Commerce Department Cool to CBDTPA

L. J. Beauregard writes: "Wired reports that the Commerce Department is not too thrilled about S.2048. Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,' a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."

Comments

Legislative Agenda

[MrBrklyn]

This is really not as bad news as it might seems, and it gives those of us main stream advocates a chance to expose just how radical the position of the MPAA is.

What we need to do is capitilize on this opportunity and expose the radical enemies of the public for the political radicals that they are. In addition, the MPAA is showing us exactly how to take the steps necessary to defend our fourth amemndment rights under the US Constitution in regard to digital media and privately owned digital devices.

NY Fairuse is willing, with the help of it's sister organization, NYLXS, and with broad co-operation, it begin in Manhattan in May to gather together a broad coalition of IT Industry members, Librarians, Educators, Free Software Advocates, musicians, artisits, actors, and Internet Information Providers the Digital Property Protection Discussion Group.

The purpose of forming this group is to draft and pass legislation which protects individuals 4th amendment rights with regard to their digital devices and media.

The legislation to be drafted will accomplsih the following main stream objectives which all reasonable people can expect:

All copyrights to individual scores, writings, and recordings will be returned to the original artist after a period of 10 years.

No technology can be deployed which spies on, wiretaps or descloses privately owned information which is stored on digital devices by any government agency or private 3rd party without the issuance of a publically pronounced annd disclosed warrant l limited to a specific criminal investigation.

All copyright cases must prove, prior to a judgement of guilt, proof that the actions in question did not infringe on Fair Use, and the individuals rights under the 4th and 1st ammendment of the Bill of rights US Constition.

Ownership of all physical media and devices to read such media, is the sole property of the purchaser of the media, without an expressely negotiated and signed contract between both the copyright holder and the purchaser.

No technological software or hardware method can be deployed in a digital product available for normal retail sale which inhibits in any way the full enjoyment of the property by the purchasers, regardless of any agreement between the designer of the hardware or software products. Such agreements are null, and not contractable.

Copyright is an exception to Fair Use as it limited the ability for individuals to enjoy their private property and express themselves with the use of such copyrighted materials. Fair Use is a doctrin to be based on the 4th and 1st amendments of the Constitutions.

Individuals have the right to express themselves to others about the means, mechanism and workings of all digital devices, including but not limited to discussion on how to make fair use of media, how to improve such devices, or to reverse engineer all such devices and the allgorithims which are used to help them display, copy or run media.

We need to get as many big guns on this as possible and then relentlessly campaign, actively working to elect supporters and unelect opposition. In fact, we should look to defeat, not just the proposed spyware legistlation, but also defeat Senator Hollings

WE CAN force him from office, because he's a radical.

Ruben

Re:Legislative Agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Well

I just rattled everyone I could in DC.

kevin.a.ryan@mail.house.gov is the Weiner Cheif of staff
and they are going to send a representitive tomorrow to
sit in on the committee, which is not their committee. Weiner is in
the IP subcommittee in the house of the Judiciary Committee, and this
committee in telecom of the commerce sub committtee.

I'm sending him an email with our position on DRM.

Our position on the Digital Rights Managment on the net is that

First, the government should not mandate any technological means of
assuring Digital Rights Management, and as INTEL said, this is the
problem of the MPIAA, and Music Publishers, and not an issue of the internet.

Secondly, all proposals of Rights management interfer with free competition in
the computer industry, and is contributing to the economic downturn of the internet
by preventing the use of Free Software and ordinary research and developement of
software to expand the use of media in the public at large.

Additionally, DRM, by it's nature, infringes on the 4th Amendment rights of the consumers who
own the media which they buy, and prevent it's normal enjoyment. All DRM schemes require prior
consent to use the property after a cpommon purchase. That is cpmpletely unexceptable.

DRM is an assualt on the educational system and public libraries, by preventing the free
disemination of information to the general public, stifling broad education, and further
disenfranchisong minorities which depend on public education for advancement into the society
at large.

DRM is an extortion racket....PERIOD

We have no use for it and will vote on this issue.
It's destroying the economy, disenranchising our children, crippling our tax base, preventing
competition, worsening the recesssion and targets Free Software, which was the engine which
propelled our economy all throughout the 1990's by making the internet possible.

If DRM is forced on us, and we can't use digital media for expression and education, and after
buying something, you find you can't read something after a limited time, or without an approved
hardware or software device, it is same as if someone banged down my door and stole my whole
CD collection and my Newspaper archive. It prevents me from using MY property and it destroys MY
business. My business is designing systems to read media and productively use information.

Lastly, the Telecom subcommittee should not even be conducting this session since the proper place
for this the IP subcommittee since this is an IP issue.

Re:Legislative Agenda

[56ker]

Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form.

Re:Legislative Agenda

[Fesh]

Ok, maybe I'm being a little thickheaded, but why do we need more legislation to keep government from doing things that the Constitution says it can't do through legislation in the first place?

*sigh* Although if I had to take a guess, it'd be that the folks on the Hill don't give a crap about constitutionality in the first place.

Re:Legislative Agenda

[mikethegeek]

" Yes - but short of a massive public campaign against this - it's going to go through. The companies that have a vested interest in this make large donations - the parties/ senators wouldn't like to see that stream of revenue disappear. The best that can be hoped for is that it goes through in a modified form."

Which is what pisses me off about the so-called "campaign finance reform". It does nothing to address the existance of industry-wide "cartels" like the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Who even if not allowed to give money to a candidate, will still get their ear, BECAUSE they are an industry cartel.

Maybe the MPAA/RIAA's memberships are of multiple companies, but when it comes to setting prices and policies, and lobbying, they act as ONE... That can't be legal under the Sherman act.

Indeed, the RIAA has been found to be guilty of price fixing the cost of CD's... Punishment? none that matters.

When such a group has been found to break the law in that way, it should be dissolved.

Re:Legislative Agenda

[MrBrklyn]

That's a good question.

