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."
Good, but not the end of things
by
Jouster
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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
What are his motives?
by
Screaming+Lunatic
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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?
by
Brendor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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?
by
tfoss
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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
-- -=-=-
Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Republicans can use this as ammunition
by
Bowfinger
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
reading the article would have been a good thing
by
GePS
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
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....
by
coltrane679
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
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....
by
Chris+Johnson
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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)
They're just so dumb...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
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.
Re:Heres what we need to do folks
by
The+Cat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
good cop/bad cop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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
by
Voivod
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
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
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.
I'll summarize from the article
:-), 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.
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
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...?
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.
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.
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.
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,