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.

Comments

EFF

[zapfie]

I made my donation to the EFF. Did you?

Legal virgins?

[MacAndrew]

If you think this is despicable conduct from a lawyer ... you've never been to court!

Ah, the stories I could tell...

Anyway, not revealing the bias (I wouldn't elevate it to "conflict of interest") is marginal. But the FCC should evaluate the comment on its own merits, which is garden-variety badmouthing ... nothing new. OK, "should."

I second the endorsement of the EFF ... but shouldn't we be above throwing money at a problem? ;-)

Re:Legal virgins?

[Raiford]

You know the comparison between the lawyer and a catfish:

One is an ugly, scum sucking, despicable bottom-feeder and the other is a fish.

Re:Legal virgins?

[bakes]

I second the endorsement of the EFF ... but shouldn't we be above throwing money at a problem? ;-)

Especially when Disney/Fox/AOL-Time-Warner/etc have far more money than the EFF can rustle up. Don't get me wrong - the EFF is surely worthy of support - but you won't beat these guys at their own game.

Write letters to, or telephone, the FCC and tell them what you want. Get petitions signed and send them in. Explain clearly and eloquently why you want the opposite of our good buddy Phil. Venting of the spleen usually accomplishes very little to further your cause, and can often prejudice people against your argument.

Re:Legal virgins?

[jsse]

catfish is insulted. :)

Re:Legal virgins?

[AyeRoxor!]

"I second the endorsement of the EFF ... but shouldn't we be above throwing money at a problem? ;-)"

Well, we're technically throwing "good" lawyers against the "bad" ones. But just like warcraft, you need to spend some gold and lumber if you want healthy warriors :-P

Shit. Does that make us peons?

Re:Legal virgins?

[Exedore]

Q: What do you call a lawyer buried up to his neck in shit?
A: Not enough shit.

Why the focus on Disney

[Mirell]

I just noted in the article headline, in focus on the "despicable conduct" of a Disney lawyer. Why is this any different that most other lawyers? Admittedly, the lawyers working for the EFF and ACLU are attempting to further human and consumer rights, but the lawyers of the companies are merely working to increase the power of the companies. It's the same either way. So ethics aside, don't necessarily chastise the guy for enforcing what he believes to be right.

Anyways, just felt like saying that...

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

For years, a large amount of Disney's revenue has come from dipping into the public domain, i.e. Cinderella, Snow White, Robin Hood, etc. If anyone truly understands the value of public domain, it is Disney. When it comes time for Steamboat Willy to enter public domain, Disney pulls out the pocketbook and buys itself some legislation.

These lawyers aren't taking the initiative without direction. There have been numerous Disney lawyers doing this for the past thirty years.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[Alsee]

don't necessarily chastise the guy for enforcing what he believes to be right.

Since when does what a lawyer says have anything to do with what he believes?

-

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes yes, of course. Lawyers working for a mega-corp to decimate the existing usage rights of 300 million people are the Rosa Parks of IP. It's perfectly clear now: freedom, servitude, just two sides of the same coin, all one really.
Ethics aside indeed.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[parliboy]

I just noted in the article headline, in focus on the "despicable conduct" of a Disney lawyer. Why is this any different that most other lawyers?

Point well taken. All Disney lawyers are considered dispicable. That extra adjective is duplicative.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[mpe]

I just noted in the article headline, in focus on the "despicable conduct" of a Disney lawyer. Why is this any different that most other lawyers? Admittedly, the lawyers working for the EFF and ACLU are attempting to further human and consumer rights, but the lawyers of the companies are merely working to increase the power of the companies.

The difference is that those working for the EFF and ACLU are up front with who they represent.
This lawyers is "astroturfing", with the added twist of calling any contrary opinion "astroturf".

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[SloWave]

At some point a person must stop just following orders of whoever is paying for his Mercedes and start doing what is morally right. Unfortunately a lot of these corporate lawyers don't see this.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[Captain Large Face]

Well, Disney are a pretty evil company, with plenty of allegations of using child labour to create those lovable, huggable, cuddly Mickey Mouse toys. I guess by letting the crowd know who he works for, it becomes more obvious what an asshole this guy is likely to be...

