CBDTPA / SSSCA Won't Be Passed This Year, Say Leahy
Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the savior-graceful dept.
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."
More common sense needed...
by
dciman
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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:Good, but not the end of things
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Informative
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:Don't let your guard down
by
SomeoneYouDontKnow
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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?
-- That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Re:Democrats are against this bill
by
DAldredge
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The vast majority of sponsors of this bill ARE DEMOCRATS!
Re:Good, but not the end of things
by
SEE
·
· Score: 2, Informative
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.)
JeffORDS not JeffRIES
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It is Sen. Jeffords, Not Jeffries....just so we are clear. Thanks.
Re:We could have a Republican Senate next year....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
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.
More info on Leahy's stance on DRM, etc.
by
VIIseven7
·
· Score: 2, Informative
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?
EFF link
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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?
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
The vast majority of sponsors of this bill ARE DEMOCRATS!
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.)
It is Sen. Jeffords, Not Jeffries....just so we are clear. Thanks.
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.
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?
There's a sample letter here.