The reason for this istwo fold:

First, the courts can not be depended upon to uphold
the constitution.

Secondly, the bulk of the common law and case law uses language which disadvantages the property rights of
individuals in regard to copyright, and considers fair use
ONLY as a defense against copyright violation. A statute
which reverses this language will affect every court case
by giving new language to work with.

Ruben

Corporate whore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the use of that word shows more bias than any statements this guy possibly could have made.

Re:Corporate whore?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The slashdot editors aren't rich. How could they ever hope to win over this guy?

Re:Corporate whore?

[aozilla]

A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

What makes you think the commerce secretary doesn't legitimately hold the values he's expressing?

Re:Corporate whore?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Man, we're on the same side. Even if I am a sarcastic asshole.

But honest to god, the gap was already there, if not quite public. Besides, for every person that was turned off by the namecalling, there was another person impressed by the truth in it. This is a situation where there aren't any rewards worth having forr pulling punches.

Bout damn time

[Brightest Light]

"Before Congress rushes into the imposition of a legislative solution," Rogan said, "I hope its members will grant more time for the free market to find its own middle ground."

Thank the gods for that. Its about time somebody stands up and says "Hold on a second, lets give business the chance to make their own decisions,
before we step in and legislate for them." I hope that more of this sort of thing happens in the future. I sincerely hope that those in congress decide
to heed Mr.Rogan's words, and their voing reflects it.

Re:Bout damn time

[martissimo]

i really wish i saw more of a positive angle from this statement, however this line makes me wonder

In a speech last week, Rogan said that "negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content," and legislators should wait for results before voting on a proposal such as the Hollings bill.


sounds to me basically like he's saying "it's too soon to pass it", lets just warn the hardware people that they better do something soon, before we do pass it.

1 more session of Congress without it being passed is a start, it gives us more time to rally more support, but this certainly doesn't look like the time to back off on applying pressure on the lawmakers

typo in article

[I Want GNU!]

the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders

I think that's a type. It should be shareholders, as in shareholdings in the stock of Sen. Ernst Hollings, which is going rather cheaply these days. It carefully balances the interests of shareholders such as Disney with those of the RIAA and MPAA, who hold many shares in other political conglomerations.

Re:typo in article

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

New job title. Legislative broker. The stock market, the currency market, and yes, the legislative interest market.

"And today at the NYSE opening, Sen. Hollings was trading at $17.55 per share, but sharply dropped after a Reuters poll indicates that his election campaign might not go as smoothly as he had hoped. Analysts feel however, that this is only a temporary downturn, and that the stock will rebound by the end of the week..."

Hey, maybe we could use this for campaign finance reform.

"In other news, every major mutual fund has downgraded Pres. Candidate Perot stocks to junk bond status...."

Re:typo in article

[Seth Finkelstein]

There really is such a market. See the Iowa Electronic Markets (link seems down, so try the Google cache link to Iowa Electronic Markets

The Iowa Electronic Markets are real-money futures markets in which contract payoffs depend on economic and political events such as elections. These markets are operated by faculty at the University of Iowa Tippie College of Business as part of our research and teaching mission. We invite you to join us in this mission.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Corporate whores? Indeed.

[AntiNorm]

Commerce Secretary James Rogan claims that 'the DMCA carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders,'

Of course it carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders. Thing is, they don't see customers as stakeholders. An argument could be made that customers aren't stakeholders in this sense -- after all, they have no financial stake in whether most CBDTPA-protected works succeed or fail. Never mind the principles that are involved, it's all about money to corporations and to Congress.

a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do

Like pay any attention to whether their customers care about what they're being exposed to? You could make some interesting comparisons here. The corporate whores are exposing their customers to CBDTPA; the rest of the analogy is left to the reader's imagination.

Honest Politician

[RWarrior(fobw)]

Maybe he's honest. You know, an honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought.

Still not safe...

[NickRob]

This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.

We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works.

Re:Still not safe...

[martissimo]

This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.


Not to be a nitpicker, but the USA Patriot Act was far from unpopular, the public swallowed up all the rhetoric of it, and it flew through congress like greased lightning. It's a poor example. The thing passed with like a 7-1 ratio in the house, and there was a grand total of one vote against it in the senate.

I agree that now is not the time to back off on the Hollings bill, on the contrary i believe that now is the time to turn up the heat in every way we can... but frankly thoose of us who value personal freedoms were definitely in the minority in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 when the Patriot Act passed.

Re:Still not safe...

[mikethegeek]

" This isn't a time to rest on our laurels. Congress could still pass this thing. A simple majority wins, and Congress has passed many an unpopular act (USA Patriot anyone?) We still have to email and write letters and protest this thing and reach every single person we can.

We keep recieving good news, but that doesn't mean we should slack off... it means that we should work harder and spread our message. Advocacy works."

We shouldn't feel SAFE at all... Remember, it was only 1998 when Congress, by a UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE passed DMCA.

I don't belive that 535 members of Congress have been replaced in the last 4 years. That means, obviously, there is still a huge majority, a Veto-proof majority, that is still there who voted in DMCA.

Until people start changing their politicians like they do underwear (for the same reason), this kind of power and influence by industry cartels will continue to write the laws.

Restrictions on consumers OK, on business not-OK

[Seth Finkelstein]

The view is that the DMCA is considered OK, because that's a restriction on comsumer's rights for the benefit of businesses. But S.2048 is a restriction on some businesses for the benefit of other businesses. That's another matter entirely.

Take a look at:
http://www.eff.org/IP/SSSCA_CBDTPA/20020322_eff_ao l-intel_critique.html
[my comments in brackets]

In his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Intel Executive Vice President Leslie Vadasz courageously spoke out against the Hollywood moguls who are asking Congress make copy controls mandatory in all new technologies. Vadasz expressed skepticism of the demands of copyright industries, which he said "historically feared technology -- from the advent of sound recording, to the development of the VCR, the DVD, the PC, and other digital devices". He explained that innovation must not be sacrificed in an impossible quest to lock down every tool that might be used for infringement.