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[TygerFish]

The actions of the Disney lawyer are despicable in that they demonstrate cynicism with regard to the public interest and genuine nastiness in his choice of tactics.

The original posting poses a number of inner questions. Here are two:

"Should a lawyer use misrepresentation to convince an organ of the federal government that a group of powerful companies should have control over an information technology to protect and enhance their markets? Is this good for everyone?"

"Should one group of commercial concerns, owned by a tiny segment of the population--one percent? less?--enjoy the right to decide whether or not the general population (in the hundreds of millions) can buy an information technology?"

If the answer to either of these questions is, 'yes,' then the idea is despicable--something that any decent person should view with contempt.

If a Disney representative lied to an agency in an attempt to outlaw condoms because time spent having sex cost Disney market share, no one would be confused.

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[radrich449]

So ethics aside, don't necessarily chastise the guy for enforcing what he believes to be right.

Ethics aside, and ignoring their opinions on what is right, hitler, stalin, osama bin laden, and jack the ripper are all pretty decent people.

What exactly do you propose to use to judge people if you put ethics aside, and ignore what they think is right?

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[nobody69]

What exactly do you propose to use to judge people if you put ethics aside, and ignore what they think is right?

If you would simply agree with whoever had the best-dressed lawyers, you could be on the Supreme Court...

Re:Why the focus on Disney

[parliboy]

I agree with your stance in theory. Here's where we have a problem though:

This isn't about a lawyer taking an individual case. This is about Disney's lawyer. He's worked for Disney before, and will work for Disney again. So, he's familiar with the stance of his client from past interactions, and has decided by his continued involvment that it is acceptable to him. Therefore, he is now morally accountable.

Now, before someone counters with the suggestion that the guy inside the Mickey Mouse suit by the front gate should be held to the same standard, understand that there is a big difference. The lawyer has a hand in crafting and enforcing company policy. He is shaping the way Disney conducts business.

How about some proof?

[klevin]

Now, I'm not suprised to hear that one of Disney's lawyers (or any lawyer paid by a large corp/interest group/gov) would behave in such a way. That said, it'd be nice to see, oh, the email, or confirmation by someone who would know. I didn't see such material in any of the links in the article.

Re:How about some proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

proof.

Re:How about some proof?

[mistered]

Here's your link in a nice non-pdf format.

Applicable Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.

Also,

Q: Just a small detail....How do you propose artists, producers and promoters be remunerated for their efforts?

A: I don't claim to know the answers. But one can at least say, however the market chooses to remunerate them. Look, technology was what enabled musicians to reproduce cheaply and for a mass market in a way that enabled them to make millions in the first place. Now, technology has made it so easy to reproduce stuff that there's no reasonable law that can be made to halt it being distributed freely. To me there's no normative conclusion to be drawn. It just is what it is. And I think it's not so bad.

Same deal. I don't know who wrote it but it sure does apply :)

Re:Applicable Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Heinlein short story. "Life-Line". The context is a lawsuit brought by a coalition of life insurance companies against a man who has developed a method of predicting the exact time of a person's death.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Luckster7]

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.

Re:Applicable Quote

[OzPeter]

As opposed to just the "sex-with-anyone-even-remotely-connected-with-the- plot" phase??

Re:Applicable Quote

[Paul Menage]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country ...

I'm not sure who said it. But it sure does apply.

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.)

Re:Applicable Quote

[opencity]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future.

The same could be said about oil and munitions.

But one can at least say, however the market chooses to remunerate them.

As a tech-savy musician, I saw Napster coming way ... uh ... back in the day. I also know a lot of roadies, audio techs and graphics people that get a lot less work lately. Music was over valued, now it's going to be undervalued. If you build castles made of sand, don't complain about the tide

Today I saw a promo on TV about guys who had big time tech jobs and were now delivering pizza. Internet skills were over valued, now they're going to be undervalued. How many programmers does the world need? Labor is always devalued systematically, and US and Euro tech workers are now going to compete more and more with an entire world of poorer people

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Re:Applicable Quote

[grahamm]

Another question to ask is "How were artists, composers and performers renumerated prior to the advent of the recording industry?".

