

[supabeast!]

A better title for this article:
"Leahy extorts future campaign contributions from RIAA, MPAA, and all major media corporations, ensuring the continuation of his political career."

If the Republicans have any sense

[t_allardyce]

"If the Republicans have any sense, they'll be making an issue of this in the next elections, painting the Democrats as hypocrites who have sold out to Hollywood, and who are trying to reach, Big Brother-like, into the hearts of American televisions and computers...

But we all know that's true for both parties. No, if the Republicans have any sense, they will ask Hollywood for more money to keep them quiet. If not, Hollywood will give them more money anyway, and just tell them to shut-up-or-else.

You know, its not all about you. The government isn't there to pander to your wishes, they are there to make as much money as they can and have a good time at your expense.

Can anyone say 'enron'?

Keep protesting everyone!

[maroberts]

Getting legislation into law can take years of groundwork, and Hollings and the proponents of extending copyright legislation have been doing theirs for years. Unless some form of serious counter-movement strikes hard to attempt to roll back progress from what I regard as the high water mark of DMCA, we will see another high tide of copyright legislation sooner or later.

I think that we should try and do what Canute failed in, and get the tide to turn back

Democrats ARE IDIOTS AND evil too.

[Anonymous Coward]

We Republicans do understand tech stuff, we just don't really give a damn and would reather leave it to the people who make it.

If you read up on stuff Bubba did, you'll find he's a commie like the rest of them. (Dems that is...all soclistic communists!)

MAIL LETTERS!

[SecretMethod70]

I sent letters to my representatives urging them to reject the bill. Luckily they won't even get the opportunity to reject it for another year at least. Still, people like Leahy need to know that hollywood isn't the only one paying attention to their decisions, so I'm writing a letter to Leahy commending him on making a good decision and urging him to continue to fight for the rights of the consumer. I think it would be great if as many of us did that as possible - think about how many negative letters these guys get all the time - a positive letter will definitely make a good impact. So, LET'S GET WRITING! :-)

Wake Up, Smell The Coffee

[ThorbyBaslam]

Not to seem patronising, but I think a lot of America needs to waken up and realise what is going on with their Government.

What is it called when an elected politician receives large donations of cash from a for-profit corporation in exchange for political favours at the expense of public interest ?
Click Here to find out.

Now, writing letters and phoning elected members of the various legislative bodies is all well and good, but to be brutally honest, ultimately futile.
Do you honestly imagine that anyone who receives millions of dollars of grey-area funding would be willing to give it all up simply because of a few letters ?

There is a much wider and more far-reaching issue at hand. The problem doesnt lie with the entertainment industry and their ridiculous attempts at monopoly control, the real problem is that of corruption within the Government system.

In support of SSSCA and derivatives

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I am the first post so far to speak out in support of SSSCA and its derivatives. As a capitalist, I believe it is the right of every entity to protect its own property.

Hollywood/Disney et al. would simply not need to push this bill if they did not believe it would protect their fundamental rights. They are the creators, the producers of a fantastic entertainment industry, one enjoyed by visitors to this site and others alike.

The Internet, through such havens as FSF and more recently EFF, has been an outpost for subversives of the American way, attemping to destroy the proud American businessman by punishing him for the very succcesses that make our country great.

Imagine if someone found the key to your house and made a copy, then made it their business to clone and redistribute these keys to the nation, becoming rich and powerful in the process. And when you changed your lock, they did the same thing. Is this illegal now? No. But under such honourable bills as SSSCA, your (digital) house would be protected by the government against what amounts to nothing more and nothing less than illegal entry.

If certain "Open Source" operating systems have trouble reading digital content, so what? Why should a system which is built on the premise that intellectual property is evil have the privilege of processing assets from an industry which only exists thanks to intellectual property laws?

Just my two cents.

Re:In support of SSSCA and derivatives

[borgheron]

> I think I am the first post so far to speak out
> in support of SSSCA and its derivatives. As a
> capitalist, I believe it is the right of every
> entity to protect its own property.

Only up to the point where doing so does not harm others. Read on..

> Hollywood/Disney et al. would simply not need to
> push this bill if they did not believe it would
> protect their fundamental rights. They are the
> creators, the producers of a fantastic
> entertainment industry, one enjoyed by visitors
> to this site and others alike.

