Slashdot Mirror
Shocker: Despicable Conduct From Disney
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Phil Lelyveld, (email) a Vice President for Disney, has written to the FCC to tell them to ignore Digital Consumer's comments on the Broadcast Flag issue. The Broadcast Flag is an inter-industry conspiracy to turn over the keys to general-purpose computing to Hollywood studio execs -- under this proposal, no one will be able to ship digital television technology (like DVD recorders and FireWire) without Hollywood's permission. Lelyveld wrote to the FCC -- who are taking comments on the proposal -- without mentioning his day-job, to tell them that Digital Consumer, a civil liberties groups with more than 40,000 members, is nothing more than a "two dot.com millionaires" working to create a world "where we are all artist/waiters." Joined the EFF Yet? (or is it time to renew?) Update: 12/06 14:55 GMT by M : Lelyveld is not a lawyer. Here's a summary of his background.
Here's the text:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/ comsrch_v2.hts
it's in PDF Format
proof.
This required a little digging (on a site linked to from EFF's Broadcast Flag site), but should've been linked to by the submitter.
"We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation.
That's Robert Heinlein. You should try reading Stranger in a strange land or The moon is a harsh mistress. Heinlein's books carry the same intensity as the quote you used. Iron Maiden wrote songs titled after about both Stranger in a strange land and 666 the number of the beast.
Deuteronomy 13:06-9
Interestingly, Google has (as of yet) no mention [google.com] of the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters."
Google indexes web pages only once a month. So getting no hits on google does not mean a thing. Lelyveld's comments are here .
That said, it is highly irresponsible of the editors to post the article without a link to the lawyer's writing but instead a mailto: to his email.
A judge in Robert Heinlein's short story Life-Line. It's part of the Future History series, and anthologised in various places, including The Man Who Sold The Moon. It's talking about a scientist who's created a machine that will tell you the precise moment of your death, and he gets sued by a bunch of life insurance companies, since by consulting him, people know exactly when to start investing in life insurance policies
(Oh, and the original doesn't appear to have the words for their private benefit at the end.)
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
It wasn't mentioned in the article, but the comment period ends TODAY, Dec 6th. It was originally supposed to end on October 30th, but was extended to today.
If you want to submit your opinion to the FCC on this matter, and have them read and consider it, today is your last chance.
The digitalconsumer web page for sending comments is here.
We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job
and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.
Also:
3. The passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.
The Constitution originally provided that:
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The 17th Amendment replaced this with:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
There was a reason why the House of Representitives was elected by the people and the Senate was chosen by the legislature. The reason was to establish a balance of power.
The members of the House of Repesentatives were to be elected by the public. It was expected that they would obtain election to office by making promises to the public, because that's how you get elected to office, plain and simple. The result, and problem, would be a steady increase in the duties, power and authority of the Federal Government at the expense of the power and authority of the State Governments, causing the State legislatures to become meaningless in the face of ever-increasing Federal power.
The Senate was supposed to act as a counterbalance. Because the Senate was selected by the State legislatures, the Senators were expected to represent the interests of the State legislatures, and act as a force opposing the expansion of Federal power. Senators didn't have to raise campaign funds and make campaign promises to appeal to the public -- instead they had to appeal to the State legislatures and promise to represent the interests of the States. That's why there were two Senators per state, as opposed to the proportional representation of the House. The design of the Senate was supposed to ensure that the interests of the state legislatures would be equally represented in the Federal Government, both amongst the states, and as a whole against the House.
This simple change to the Constitution destroyed the balance of power and over time has resulted in the mess that we have today.
Now, Senatorial candidates must raise millions of dollars, and make campaign promises directly to the public, just like House candidates. Therefore, both houses arrive in Washington with a mandate from their electors -- the public and corporate donors -- to expand the Federal government to fulfill the campaign promises that placed them in office.
The best way to deal with the problems of the growth of Federal power and excessive influence of corporations in Senatorial campaigns would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, and return control of the Senate to the State legislatures where it was originally intended to reside as a counterbalance to the populist Federal expansionist tendencies of the popularly elected House of Representitives.
The results of the 17th Amendment serves as a powerful cautionary tale to those who would make seemingly "harmless" amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution was a brilliantly designed document, riddled with checks and balances. In this case, a simple and apparently harmless change, increasing public participation in government elections by providing for the popular election of Senators, has disrupted the balance of power, and resulted in the gigantic, ever-increasing Federal Government we have today.