There is no shortage of music (though, of course not audio recordings) dating from before the record industry so I am certain that music and other entertainment arts would survive (in a changed form) the demise of the current record and movie industries.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Idarubicin]

Robert Heinlein is an excellent source of some delightful quotations. Others among my favourites include,

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Alas, his books are not the deep, meaningful volumes they are usually represented to be. (Stranger in a Strange Land has its moments.) They're delightful stories and fun to read--I admit I often can't put them down. But they nearly all follow the same basic premise of attractive young woman (women, often) and dirty old man have exciting adventures, say witty things, are unbearably clever, outsmart the bad guys, then have sex (usually incestuous).

That said, I can see why the dirty old man sleeping with attractive and brilliant young woman has appeal on Slashdot.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Hard_Code]

"Look, technology was what enabled musicians to reproduce cheaply"

And now cloning is banned!

Re:Applicable Quote

[arkanes]

But wait! Your forgot Friday, which deviates totally from the formula by making the main character a WOMAN who has exciting adventures, says witty things, is unbearably clever, outsmarts the bad guys, and has sex. Not neccesarily in that order. I actually really liked the cat that walks through walls, but I suspect thats because it was the first Heinlen I read. And Glory Road was awful even by his low standards.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Detritus]

There used to be a large sheet music industry, back when many middle-class people had pianos in their homes. Then there were rolls for player pianos and early forms of audio recordings.

Musicians were paid for performing.

In earlier days, composers taught students, had patrons, or had jobs as music directors or choir masters in a church.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Dun Malg]

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future.

The same could be said about oil and munitions.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but it doesn't really work. There currently are no adequate rechnological replacements for oil, and munitions? I'd say that unless one can somehow change human nature, there will be a perpetual market for munitions of all kinds.

Re:Applicable Quote

[Idarubicin]

Your forgot Friday, which deviates totally from the formula by making the main character a WOMAN who has exciting adventures, says witty things, is unbearably clever, outsmarts the bad guys, and has sex.

You're right; I did forget Friday. That said, at the end of the book, she still settles down on a colony world with her new life partner--a doctor--to start making babies. Go figure. I guess I'm impressed that Heinlein stretched himself a little bit. ;)

Re:Applicable Quote

[jedidiah]

No, it is you that are confused.

Rights are not merely limited to those that are spelled out. This is explicitly stated in our Constitution.

There is no "right" to prevent others from copying your inventions. That any government can do such a thing is only a means to achieve a particular public policy objective.

That objective is not to create robber barons.

This is all explicitly spelled out for those literate enough to read the US Constitution.

Your notion that a "public policy vehicle" can supercede individual liberty is simply obscene.

Re:Applicable Quote

[nathanm]

You cited the quote correctly, but got the content wrong. Here's the original:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Re:Applicable Quote

[nathanm]

Do you know the original language?

German.

Martin Niemoller was a pastor in Nazi Germany. That's what the poem is referencing. He initially supported Hitler, but eventually got disillusioned, resisted, and was arrested. After the war, he was one of the people responsible for the German churches admitting partial guilt for the Nazis' atrocities.

A quick Google search turned up this short bio.

Lawyers

[SemiBarbaricPrincess]

You gotta love lawyers.
But consider the alternative; if we don't keep lawyers busy they become politicians. *shudder*

Re:Lawyers

[nordicfrost]

I'm a law student. I was almost born with a PDA in my hand, and I have no ambitions of becoming a politician. It makes me sad that most people think lawyers are RIAA-huggin' MPAA-lovin' bastards who only exist to screw over the public.

Most lawyers assist people like you and me in matters relating to law. That's it. If you are a divorce lawyer, it doesn't automatically make you more of a sleazeball than any other person. If you are a lawyer for a medium-sized mom-and-pop buisness, are you a scumbag?

I think it is time to realize that lawyers are humans like you and me. Some are assholes and some are hard-working honest people. That's life.

Re:Lawyers

[Zoop]

You gotta love lawyers.

Yeah, gotta love 'em. In fact, you have to love them. Actually, we are under a specific and legally-binding obligation to love them, with severe penalties for alienation of affection.

Re:Lawyers

[genka]

I think it is time to realize that lawyers are humans like you and me. Some are assholes and some are hard-working honest people.
I agree with this statement. 98% of sleazy lawyers make the whole profession look bad!

Re:Lawyers

[rnturn]

``...toss all the politicians through the Stargate to that prison planet without a DHD.''

