Congressional Candidate Over P2P & DRM

Dark Nexus writes "Wired is running an article on a woman in North Carolina who has chosen to run against Howard Coble, who has come out against P2P networks. She said that she was sick of "individual rights sacrificed for big corporate politics" and is campaigning for digital rights to be preserved. A quote from her weblog: "I have put myself in the bullseye to stand up for our rights as free thinking citizens." It's about time someone stood up and tried to run against one of Hollywood's Congressmen on Hollywood's key issues." Update: 08/23 21:10 GMT by M : We're getting enough submissions of this story that we're probably going to post it on the front page.

Comments

The question is...

[b_pretender]

Which congressmen/women are *not* in the MPAA's back pocket. She hasn't been elected yet.

Everybody seems to forget that their is one *big* difference between the MPAA and the RIAA. The difference is the MPAA's connection to the Mafia. If the MPAA doesn't want somebody to be elected, then that person won't be elected. The mafia will assure that.

The RIAA doesn't have as strong of a connection. Don't pass this off as my stupid speculation, this is a widely known fact.

What the "D" and "R" notations really mean...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Considering the influence of the ??AA and other media organizations on legislation these days, I'm pretty sure that the "D" and "R" actually refer to "Disneycrats" and "Ruperticans*"

Naturally, because the candidate in question is neither Disneycrat nor Rupertican, her chances of even having a major showing, let alone a win, are already dismissed in the article, which in my opinion is a sad reminder of one of the major "facilitating" aspects of the current problems in the existing system in the US...expect to see a lot of real-world replays of the Simpson's infamous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" disclaimer after then next round of elections regardless of who wins...

(For the few who may read this who aren't unredeemably convinced otherwise, I should mention that in my opinion, your personal vote for any "3rd party" candidate makes MORE difference than your vote for Disneycrats or Ruperticans. Consider that a "3rd party" only needs to make a substantial showing to "influence" political policy - if the Libertarians, for example, got 20% of the vote, they certainly wouldn't "win", but "the two parties" would almost certainly moderate their policies, at least in the open, in a "libertarian direction" in an attempt to "win back" some of that chunk...also consider that your one vote for the candidate who gets a total of 10,000 votes is 100 times more influential than your one vote for a candidate who gets 1,000,000...)

*-referring to Rupert Murdoch, of course...