[Note this is a restriction on some businesses for the benefit of OTHER BUSINESSES. The businesses who would be subject to this restriction obviously don't like that]

By contrast, a March 19 joint statement by Intel Corporation and AOL Time Warner suggests a disappointing change of heart by Intel. The "AOL Time Warner -- Intel Joint Statement of Principles" envisions a world in which corporate negotiations decide consumers' rights, and government outlaws devices falling outside a "consensus" imposed by Hollywood at lawyer-point. According to the joint statement, "The goal of these efforts is to create an overall architecture for protecting digital content throughout its distribution life so that it does not 'leak' out in an unprotected manner" -- with the result that copyright holders shape the digital architecture of the future, retaining the power to control your use of the movies, music and books you buy.

[Note this is a restriction on consumer's right for the benefit of businesses. The businesses love that.]

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Little Excessive

[ender81b]

a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do

Allright, now listen - I hate the CBBLAH & DMCA, etc like everyone else. But, come on now, is it REALLY necassary to call them whores when posting this news to the site? ATTENTION SLASHDOT EDITORS: it doesn't make you look very professional or worthy of respect when you result to cheap tactics like this.

Leave it to people like ME to call them whores but please not on the main page. it just doesn't give us a very solid position to argue from if you result to name-calling on the main page.

Re:Little Excessive

[ender81b]

Yes. But the editor was the one who decided to put that on the front page.

Re:Little Excessive

[Seth Finkelstein]

Well, I see your point.

But would it be OK to call them "those who, for apparent compensation of fiscal cash contributions, perform in return a service, said service being analogized to that of a sexual nature, due to the presumed pleasure obtained by the servicee, and also in part due to the negative, dominance, connotation of the sale of the service"?

I once was chastized using a phrase involving pimping for censorware. The objection was that this terminology was unfair to pimps :-).

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:Little Excessive

[xenoweeno]

The editors didn't call him a corporate whore. The person who submitted the story, L. J. Beauregard, did. Note the quotation marks.

Re:Little Excessive

[Issue9mm]

And you would prefer what? That the editor censored it because it wasn't a publicly accepted/acceptable viewpoint? Moved on to another post that didn't contain the offending remark?

The editor was submitted a story that should appeal to the editor's intended audience. The submitter made statements that the editor may or may not disagree with. The editor approved the story as it was, as opposed to censoring it in any way.

It's my humble opinion that the editor did right by the submitter, and right by the audience.

-9mm-

Re:Little Excessive

[vvikram]

i totally agree with you. it IS excessive.

when i read it first i was pretty shocked as to whether this was slashdot or some other web-crap.

1) let another person be in the wrong. i think it doesnt behoove us [submitter, editor , whoever] to react like that.

2) dont put yourself in the slime just because the other party is slime.

3) also remember responsibility is something that is proportional to the number of people involved. when you have thousands of people it really isnt nice to air sentiments like this publically.

4) it also dilutes the point. here we are discussing something totally different from the actual post which was relevant, important and DOES constitute news but delivered wrong.

5) i say my share of swear words but yes it _is_ relative and idealism doesnt hold water here. imagine the president standing up and swearing like hell in the speech or your parents doing that while they talk. you have to look a little further than your freedom if its going to turn a public nuisance

my sincere opinion. thanks.

V

Re:Corporate whores? Indeed.

[ChadN]

Replace "customers" with "citizens". The DMCA is not just anti-consumer (which some could legitimately debate), but removes rights that citizens previously had (reverse engineering, study, personal use, etc.) You can infringe and be guilty, even without ever having a "customer" relationship with the sellers (you may just be curious).

Corporate whore?

[autopr0n]

Oh, I see, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a whore. That's a great way to win over people's minds. yup.

Such great timing.

[Peridriga]

The comic strip User Friendly has a great strip today about the DMCA..

Spoiler: It is 'violate the DMCA' sung to the theme song of YMCA...(Muh haw-hahaha) :-P

Re:Fascism?

[shepd]

The original poster (before you) violated Godwin's law. If you want to continue the thread leave anything he said about Nazis out of it. That's just a red herring designed to piss everyone off.

Now, ignoring all the BS about Hitler, I have a beef or two with what you've said:

>While I don't disagree about the nature of the laws, I do question your assertion that they are violating the Constitution. Which part?

I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?

>Social policy. Well, I'm a firm believer that there are plenty of charities out there, and the government doesn't need to be one of them.

That certainly can be your opinion (and, fortunately for you and many others the majority disagrees with it), however you can't have it both ways.

>You know, I've become unemployed in the past... I went back to school to make myself more qualified. The government is more than willing to loan almost anyone money to go to school.

You can't have it both ways. You can't use the government acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.

>I still haven't figured out where people like you get the idea that you should strongarm people like me into giving to beggars on the street like the one who sits at the stoplight a few blocks from here.

Huh? Did he say for you to walk up to street beggars and give them money? You need a fixed residence to pick up a cheque from the gov't, so if there's anyone you should respect with your views, it would be a street beggar.

Again, another contradiction in your ideas presents itself:

>Then again, why do anything at all when the government is making the people who actually do the work pay your way through life?

Ok.

>Hey, why don't we make everyone equal by making a standard wage, no matter what kind of, or lack of work that they have? You know, $20/hour for everyone, both the college grads, and the people who dropped out in 9th grade.

I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job?. I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.

If you want, feel free to reply and clear up what you've just said. Maybe I'm reading you wrong?

Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.

Its:

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism"

If you don't consider the president elect (I do consider him elected myself, but by a really thin thread) its easy to see how laws like the DMCA and CBDTPA causes socioeconomic controls (if you don't have the money, you can't participate in society), and suppression of opposition through censorship (DeCSS, anyone?). The other items (nationalism, racism, and terror) tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative, so these are the points that should be argued against the US being fascist. In my opinion the US is still far from it, but bills like this bring it closer and closer to the line.

