Slashdot Mirror
Questions for Town Meeting with Congressman?
tongue asks: "I have
the opportunity tomorrow to go to a town meeting with my Congressman, Gene Taylor (D, Miss.). I'd
like to be able to ask several (preferably intelligent) questions
regarding issues facing the technology industry today, on
bills like the DMCA, SSSCA, etc; but I'm having trouble narrowing
down the field. The research I've been able to do so far indicates
a fairly conservative voting record, although I haven't had much luck
finding a good site that summarizes a bill-by-bill voting record along with a synopsis of the bill." We did a similar question, last month about the CBDTPA which dovetails nicely with this issue. What questions about these and other questionable electronic laws passed over the last few years, would you like tongue to ask Senator Taylor?
Senator, what do you believe constitutes "fair use" of an intellectual property product, such as a DVD, computer game, etc. Do you believe people should be able to make back-up copies of such products?
I'm the stranger...posting to
Senator, since the main effect of lengthening the period of copyright and patent protection seems to be to stifle competition, when do you think we will see a move back to the principles established by the framers of the constitution and a _shortening_ of the protection period?
Someone can write this question better and more accurately than me I am sure, but a question to that effect might be interesting to hear answered.
Before you go, you should figure out if he received money from any special interest group or corporation. If he's been bought, a good followup question could be "Do you feel that there is a conflict of interest in making a statement on this issue, when you received $xx.xxx from yyyyyyy inc?".
Stop the brainwash
1. What is the US doing about the terrible state of computer security (one to get him happy and talking)
2. What is the US government planning to do about the consequences this terrible security and lack of privacy laws is having on identify theft and the risk of terrorists using stolen identity (technique 2 - link two things in one question and make it hard for them to give answers heading in a direction away from you)
3 - The DMCA is supressing important research into security technologies, given the lack of security how do you justify this (get him on what he has admitted then force answers)
4 - What plans does the US government have for laws to prevent abuse of end user license agreements, digital rights management and other new technologies (note - you dont ask if there is a problem you state it and ask what they will do. a) this lets you make a point to him about what you see as important b) puts him in a position where he has to justify the position and explain it - the more you can keep them talking on such questions the better 8)
5 - Software patents, meritless lawsuits, high taxes and complex restrictions on exports are making it ever harder for business to justify remaining in the USA and not moving elsewhere. What are you doing to simplify it (same theory as above, and the word 'tax' requires an answer 8))
6 - Copying a protected ebook, even to help a blind user read it now carries a typical sentence higher than that of assault and many other acts of violence against the person. In these times of rising violent crime isn't it about time the US government got back to the needs of the people not the needs of large corporations.
"Congressman, I'm sure I speak for many people in the district in appreciating your efforts on [warm-fuzzy bill he sponsored]. As you may know, S.2048, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, would severely encroach on every person's right to lawful everyday use of industry-standard computers. It's being pushed by the entertainment conglomerates to eliminate digital devices that they don't approve of, even when those devices, such as computers and DVD players, are used to play amateur, independent, or public domain media. To protect the market share of these companies, S.2048 would make it a felony to make or sell... well, just regular computers like we have today.
"What is your position on S.2048? For or against?"
It's very important to stop talking now, as what I wrote is already a little long. Make sure you end your speech/question with this direct yes-or-no-type question.
Also it wouldn't hurt to schmooze the Congressman's staff people before or after the meeting. Just say hi, give them your card, and mention that you're against S.2048.
Your effect might be limited, however; as its name implies, S.2048 is a Senate bill and hasn't yet emerged from Judiciary Committee. There's a decent possibility it will not get to the House in its present form during this term.
Good luck.
How do you calculate the impact of the bills on the global economy?
How come you didnt anticipate that, for exemple, the DMCA could be used to shut down legitimate project that greatly benefit the population? (see for exemple the DMCA used by Sony to shut down the tinkering done to the AIBO, even though Sony realised that tinkering with their Aibo was a good thing and are now pushing it forward).
Though the EFF and the ACLU have *somewhat* one-sided perspectives on such legislation, they're still a great resource. The papers that the EFF produces are always highly detailed and informative in nature. Maybe just stating some choice stats or using the information as background could help you get your point across.
--
"Everybody wants a rock to wind a piece of string around." - They Might Be Giants, "We Want a Rock"
I noticed your rep is on the armed services committee. If you're so inclined, ask him to give his opinion on free software, security, and M$'s push to get open source out of the military. Ask him how M$'s apparent problems with security would 'help' keep America safe.
(I posted this idea a day or so ago in another thread, but I think this could be a good thing to start asking congresspeople about.)