You're too soft. I'd dial up the stargate next to the black hole and toss 'em through.

Re:Lawyers

[rnturn]

``...politicians are the failed lawyers? Hmmmm... And they create our laws?''

Explains a lot doesn't it.

Re:Lawyers

[Exedore]

Well, that wouldn't be so bad, would it? I mean, there's no way their subpeonas, cease & disist letters, and whatnot would escape the gravitational pull of the black hole, so we would still be safe.

Re:Lawyers

[StenD]

And that's truly astonishing, since the cost of lawyers paying of a legislature should be extremely low (professional courtesy).

Re:Lawyers

[Blue23]

I think it is time to realize that lawyers are humans like you and me. Some are assholes and some are hard-working honest people. That's life.

You're right. But since I think that you can describe 99.99% of the human race as one of the following: ignorant, short-sited, greedy, selfish, un-compassionate, or stupid. As a percentage of the population, laywers fit here.

That makes most people pretty far down on my list. Those with the power to help fellow people, including lawyers, who do not do so, unfortuantately fall even lower.

I'll try to judge YOU by YOU, but I can only judge your profession by an average on the whole of how your profesion acts.

=Blue(23)

A world of artists.

[Blackknight]

I would love to live in a world where everybody is an artist. No more megacorps to dictate what gets published and where, or how movies are made.

This is a good thing.

Re:A world of artists.

[Xandis]

Go to France; megacorps do not have the same influence on what movies get made...the government provides significant funding for artists to do their thing. Compare what comes out of France versus USA. The result isn't any better, imho, just different. Nice to have both countries doing different things and providing balance.

Also, to be fair to the USA, the independent movie scene is getting better quality-wise and funding wise. The future is bright for the artistic film scene.

Re:A world of artists.

[moncyb]

What's so great about Hollywood blockbusters? 99% of them suck too. All they do with the extra money is put it into special effects. Almost zero thought goes into the plot or anything else. In fact, if the writers put any thought into the script, the hollywood execs can't understand it and force the writer or director to take it out.

Look at the tv series Andromeda. At first it was a resonably decent series, then they fired the writer and Kevin Sorbo took over. Now it just looks like a poorly done 50's sci-fi serial with modern special effects. Bad acting, bad directing, and bad plots.

The comrade comment is funny. Are you really trying to say a world without the entertainment cartel would be like communism? The cartel companies are the ones who are communists. They conquer every industry that is able to distribute their "content" and try to force out any competition out of the market. Then they funnel money from organizations who make "digital audio recording devices and media." So if you buy a CD burner or blank CD--even if you only use them to burn data you have a legal right to--such as computer backups, your own original creations, and music that you are licensed to copy (look up Licence Art Libre and the Open Audio licenses)--you still pay money to the cartel. They take away your rights and put money that belongs to others in their pockets. Sure sounds like communism to me.

They have legal measures they can take, but they don't want to. I remember when the Napster story came out, and they said they wouldn't prosecuted the "fans" who were "sharing" their works (the copyright infringers), but they would sue universities for giving internet access to their students and those creating communications software (innocent third parties). If they would have taken action against the copyright infringers, 90% of them would have stopped their illegal actions. If they would have left innocent third parties alone and not be unjustly trying to take control of the internet / computers / distribution methods, I wouldn't be so pissed off at them.

Re:A world of artists.

[moncyb]

You don't have to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week working on art to be an artist. Many people do it in their free time to entertain themselves. Instead of picking their nose or watching tv/movies.

Re:A world of artists.

[teamhasnoi]

Change that to "In Mineapolis" and you're right!

Re:A world of artists.

[arkanes]

Yeah, but there's all these annoying french people there. And they like to supprese speech that the government fears. So fuck em.

Re:A world of artists.

[rnturn]

``...the independent movie scene is getting better quality-wise and funding wise.''

Could explain some of the frenzied legal activity you see nowadays by the major movie corps. To hear them tell it just about every movie loses money. I wonder which ``problem'' is making them lose the most money:

1. internet-``piracy'' (A truckload of crap, btw. I consider myself a typical internet user and I'm too lazy/impatient to download a linux distribution ISO image let alone an entire movie... and I have the broadband connection that the MPAA seems to think is the beginning of the end for their industry)
   
2. low-budget indie films that audience seem to enjoy more than the overblown, the-plot-sucked-but-the-explosions-were-great Hollywood fare
   
3. their own inability to manage their business
   

(I know which reason I'd pick.)