Wether or not a burger flipper has 10 or 20 babies doesn't really factor into the discussion.

>I have to support some drug-addicted high school dropout who fucked his own life up, as if I'm the one who told him not to get a job.

Where did that come from?

Re:Fascism?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It's a little less miserable than the rest? God damn, that's certainly something to be proud of. Of all the shitty nations on earth, the good ole' USA is _slightly_ less shitty than the others. We need to write that into our pledge of allegiance or national anthem or something.

It's days like these that make me weep for joy that I'm a citizen.

Re:Technicalities

[ncc74656]

Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment?

Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. (I could crack a joke about how that ought to be justification enough for his impeachment, but that would be piling on.) Think about it for a minute...how beholden do you think an administration would be to a media elite that has pretty much nothing but hostility toward it?

Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?

Re:Technicalities

[ncc74656]

Here's more to think about when you wonder who your friends are...it was linked at the bottom of the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50754,00 . tml

Selected paragraphs from the article:

During a packed hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, Democrats appeared far more eager for the government to intervene in what has become a highly visible tussle between Silicon Valley, which advocates a laissez-faire approach, and the Hollywood firms lobbying Congress to step in to prevent piracy....

Republicans appeared much more skeptical of the SSSCA -- which is, after all, championed by a Democratic committee chairman -- and argued legislation would be too interventionist.

In the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans, according to figures compiled by opensecrets.org....

Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor

[Lemmy Caution]

Just wait till the apply it to portscans. But hey, there's a war against terror! You can be an Enron exec and squander the life savings of thousands of employees away, but I doubt that there will be more than 10 years of jail time done between the lot of them. However, a 19 year old script-kiddie gets a little full of beans and brings down a couple Exchange servers, and it's a lifetime of forced sodomy for him. Yet people still believe in the "justice" system - why the hell not, we get the best justice money can buy!

Re:Nothing to get excited about

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Since when are we not in deep shit? The democrats are more than willing to trade some pork barrel tax dollars to get it passed.

Scary, but slightly relevant omen.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I loaded up slashdot, and at the top it said...

This page was generated by a Squad of RIAA Goons for NoMoreNicksLeft (516230).

It's too late, they've already taken over.

Re:Technicalities

[idiotnot]

Isn't Rogan also one of those Republican party hacks who was very active in the House's prosecution of Clinton's impeachment?

That's one way of putting it, but from everything I've seen/read/heard about Rogan, he's a reasonable fellow. If I remember correctly, he was involved in the impeachment process because of his qualifications as a lawyer. It cost him his seat in Congress, if it makes you feel any better. One of those principle/duty versus practicality things. Doesn't bode well for those who think he's paid for.

Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law.

And Senator Foghorn Leghorn (Fritzie Hollings, the junior senator from South Carolina) is a Democrat, too. That said, there are many Republicans who support this bill. Would the president sign it if it got to his desk? Probably, unfortunately. Bill's biggest opponent in Congress? Patrick Leahy, a Democrat.

I think a big problem we've got here is that this isn't the kind of bill that's got the run-of-the mill congressman (like my undistinguished one) interested -- they'll vote whichever way the party leadership tells them to. Letters might help, but I think this is something that somebody important is going to have to pickup on, and sway quite a few votes. I'd focus on the senators whose states have the most to lose by open source development being hurt....

John Edwards and Jesse Helms, North Carolina
John Warner and George Allen, Virginia
Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, New York

and so on....

And I'm not a member of either party...I belong to one of those third, so-called unimportant ones. If you're interested....click here.

Something à la Blue Ribbon Campaign

[Midnight Thunder]

If this sort of thing of thing was taken up by someone like the EFF and then if the fair use equivalent of the 'blue-ribbon' campaign was started, then it would show how people felt about things.

This time though we should be producing 'stickers' , 't-shirts' and stuff that people can show and wear in the real world where it will get off-line people taking notice.

Any ideas for a mascot or a logo?

Hitler was elected into office.

[silentbozo]

Check your history books. Your fascist example, Hitler, was democratically elected by the people of Wiemar Germany. Whether a leader was elected by a majority of the people or not has little or no bearing on whether that government or leader is considered fascist. Instead, consider the actions and the policies of that government.

As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of environmental and science issues, the current government is better than life under Clinton. Having to deal with the likes of Boxer and Feinsten in the Senate is enough - no need to give them free access to the White House!

Re:Hitler was elected into office.

[Catbeller]

Um, we have a shiny new 100 billion dollar deficit, a neverending "war" on a common noun that gives an administration carte blanc to imprison whomever they want for eternity, a destroyed retirement system, annihilated environmental oversight, corporate takeover of every significant oversight agency, the Christian Right trying for its final takedown of our culture, a President who's predicating his foreign policy on Armaggedon after Israel's ascendancy, a thorough takeover of the most influential popular press by the same people who brought us Whitewater, Foster, Travelgate, and all the other lies, a White House press corps who will not do their job, a "war" where more journalists than soldiers are dying because the administration is openly hostile to their operations and are refusing transport and succor -- hell, let's just call it a little private war, no records allowed, a president who has sealed his own records and all other presidential records (except Clinton's -- of course!) for all eternity, an Attorney General who 1) breaks the law by pronouncing guilt on Walker, ruining the case 2) decides God triumps the voters in Oregon, and 3) is running his own Biblical agenda on America, and last but not least, a president who was selected by Federalist Society judges who are running a very active war to change America into their own concept of a Christian conservative state. And no, Bush was not elected. The NYT story and most of the others that reported that Bush won the recount were extremely erroneous. Frankly, if you exclude the military vote illegally cast after the election was over, Gore would have won. In the majority of the scenarios, Gore won. If the election officials had been allowed to do their job in Florida, the overvotes would have been counted, and those alone would have overwhelmed the "undervotes" and given Gore the election.