:-), half the money raised from the intellectual
Why don't copyright holders pay an annual tax of 1% on an assesment of the value of keeping their copyrights out of the public domain, like real estate holders do? If they stop paying annual intellectual property taxes, the copyright could revert to the public domain, like real estate reverts to the state when real property taxes are not paid. This would be a great way to increase federal and state tax revenues, while also promoting the public domain.
Essentially, since the "for limited times" bargain has been broken by copyright holders lobbying for extensions, shouldn't the bargain be re-balanced by now taxing all copyright holders for keeping their works out of the public domain? Why are copyright holders so fast to claim they hold so called "intellectual property" and yet they so far seem to remain exempt from any sort of annual "property tax" for the upkeep of the information superhighway that makes their so-called property so valuable, and the public domain of ideas which they draw from to create copyrighted works?
==== more background ====
If the Supreme Court rules against Eldred etc. and allows indefinite
copyright extensions (or even if they don't), here is an amusing idea. I
think I saw the germ of it first in another user's comment on Slashdot
months ago -- and now that I poke around the web and usenet I see that
many others have discussed it a tiny bit. In such a worst case where
copyrights are indefinite, perhaps a property tax on copyright owners
might be enacted as a last resort, where rights holders get to choose an
assessed value for having the monopoly of all rights to the work, and
rights holders pay some percentage (1%?) per year of that assessment,
with the restriction then rights holders have to release the work to the
public domain if a payment to them is made for the assessed amount.
Possibly the assessment would be broken down into rights categories, so
that there could be payments for freeing specific subrights -- like
non-commercial use. This category approach would allow a work to be
bought into the public domain in stages.
For example, if the Theodore Sturgeon Literary Trust puts, say, a
million dollar valuation on the "Skills of Xanadu" story (ironically
about freedom) relative to releasing it into the public domain (say, so
they could pursue movie rights for it), at an "intellectual monopoly"
tax rate of 1%, the trust would have to pay $10000 per year to keep the
monopoly. But if the Trust puts only a $1000 value on "The Skills of
Xanadu" to avoid significant taxes (only $10 a year then), I'd take out
my checkbook, maybe along with some other fans, and it would be free
today.
Note this assessed amount is for release into the public domain, not
necessarily the amount to be paid by someone else who wants the monopoly
transferred to them, which might be higher or lower, just like what real
estate sells for isn't necessarily the assessed rate. Since it it hard
to assess the value of a copyright, let the rights holder do it, as long
as this public domain buyout clause was in place to prevent overly low
self assessment of monopoly value.
If some people call patents and copyrights "intellectual property" (yes,
I know that term begs the question of how to handle them) then why not
laugh at them and just tax ownership of such "property"? After all, just
like real estate owners pay taxes to offset the heavy continual burden
their property puts on society (a need for police, fire departments,
water, roads, sanitation, planning boards, zoning, local schools, etc.),
there is a heavy continual burden on society for enforcing copyright
(prisons for infringers, costs of salaries for judges in court cases,
the time cost to individuals of making fair use determinations,
government subsidized distribution channels like the internet, the need
for the government to maintain accurate records, lawmaker's time, etc.)
which ideally should be born by copyright holders as opposed to the
general public.
Yes, I know such a tax might wreck havoc with the GPL or other freely
licensed software too. Most GPL copyright holders would probably need to
set their copyright assessment prices low and risk public domain
buyouts. And there are issues with previously selling off exclusive
rights separately to a work (although such rights holders could pay part
of the tax.) And there are issues with incrementally developed works, or
works with multiple copyright holders...
Still, the big issue is that the cost to society of the copyright
monopoly on any work is potentially high, and the person who should be
paying that social cost is really the rights holder, rather than passing
on external costs to others, as a form of social pollution. Some would
argue rights holders already paid a copyright tax when they registered.
Yet, people who get real estate pay a title transfer fee (sort of like a
copyright registration or renewal fee) but they still pay property taxes
afterwards too. If there was no records of taxes paid on a copyright,
it could be presumed public domain, or the copyright owner could be
pursued for tax evasion (until they disclaimed it to the public domain,
of course). This would make the state of copyright much clearer than the
current situation where it is very expensive to determine if a work is
under copyright, and if so, who currently owns it and how to contact
them. With real estate, all this is a matter of public record.
When registering to pay "intellectual property" taxes for their
monopolies, copyright holders might be required to deposit a complete
copy of the content and preferred form source in digital format in
escrow. This escrow would be in part to allow people wanting to use
public domain materials to easily search published content against
registered works. Escrow would also be in part to ensure the work would
be available unencrypted and unprotected when it became public domain,
such as if the rights holder stopped paying property taxes on it.