Re:A world of artists.

[moncyb]

You and lots of other people on here seem to forget an obvious point.

You are chosing to ignore my obvious point.

Protecting intellectual property which is what they're doing is the EXACT OPPOSITE of communism and if you don't understand that you should go take some politics classes.

Maybe you should reread my post. Look closely at the part where I talked about the legal measures they can take. Clearly they are not trying to protect their "intellectual property." They are trying to rewrite the laws so they can control entire industries and methods of communication--not enforce their copyrights.

Remember , you have the option not to buy any of their product.

I may have the option not to buy their products and I don't. However they have rewritten the laws so I still have to pay money to them if I buy anything that is classified as a "digital audio recording device or digital audio recording medium" whether I use their "intellectual property" or not.

Re:A world of artists.

[rnturn]

``You don't have to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week working on art to be an artist.''

Yep. It's a little known fact that Rembrandt knocked off most of his paintings just to unwind on Saturdays after mowing the grass and sweeping out the garage. :-)

Who even thinks the whole ``world of artists and waiters'' argument is convincing to anybody and even possible? Of course, if anyone would like to see such a world, it'd be companies like Disney. After a long day of serving drinks to Disney execs, we'd all just go home and watch our Disney-approved (and government enforced) TV sets supplied with Disney-approved content at times dictated by an office at Disney corporate headquarters.

Re:A world of artists.

[(trb001)]

No more megacorps to dictate what gets published and where

No more technological innovation, no more engineering marvels, no more advancement in our society...

Yeah, medieval days were nice and all, but I'll take my cable modem over feudalism anyday.

--trb

Re:A world of artists.

[HiThere]

I believe that the word you are looking for is not communist, but rather monopolist.

A communist society works quite well for ants. Where all members of the hive (or almost all) are more closely related than sisters. The only place monopoly works well is ... amoeba? algae? aphids? I can't really think of anywhere! Crystals, perhaps, if they are small enough that gravity isn't important.

Where, oh where, is this substantiated?

[drom]

Where exactly is proof that this really happened? All I see is a bunch of links to digitalconsumer.org, some government sites, and nothing substantiating any email from anyone.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the MPAA as much as the next guy, but still, this is pretty unjournalistic. Even submitted by an AC? With email on the frontpage of /.? Looks like someone has a bone to pick with this guy.

--

Re:Where, oh where, is this substantiated?

[spiro_killglance]

"-- why can the US have weapons of mass destruction and not Iraq? "

Why is Sadam Hussain dictator of Iraq and not me,
Hardly seems fair. Let me be the dictator of Iraq instead. In fact to be even fairer, lets all have
timeshares of being dictators of Iraq, i'll bag
next winter.

Disney

[Tempelherr]

Well, apparently Disney and Hollywood itself seem to have the ultimate goal of controlling the consumers and their end of it and more. The amount of time and money spent on all of that must be exhorbitant.

Just think...if just half of their effort that was spent on influencing government regulations were focused on truly making artistic/good movies, think of the truly creative products they could come up with, isntead of rehashing old ideas. Especially with Disney's latest movie, which did rather horrible at the movies. I can see why.

Surprise, surprise

[Evil Adrian]

I'll probably get trolled for this... but c'mon, folks, the whole attitude in the United States is "ME! ME! ME!" and people will get what they can, however they can, and the more they get, the more they can rationalize and justify putting any ethical considerations aside.

So who's surprised that a big company like Disney is sending some fucking lawyer to do clandestine dirty work for them in the name of profit?

Re:Surprise, surprise

[Evil Adrian]

Funny thing is, he's not an artist/waiter, he's a well-paid lawyer. And the other funny thing is, all Disney profits go to shareholders, not the artists that he seems so concerned about.

HMM...

Re:Surprise, surprise

[Tony-A]

Hmmm, I wonder to what extent Disney is responsible for the "current moral decay".
Excapism is fine, but it needs to psychologically differentiated from reality. There seems to be a better moral sense in say Dirty Harry than in most of Disney's stuff.

hmm

[hawkedwards]

"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?