So, to sum up; 8 years of prosperity and peace, with a healed Social Security system, gone. Presently, a President selected into office by a dirty network of far-right wingers, including 4 on the SCOTUS, has declared the Forever War, knocked out at least three articles of the Bill of Rights, sealed his records so no one can see what he's done, and give the foxes the keys to the henhouse corporatewise. And to top it off, he's a bloody idiot who can't even speak without a speech written by his handlers. We're governed by a fool controlled by smart amoral men.

And we're better off? HOW???

Re:Hitler was elected into office.

[bnenning]

You aren't Paul Begala, are you?

Um, we have a shiny new 100 billion dollar deficit, a neverending "war" on a common noun that gives an administration carte blanc to imprison whomever they want for eternity

All of which have full bipartisan support. In fact, most of the complaints about the Patriot Act I hear come from conservatives who are rightly concerned with what someone like Hillary could do with that expanded power.

The NYT story and most of the others that reported that Bush won the recount were extremely erroneous. Frankly, if you exclude the military vote illegally cast after the election was over, Gore would have won.

Ok, I'll trust your obviously impartial opinion over the detailed studies of several left-leaning newspapers. Or not. If all the legal military votes had been counted, Bush would have won by even more. I'm really not interested in getting into the whole postmark/consent decree thing again, but everyone except those completely blinded by their hatred of Republicans has accepted the repeatedly verified results and moved on.

8 years of prosperity and peace, with a healed Social Security system, gone.

Those are some impressive drugs you have. Clinton inherited a good economy from GHWB (yes, we were well out of recession before the 1992 elections), managed not to screw it up too badly thanks to Republicans blocking his more destructive plans (i.e. HillaryCare), and handed W a failing economy which is now largely turned around. Regarding peace, Clinton repeatedly failed to deal effectively with terrorism, unless blowing up asprin factories is an innovative military strategy I'm unfamiliar with. Social Security was never financially sound (you don't really believe there's a "trust fund", do you?), and never will be until it is shifted from a pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme into an actual investement program. Of course liberals can't allow that since it means fewer retired people dependent on government, and thus fewer Democrat votes.

Presently, a President selected into office by a dirty network of far-right wingers, including 4 on the SCOTUS

Hmm, since the relevant SCOTUS ruling was 7-2, does that mean that 3 of the noble and pure left-wingers were in on the plot as well?

give the foxes the keys to the henhouse corporatewise

The best you guys can come up with is Enron, which is instructive because there is no indication whatsoever that they received any assistance from the Bush administration. And even if they did, I'd much prefer that our politicians are bought by American corporations than the Chinese military.

Keeping this vaguely on topic, it has to be really annoying for you that virtually all the support for the CBDTPA comes from Democrats. I'd expect nothing less; since liberals acknowledge no limits on government power, when their campaign contributers tell them to destroy another industry for their own benefit, they will do so without hesitation. I'm disappointed that conservatives didn't stand up for the Constitution and oppose the DMCA, but at least they're standing up for free enterprise and opposing Hollings's abomination.

Re:Ermm.. anyone else notice this part of the stor

[eyegor]

Don't threaten doing a "Alec Balwin" and move away without fighting. At the risk of sounding like a rah-rah flag-waver, this is still the best country on the planet(although there might be an intelligent civilization elsewhere in the galaxy).

Running away means you're taking yourself out of the fight (sheep-like behavior at best).

The only way to beat these idiots and corporate whores is to become very vocal and present a well-reasoned arguement against these encroachments.

If we act like immature jerks, we invalidate our own arguements and give the win to them.

How bad is the DMCA? Getting around the DMCA?

[MrMeanie]

/me prepares to get modded to -infinity....

I should start by saying that I loathe the idea of the SSSCA/CBDTPA totally, since it would kill open source, and grant MS a monopoly as they
own the patent on DRM tech in computers. Well, more of a monopoly than they already have =)

But really, how bad is the DMCA (not CBDTPA)? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the DMCA affects me personally, and
doesn't have to affect most GNU/Linux users.

It seems to me that most posters here talk of the DMCA as if it is something which is impossible to escape. Its not. No one here relies
on DVD movies, or the latest tasteless music from the record companies FOR THEIR SURVIVAL. There are alternatives. There is genuinely
free music from the 'net (mp3.com, etc), or an indie movie festival. Maybe ifilm.com. You can avoid being affected by the DMCA simply
by refusing to make use of protected content.

So, the movie studios and recording industry want the DMCA to protect their content.... Blizzard wants to protected their game server....
So what? Don't like it? Don't buy it, don't pirate it, and DON'T LISTEN TO/WATCH IT. You DO have a choice. Yes, that may mean not having
Tron 2 (when its out) or LOTR, or Warcraft 3 or whatever the latest fad is, but if you really want to take the moral high ground with
these people (media industry), simply crying "I like shiny things" wont help.

For the record, I do think changes need to be made to the DMCA to prevent future cases like the Skyralov case or the Felten case. These
are quite franly sickening; you should not be on dodgy legal ground just for doing encryption research. Some provisions need to be made
for this.

Otherwise, let them keep their stupid DMCA. =) It doesn't affect me, and it WONT AFFECT YOU IF YOU DON'T LET IT. =) The DMCA can ONLY be
applied to specific works, unlike say software patents for instance.

- MrMeanie

P.S. Personally, I use GNU/Linux almost exclusively. I am currently coding an open source program. (not affected at all) I don't have
any illegal MP3s on my system. (I like to take the moral highground and criticise the music recording industry :-P, and I think it
would be hypocritical of me to complain about their efforts to 'protect' their content if I had illegal music on my system) Despite
having a DVD drive in my computer, the only DVDs I have are cover discs from Linux format magazine. I have no DVD movies, because of
the DMCA and lack of fair use rights; to play a DVD any way I want (ie on Linux) I would have to break the law, therefore I boycott
them. I will continue to boycott any medium which disallows what is commonly called fair use. As far as I can see, I make use of NO
protected content, therefore the DMCA has NO effect.