The SSSCA is a way for content makers to make more money by *taking away* the fair use rights of individuals in this country. It is an affront to every American because it assumes that ALL Americans are theives and pirates.

Under fair use doctrine when I have bought a CD or a DVD I am free to make backup copies of it for my own use. I am free to make my CDs into mp3 files so I can listen to them on my computer, *NOT* so that I can post them to Napster or Morpheus.

> The Internet, through such havens as FSF and
> more recently EFF, has been an outpost for
> subversives of the American way, attemping to
> destroy the proud American businessman by
> punishing him for the very succcesses that make
> our country great.

As for the FSF and EFF being subversive. Since when is freedom subversive? Both of these organizations fight for your rights and my rights every single day.

They don't seek to punish anyone and arguably work to *help*. Many businesses have sprung up selling open source and free software. And many more business use Free Software to enhance their own offerings. Apple is one such company. The UNIX under pinnings of Mac OS X are open source and most of the UNIX command line utilities packaged w/ it are free software (e.g. gcc).

> Imagine if someone found the key to your house
> and made a copy, then made it their business to
> clone and redistribute these keys to the nation,
> becoming rich and powerful in the process. And
> when you changed your lock, they did the same
> thing. Is this illegal now? No. But under such
> honourable bills as SSSCA, your (digital) house
> would be protected by the government against
> what amounts to nothing more and nothing less
> than illegal entry.

Your analogy is inadequate as it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamental problem. It doesn't address the issue. What is happening here is not analogous to "illegal entry" in any way.

> If certain "Open Source" operating systems have
> trouble reading digital content, so what? Why
> should a system which is built on the premise
> that intellectual property is evil have the
> privilege of processing assets from an industry
> which only exists thanks to intellectual
> property laws?

Intellectual property should be viewed differently for different industries. There is no one way to look at this issue. In the software industry IP laws arguably hurt the progress of technology (such as patents on fundamental ideas).

In the entertainment industry, which depends solely on copyright, IP is a Good Thing[tm]. It prevents someone from stealing the work of others. But what do you classify as stealing? Am I stealing when I make a copy for myself so that if my original gets hosed I can have a backup? No. Am I stealing when I give that copy to someone else? ABSOLUTELY, YES. I agree that the second case is wrong, but legislating copy protection for all computers, software and digital devices is not the way to solve the problem. Not to mention the fact that any copy protection scheme can be circumvented.

> Just my two cents.

You entitled to your opinion.

Please write your rep. Don't depend on others to.

[borgheron]

YOU need to send a letter, email, phone or otherwise contact you representatives about this. Please act, while there is still time. Don't depend on others to do it. Every voice counts.

GJC

Re:Its time to act. We need to collect money for a

[rmohr02]

Try to get Morpheus to post it now, and the same with Napster (they were (almost?) killed by laws like this).

MTV?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to have noticed, but MTV is more or less owned by the RIAA. Odds of them playing your ad == 0.

Theres an important balance

[HanzoSan]

Between left wing pacifists(also known as liberals) who believe in peace and love, who are against war, and whos focus is to try to understand everyone including the enemy. This side wishes to have a government in place to ensure equality and fight oppression.

Then on the right wing you have the certain values which they will go to war over (fight against communism) kill over, die over, and this side has a more survival of the fittest attitude, more individualist, anti government.

You see, if we go to either extreme it could be bad, too much equality and government well, that would become socialism, and theres nothing wrong with socialism for an advanced society, but in a society which is not ready for it, socialism can be abused. Socialism can only be successful in a very high tech and highly educated society. Such as an information society, and our technology if you havent noticed is leading us slowly toward socialism, bringing everyone together, making everyone share, and act more as a group.

Currently, however, because we dont have unlimited food, water, resources etc (even if we will soon) its still survival of the fittest through competition. The point is, until we have unlimited resources, competition and individualism is the only way to figure out who gets what, and how much they get.

When the time comes when our technology makes it so everyone can live like a king, eventually we will become socialism, simply because it wont make as much sense anymore to fight over resources.

Think of it in terms of computer technology, we can fight it with DMCA and other laws to block peer to peer and keep people from sharing, we can outlaw open source to keep people competiting with each other instead of working as a team, but it literally makes no sense to do this, if this is where the technology leads.

Technology leads to socialism, capitalism eventually becomes socialism, right now we are at the crossroads, people arent going to compete when everyone via socialism can have everything they need.