Re:hmm

[fatboy]

"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?

Yes, but they are both in prison for fraud.

Re:hmm

[Alsee]

"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?

Nope, not anymore. But there were when the story was posted.

-

Re:hmm

[bwt]

"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?

Ah, so you admit they are more successful than "Treasure Planet". Disney wants to protect its copyrights with a police state, but it sure will take a great book for free and turn it into crap, won't it. I think Disney's doing a fine job becoming artists/waiters all by themselves. Actually, I'm not sure I'd go to a restaurant where Phil Lelyveld was the waiter. He'd probably charge for water, restrooms, and using the napkins by the wipe. But the moral of this story is that, at long last, Disney has found the one working strategy to prevent copying: making movies like Treasure Planet that nobody WANTS to copy.

Re:Oh Sweet Mother of God

[Randolpho]

And /.ers wonder why they're not accepted outside /. ;)

Lelyveld's comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Lelyveld's comments can be found here.

Here's the text:

DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE

! DigitalConsumer.com is two dot.com millionaires claiming to represent "the people." They represent nothing more than a free website. We need the Broadcast Flag in place so that REAL PEOPLE who spend their lives creating content can work in a sustainable business environment where they can get paid for their work. We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters.

Please SUPPORT the broadcast flag effort.

Phil Lelyveld

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

That's still not enough to really hang him on. As with the other public comments about the MS case, anyone could write the fcc claiming to be "Phil Lelyveld."

It's not quite the same as the original link implied it to be either, but still pretty bad.

I think the best thing to do is continue to vote with your wallets. Like the whole Paladium thing, no technology like this will be approved if EVERY congress-critter knows that ALL the people in their districts will not be buying it.

They'll get this information from the lobbyists from Good-guys and Comp-USA.....business get's the picture pretty fast. There's also no way that all the players necessary to make this happen are gonna hold together against determined consumer resistance, somebody is gonna crack in the face of "lackluster sales."

Just don't buy it....ever!...under any circumstances......

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[imadork]

DigitalConsumer.com is two dot.com millionaires claiming to represent "the people." They represent nothing more than a free website.

Now everything makes sense! In our Capitalist society, everything that's Free is Devoid of Value. DigitalConsumer.com is "nothing more than a free website", after all. People who offer something for free can't possibly have an intelligent opinion, or else they'd be using their intelligence to make more money!

I hope we all appreciate the humor in criticizing a site which claims to represent "consumers" for being free (and not offering something overpriced for consumers to spend money on...)

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[Reziac]

Does his comment have any basis in fact (ie. are there actually two dotbomb millionaires involved, however honestly?) or is this outright libel? Cuz if the latter, that might be a good starting point for tearing down this guy's credibility with folk who don't know the issues.

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[Dun Malg]

DigitalConsumer.com is two dot.com millionaires claiming to represent "the people." They represent nothing more than a free website.

Now everything makes sense! In our Capitalist society, everything that's Free is Devoid of Value. DigitalConsumer.com is "nothing more than a free website", after all. People who offer something for free can't possibly have an intelligent opinion, or else they'd be using their intelligence to make more money!

By pointing out that it's a "free website", he may even have been trying to imply complicity. Sounds like he was making the spurious allusion "the only way one can offer only free stuff is by stealing it first".

Re:Lelyveld's comments

[Johnny Mnemonic]

free website

He says that like it's a dirty word.

You can read his comments via this link

[stevezero]

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/ comsrch_v2.hts

it's in PDF Format

Re:You can read his comments via this link

[ceejayoz]

"Invalid Access"

Guess not.

Where did Lelyveld say this?

[Darkforge]

As others have commented, the story submitter provided no links to the offending document; no evidence that Lelyveld has written anything despicable to the FCC.

Interestingly, Google has (as of yet) no mention of the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters."

Are we supposed to believe that the story submitter a whistleblower of some kind? Or what?

Re:Where did Lelyveld say this?

[arvindn]

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.

Re:Where did Lelyveld say this?

[millette]

Luckily for us, news.google is much better then a montly update. Try the same query with google's news engine, I promise you will find the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters." :)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22where+we+ar e+all+artist%2Fwaiters.%22

There, happy now?

grrrr!!!