DMCA Balanced? That says a lot

[mikethegeek]

If they think the DMCA is "balanced" and that CBDTPA isn't...

Actually, there IS some balance in the DMCA, at least in the text (such as it's reverse-engineer for interoperability clause), but unfortunately, in the DeCSS case, Hillary Rosen and her merry bunch of IP cartel mangates were able to get the DMCA rewritten to not include that.

The CBDTPA doesn't even have any pro-forma acknowlegement of ANY existance of "fair use". But, again, as the DMCA has been enforced so far, there has been NO balance.

Why the commerce department is concerned, is very simple. This law would put the USA at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the world IT marketplace. It would with a stroke of a pen, put the slide rule makers in charge of the computer industry.

It would make open source and free software as we know it illegal. And OSS is where much of the world's software marketshare growth has been occurring...

It's also an incredibly dumb and bad law, one which will likely be almost universally disobeyed. Joe Consumer, who may not yet have been affected by the DMCA will be totally pissed by this.

Indeed, even AFTER CBDTPA OS's and hardware comes out, it should be possible for an OS like Linux to completely bypass any such restrictions, as it is the OS, after all, that controls the hardware.

Frankly, I'm amazed that this thing is even being introduced. There is already a lot of resistance to the DMCA, that is already opposed to this law. Also, academia is starting to get involved. The DMCA has already caused:

1. A respected professor (Felten) to fear presenting an ACADEMIC PAPER.

2. A whole application (DeCSS) to be banned simply because it COULD be used to break CSS encryption for the purpose of burning DVD's without it, ignoring the fact that *EVERY* DVD player ever sold does just this, and the fact that it's purpose was to allow the creation of an open source OS DVD player...

Indeed, the introduction of DVD-R drives to the market, and the ease of copying DVD's on them pretty much destroys the circular logic used to convince "judge" Kaplan (who needed little convincing, he rather was looking for an excuse) to ban DeCSS.

3. Has resulted in LINKS to sites not liked by the IP cartel being banned. This despite there is no legal precedent, and nothing in the DMCA that specifies this. This is by far the weakest part of so-called "judge" Kaplan's ruling.

The Commerce department is more concerned with the market implications. No matter how much the US strongarms, there will be some place that doesn't have this law, and that country will have the chance to surpass ALL countrys with CBDTPA in IT, the largest growth industry in the world.

Re: Problem is (US economy...)

[fferreres]

This is highly speculative and relates to economic science, so please disregard the comment if you don't see my point. Here it is...

I think the US economy needs it's people to pay $20 for 1 or 2 songs on each almbum that they like. They need you to spent $600 on office. In fact, they need you to spend most of your money on high profit consumer goods.

Why? You that you can earn such a high income as a society. Because they can sell you 100^20 copies of office, 100^20 madonna CDs, and 100^20 CPUs without pushing the real sources much. On the other hand, real resources (food, houses, cars) can't grow much easily. They have a lower profit and really limited resources.

So you can earn $20.000 a month, but if you don't spend much of it in stupid stuff (high profit = low marginal cost) then prices of real stuff would LIKE IT OR NOT, skyrocket. And you'll find you are all poor guys like in many countries. So to be rich, you need to HAVE TO PAY $20 a CD, $600 for office, $500 for photoshop and $20 a DVD. Then that money goes back to some coporations that buy REAL resources aboard. And you can then dominate.

So my conclusion is that people in the US are better off buying CDs at $15 or $20 a piece, and paying a lot for software and anything that has huge profit margins. That dilutes the REAL spendings (low profit stuff, pushing resource limits) and allows the dolar and the US to "_expect_ this and that" from the rest of the world "or face the consecuences".

Bottom line: don't complain, it's in your best interest to pay a lot for what IS CHEAP.

Too bad...

[mikethegeek]

That the Founders weren't wise enough to end the Bill of Rights as it started:

"Congress shall make no law"...

Every law passed (and there are thousands every year), at the state, local, and federal level creates a new crime and takes away some freedom. And people wonder why we are becoming a Lawyerocracy?

With the million or so laws on the books nationwide, it's IMPOSSIBLE for even the most law abiding citizen to go though any given day, week, month, or year without breaking many...

Which is slavery. The law should be simple, and understandable by all.

We are supposed to be a Republic, based on majority rule through representatives, with civil rights protected by a Constitution. Tell me, anyone, how the DMCA or CBDTPA serves the majority interest, or isn't contrary to the Constitution?

Re:Oh yeah?

[mikethegeek]

" Veto? I pray it doesn't get that far. There can't be that many Media Whores on the Hill... can there?"

Bush already signed an Unconstitutional campaign finance "reform" law, one that makes it a FELONY to buy any advertisement dissing one of your representatives 60 days before an election.

This means, that you coudn't run any ads detailing what Sentator "Disney" Hollings has done TO the Constitution, in the time period where most people who will are paying attention...

Guess who gets an exemption and gets to decide what is said about candidates? The MEDIA, largely owned by the IP cartel. Note that this law will be in full effect next time Senator Disney runs.

This is also the same Congress that passed the DMCA by unanimous voice vote.

Re:Restrictions on consumers OK, on business not-O

[famazza]

This shows (again) that the political system called by Americans as Democracy is not that democratic. Where is the statement "From the people, for the people"?

The representatie system the way it is implemented today only represents big corporations and business associations, both capable of keeping expensive lobbies so the legislators can legislate as their will, not as the people needs.

The status quo are supported including for those who controls the media. Ideas like this will never become popular. Don't let them control your opinion, think for yourselves.

Re:Fascism?

[Kymermosst]

No, it isn't. It has to be paid back, with interest. If it is not paid back, they will send it to collections, which will be punishment. They will also take it back from any tax refund, and probably take it to court.