Perhaps the way to win the copyright battle, if all else fails, is to
give copyright holders what the want, then something else too that
naturally goes with it. Microsoft would have to put a price on releasing
the Windows source code to the public domain for example (including all
previous versions, which might have separate prices), and then they
would finally be forced to pay taxes. Yes, perennially people have
resisted taxes on capital, so it's an uphill battle, but it is another
front of the copyright battle to consider.
Obviously, stocks and bank accounts aren't often taxed by the federal
government while held (though some states do like with Florida's
"Intangible Personal Property Tax"),
http://www.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/ippt.html
so the argument would have to be worked through if the taxation was at
the federal level. And of course this makes the government meddle more
in everyone's affairs (at least, those claiming copyrights or software
patents) but maybe that's OK considering the alternative in this case
and how much they meddle already.
And, while I'm dreaming
monopoly tax could be used to fund more free software and free content
(and the other half would go to pay down the Federal deficit).
Note: even with laws like the above, I would support some form of
author's moral rights regarding their works, enforced separately from
copyright.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
What process do you have in place to ensure that you are properly informed of the technological issues surrounding congressional bills? What initiatives are you taking to better streamline the feedback process in this increasingly digital age?
I notice your presence on the web is rather lacking. Is this due to lack of funds, lack of interest, or some other problem, and is anything being done to address this issue?
Name a single male, non-gay congressman you could trust in a locked room, alone with your 15 yr old daughter, for more than 5 minutes.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that never looked the other way when they noticed they were getting quesionable capaign donations, even once.
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that publically ridiculed another major member of their own political party and didn't back down until that member resigned or publically apologized/changed their stance.
(Note: Democrats abandoning Clinton don't necessarily count, unless you can prove that they recently had some honest words to say about him. The words "rats on a sinking ship" come to mind, too many are willing to ride the waves on the flotsam from the wreck.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that willingly and knowingly ruined their chances at re-election just to do the right thing. (Note: Prepare to back this up, I won't consider those that voted for term limits, for instance, knowing that the bill wouldn't pass anyway.)
Name a congressperson, any one, currently in office or that was in office in the last 10 years, that has pubically complained about specific spending that they called "pork" when it was their own state/district that stood to gain from the bill.
Answer a single one of these questions, and maybe I'll have to consider that there are a few "good, honest people" in congress. If it makes you feel any better, you were half right, you can find plenty money grubbing lowlives in the Capitol building.
Please, feel free to add other qualifying questions to my little litmus test, maybe he'll be able to answer at least one.
Given an example of a real-life action that is illegal under the DMCA or SSSCA and ask whether it should be illegal. Then ask him if he's aware of the offending Act's prohibition. For example:
"If I buy a music CD, should I be allowed to copy it to tape so that I can play it in my car stereo? Or, If I buy an expensive game for my computer, should I be allowed to make a personal copy for every day use to prevent wearing out the original?"
When he agrees that you should be able, point this out:
"Both these examples are considered 'fair use' under case law but are being made illegal under the SSSCA. Hardware manufacturers will be forced to make copying for any purpose impossible without expressed permission."
If he doesn't agree, ask him to explain his reasoning.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Mr. Senator, why are the rights of the corporations (who aren't really people, btw...) being considered before the rights of the voting public? The DMCA and the CBPTBPABPA (I hate that damn acronym!) were designed to take our rights away to protect the 'oh so valuable corporate property', but no legislation was placed to protect our individual rights.
Right now, it feels like the laws are specifically being passed so that we, the consumers (and tax payers) are legally inclined to pay the MPAA and the RIAA money for absurd reasons. For example, if a DVD I bought gets scratched, I am forced to buy a new one or not watch the movie, all thanks to the DMCA. There isn't a provision that declares that I, as an individual, have the right to take necessary steps to back up the products I invested in. Instead, the big corps were given the right to lock up their precious content and force me to pay again for content I already paid once for.
Why isn't the government looking to preserve our individual rights before passing laws to help out corporations? Please tell me it's not because we're not paying the gov't enough money. 30% of my yearly income goes straight to the federal government.
"Derp de derp."
Take your pick:
Have you ever chosen not to accept campaign donations from any corporation, group, or individual because you felt that they harbored agendas which were at odds with the interests of voters in your district?
You are officially an employee of the voters in your district, however you receive a far greater amount of money from campaign donors. Describe your present efforts to correct this conflict of interest.
You have consisently voted against tax cut legislation. As a result, voters have to curtail their personal spending to a level which leaves a remainder adequate to cover their tax obligations. Why should the residents of your district vote for someone who would pass a financial burden on to them, rather than work to decrease the costs of maintaining the programs that their tax dollars are spent on?
You currently have made no opposition to the present policy of incarcerating persons in posession of marijuana. If this policy were enforced consistently, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other members of your party would have been ineligible for public office due to criminal records. Describe what you believe the benefits of this outcome would have been.
The state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everybody else. ~F. Bastiat