That's not the same as money that does not need to be paid back.

Furthermore, one could treat school, and becoming a better benefit to society, as an occupation. At least it's a form of work. It certainly isn't "free" money.

Idiot.

[supabeast!]

"...a claim that marks him for a corporate whore, but it seems that there are some things even whores won't do."

Nice way to earn allies, asshole.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Re:Fascism?

[Kymermosst]

I'm not totally up on American law, but I'm pretty certain that your constitution guarantees many freedoms (such as freedom of speech). If the CBDTPA is just an extension to the DMCA then it is anti free-speech. Isn't that your first amendment?

I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like governent regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!

Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.

... acting as a charity (and handing out money for people to go to school without any guarantees they'll get it back is nothing more than a backhanded charity) and not want it being a charity.

No, it is not a charity. Sure, there are some people that screw the system, but most do not. Like any other lender, the government expects to be paid back, with interest. They will do everything they can to get it back, including collections actions, witholding of tax refunds, and civil lawsuits. That's not the same as handing out the money for free.

I am assuming you think the 9th grader has an easier life. Hate to break it to you but if he gets a job it will not be easy. People say all the time "Gas pumpers and golden arches flippers have it easy". Well, if so why not do their job? . I know why. Becuase the job sucks. Its physically demanding, or mentally annoying. Either way most everyone who graduates college is looking for the cushy, easy way out with a 9-5 desk job pushing paper.

I NEVER said it was easy. I have been a burger flipper at McDonalds, and it paid the bills. Within six months I was a manager. When I decided I didn't want to do it anymore, I went into the Army. Partly so I could afford more education, and partly to gain more work experience. When I left the Army, I had a job within two weeks. It paid a lot less, but it was still honest wages. When I got laid off from that job, I got another job immediately, again, honest wages. When I became unemployed last year, and could NOT find a job, I went back to school.

What I have a problem with, is that while there are people who genuinely need help, most people "out on the streets" CHOOSE to be there, because they aren't willing to do what it takes to make them successful. They won't go to places like Goodwill or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or any number of employment charities. (That I routinly give money to so they can continue to do so.) They won't go back to school, and they won't flip burgers. Not because they can't, because they won't.

You can bring up the point that they might be physically or mentally disabled. My school employs about 250 people with varying problems like downs-syndrome, confinement to wheelchairs, and other disabilities. For people with acute sociopathic disorders that prevent them from working, there are institutions that can and will take care of them.
The simple fact is, that the original post pissed me off by basically saying that people who are successful are directly responsible for people who fail, and made the implication that it is the government's responsibility to take from the successful and give to the unsuccessful.

Perhaps you're just confused on the meaning of "fascism". It doesn't have anything to do with work, you know.

I know damn well what fascism is. Our country is a far cry from it. My problem was, the original poster was calling the U.S. fascist, all the same advocating socialism-near-communism. The specific comment "a social policy that leaves people hungry, homeless, undereducated and in poor health" is what pissed me off.

People are hungry because they choose to be, either by choosing not to work, or by choosing not to go to one of the established charities who would love to help them.

People are homeless for the same reason. In the United States, if you are a high school graduate under age 35, I know someone who is constantly hiring. It's called the Army, and they have 212 ways for you to be a soldier. And I'm NOT a recruiter, just a happy customer. They'll give you a home, a job, and a paycheck.

People are uneducated because they choose not to take advantage of the aforementioned student loans, or they drop out of high school.
People are in poor health because they smoke, eat junk food all the time, and don't bother to plan for health care.
All choices for most of those people. For the relatively few who need help, the help is available.

The original poster was trying to imply that our "fascist" society forces them into the position they are in. For most of those people, they put themselves there.

And that's where the last comment I made that you said you didn't know where it came from fits in, though I could have stated it better.

Re:S.2048

[MillionthMonkey]

hhmmm, 2048, multiple of 8... as in bits in a byte. Consipiracy or coincidence?

Yeah, I noticed it after I subtracted 1 and did an XOR with the result. :)

Moderators...

[Micah]

(I don't normally post this kind of thing so bare with me this time...)

That's the most intelligent piece of political commentary I've ever seen on the Net. Send it to 5!

Especially: The law should be simple, and understandable by all. Is that not the truth?

Re:Fascism?

[Kymermosst]

Mostly I was just pissed off that anyone would dare call the U.S. fascist. My family is from East Prussia, and one of my relatives was Hitler's chief-of-staff for the military. (A soldier, not a Nazi... I've read his autobiography and other texts.) But, people don't make the distinction of oath of service one's country, and believing the national regime's propaganda. So, as a result, I grew up being called a "Nazi" as soon as that came to light in a class in grade school. So, you see the basis for being offended. After that, it was tirade.

Let me clarify my stance on the CBDTPA:

For the record, I agree with you about the CBDTPA. I don't like the law, and have written letters against it. I agree that there IS a problem with piracy, however.

I used to be a pirate. To be honest, it was mostly because I couldn't afford the stuff I wanted. I would have paid for it otherwise. Then I discovered Linux. :)

The main reason I brought up content control is that the original poster seemed to think that ANY copyright system of any nature was wrong, and limiting free speech. (freedom of speech and expression is already limited, and I don't have a problem with reasonable limitations... yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, for instance.)
I agree with a non-renewable copyright system. A shorter-time patent system that doesn't include software (reimplentation is fine for all things, and software is covered in copyright) or naturally-occuring substances (DNA).

The big problem with patenting software and algorithms, is that with patents on physical objects, one generally has the chance to invent something that gets the same (or similar) result through different means, at least for processes. That is not true of software, and getting the same result violates the patent. That is just plain wrong.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my point of view, and seeing past the way I put things. That makes you a lot more respectable than most people.

Divided and Conquered, You are Both Their Bitches

[FreeUser]

Before you get on your high horse, you would do well to remember that it was your pal Slick Willie who signed the DMCA into law. [...] Left-wingers have never been known to let the truth get in the way of an argument, though...why do you think we had eight years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations?

For the same reason we had 12 years of lies, quibbles, and equivocations before that [Reagan-Bush Sr] (including the sale of what were likely CIA drugs on American streets, Iran-Contra, and a war in the middle-east that was either engineered or a result of amazingly incompetent diplomacy), 4 years of the same before that [Carter], Eight years of the same before that [Nixon-Ford], etc. ad nauseum, back to probably within a generation or two of the founding of the Republic.

The draconian controls Copyright Cartels enjoy under the current legal regime over our popular culture, the draconian laws being enacted to impose an unnatural economic regime (capitalism as envisioned through monopolistic intellectual property regimes) on a domain with no inherent scarcity (electronic media and, specifically the internet) that will likely make the old Soviet attempt at doing something similiar (trying to impose an unrealistic communisim on a world of natural scarcity) look postively liberal in comparison, and the unconstitutional precedence copyright is taking over freedom of speech (despite the fact that virtually every constitutional scholar will point out that Amendmensts, even the first one, always take precedence over their antecedents when they conflict, and thus freedom of speech should constitutionally trump copyright every time) are neither a democratic or republican issue, and attempts to argue this in those terms are bound to result in failure.

Both parties have colluded in passing numerous extentions to the duration of copyright since the 1970s, legislatively robbing the public domain of its constitutionally guaranteed material.

Both parties passed the Sony Bono copyright extention act, which retroactively and unconstitutionally removed material from the public domain.

Both parties passed the DMCA, criminalizing copyright violation for the first time in American history (though not for the first time in western history ... one man was even drawn and quartered for copyright violation in merry old England back in the 17th century IIRC).

Both parties have been in bed with the Moghuls of Old Guard Media, be they recording companies, Hollywood Studios, or television networks stealing billions in public airways for a pittance.

Both parties have blatently accepted legalized bribes and allowed their respective interests to purchase legislation in flagrant contradiction to the public interest, and with open scorn for the same.

In short, politicians in both parties have earned the moniker of "whore" quite publicly, and the only real criticism of the term that is warrented is the lack of the adjective "cheap." How else can one describe selling out one's multi-trillion dollar nation, and multi-billion dollar growth industries, for a few hundred thousand in campagin donations (a total of a few tens of millions for the party, including all soft monies). These people, democrats and republicans alike, are not just whores, nor are they just "corporate" whores, they are cheap whores, who have sold every American man, woman, and child down the river for a pittance.

That all having been said, may I suggest you concentrate on fighting together to prevent further ravagement of our freedoms by both parties. The struggle for freedom of thought and expression, against the copyright and intellectual property regimes being forced down our throats by a particular, concentrated special interest, is a non-partison one, and the enemies to the same are most emphatically non-partison, for they encompass many in BOTH parties. This partisan bickering of conservatives vs. liberals misses the whole point, is divisive and hell, and quite frankly undermines your ability to act effectively in countering these attacks.

In other words, if you remain partisan and distracted from the issues you will have not only been divided, but very effectively conquered, before the battle is even joined.

Re:Fascism?

[matrix29]

I don't like the way the law is written, either, and I don't like government regulation of technology, however... ARTISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR!!!

Believe it or not, it takes real thought and work to produce music and other artistic expressions. The creations are each unique. The bullshit argument that "the people who copy wouldn't have paid for it anyway" doesn't fly. Things distributed in limited quantity have value. The mere act of copying devalues music, just like a counterfeit painting devalues the original.

And the legitimate alternative is "This MONA LISA will self-destruct in 1 year unless you renew your viewing license! You are on day 364 of your viewing allowance! All attempts at photographing or redrawing this MONA LISA will immediately void your license regardless of your previous fee payments and also voids your right of refund!"

Yeah... the no-copy society sure adds value. There is another way of regarding this mindset - EXTORTION. Pardon me if I will ignore all "ART" under these conceptual limitations. The mindset of science is "Publish or Perish". If you don't share your ideas they simply die when you die. Creative information unshared is WASTED and DESERVES TO PERISH.

Imagine a social upheaval that destroys most of the original work and artists. If that work remains uncopyable then it is certain to be lost forever. There is another form of social upheaval that is always present - TIME. The art that has shaped our society remains in PUBLIC collections and not private homes (which can burn down more easily and destroy that art forever). Certainly well-maintained and loved private collections can become a wealth of public value only if they are later shared with the public.

To make a living in the artist's lifetime there must be some copy control. However, in the public's interest the artist must release that copy control so as to ensure their work survives past their limited lifetime. No matter how great the artist the work will not survive their lifetime if they keep it under private control.

The best example you can regard at this time is in the genre of computer games and emulators. Without rampant piracy from that era - EVERY SINGLE GAME AND PROGRAM OF THAT TIME WOULD BE LOST! Think about it. There may have been some financial loss to the artists of that time, but the cost is offset by the value given to later generations by these "concerned collectors". Private individuals will dispose of their old software and hardware when something better comes along at a reasonable price. Pirates will keep their collections intact and transfer it to the new media formats for the later generations regardless of whether they can get some immediate financial returns from the effort. Hell, I honestly feel bad when a software piracy ring gets busted purely because of the long-term value they provide as private archivers. Sure there are public archivers, but they do not keep copies of corporate software because of the fear of piracy. Which means the public archivers have most shareware, freeware, and really crappy freeware. Even though piracy is regarded as wrong it still provides value in the long term that the short term mindset NOCOPY CROWD PERISHES FROM.

Think about it as we return to the age of DONGLES, KEY DISKS, COPY BLOCKS, and other archival-unfriendly methods which kill the joys of our day to future generations. You know what is even more sad? Games today are released with patches being released weeks afterward for obvious bugs. If our future generations want to play the games that thrilled us then, they most likely will not have the patches available that made the games tolerable and will see the bug-filled mess that we endured pre-patched.