[jchawk]

What's next, a bill that will force us to go to the movies once a week?

I don't mean to sound like a troll, but for christ sake this is absolutely rediculious, why are we letting the enterainment industry push us around? We as an industry (computers) are *way* bigger then them. :-(

Re:grrrr!!!

[pla]

We as an industry (computers) are *way* bigger then them.

Unfortunately, that doesn't hold true. The entertainment industry has grown *dependant* on computers, but absolutely DWARFS the tech industry for overall profitability.

People like computers. Take them away, and they complain. People (believe they) NEED "bread and circuses", however. Take the circuses away, and expect all-out rioting in the streets.

Not sending email to grandma and access to endless free porn, vs actually having to spend time with people in a (gasp!) *interactive* manner? How barbaric.

I agree with what I perceive as your point, though. Hollywood can't screw us (the general "us") without our (the specific computer-related "us") help. But it only takes a few traitors to all of humanity to screw the rest of us. And offer enough money, and *someone* will do the job even against their morals.

Sad, but true. We just have to keep fighting for sanity, and when things look bleak, take some solace in the fact that anything they come up with, we can get around. ;-)

Digital Slaves

[katalyst]

What's happening to this planet ?
(1) You can't buy a cd/dvd/firewire product w/o permission.
(2) Taxi drivers have to pay royalty if their passengers listen to radio.
(3) New audio cds which will not work on standard audio equipment, but only on PCs with security locks.
(4) The DMCA which just abt doesnt let you comment/work on any digital product.
(5) Billing Kazaa users - no small amounts either
(6) MP3 compression usage now demands a royalty fee.(br) These people seem to be forgetting that they exist because of us, the customers. And they are trying to upset those very people that help them stay in business. These guys are trying to push us into a corner and will probably start charging us for the air we breathe... soon. It disgusts me, and OPEN SOURCE makes all the more sense to me. Looks like there is gonna be a war... on intellectual property and rights.. soon.

Re:Digital Slaves

[silentbozo]

Yes, there will be a war. When the execs figure out they cannot hold consumers hostage directly, they'll start charging other people more (like movie producers, when they want to license a track, live events, etc.) At some point, the content owners will price themselves out of whatever little market there is left. When that happens, those divisions will go under, and many fat-cat promoters, managers, lawyers, and other assorted corporate groupies from that division will be cut loose to sink or swim with the rest of us.

The only problem is whether or not the "reforms" they use to bludgeon the rest of the world into accepting ever more restrictive products are codified into permanant land-mines, which will serve to destroy fair use - or any use, for that matter. We know those music divisions are going under. They know it. We might as well act preemptively and:

#1. Get a law passed to enforce mandatory licensing.
#2. Restrict the length of copyright to lifetime of the creator, plus 25 years, or 75 years for a corporation.

That way, the industry lawyers are tied up trying to undo our legislation, rather than the other way around.

Re:Digital Slaves

[Wolfier]

Looks like there is gonna be a war... on intellectual property and rights.. soon.

Well, there is a war, not between intellectual property per se, but the misappropriation thereof, and our rights.

Re:Digital Slaves

[Martigan80]

These people seem to be forgetting that they exist because of us, the customers

Interest groups, that's all it is. These businesses are interest groups with a hell of a lot of money to get the government to see things their way. There are barely any interest groups for consumers. Do you know why?

People just want to bitch a little and that's it. It takes the average Joe/Jane too much time to get active; they would rather sit down and surf, watch TV, or even just vegetate rather than driving somewhere for a meeting or to even write a damn letter. I bet more than half the people here will bitch all they want, mod people up or down-but writing a letter takes too much time. This is where abrasive idealists like Stallman come in trying to rally up the masses and get moving. If you look at it we are an interest group here, how many people are here? I'm sure there are enough to really get some things done if we just banded together and tried it out, hell we can see how fast we can bring down a web site after the article is posted, just imagine if we did this on a constant basis.

Ring-ring-ring-ring.....OH crap I'm late for work.....clunk!

Re:Digital Slaves

[alfredw]

What's happening to this planet ?
(1) You can't buy a cd/dvd/firewire product w/o permission.
(2) Taxi drivers have to pay royalty if their passengers listen to radio.
(3) New audio cds which will not work on standard audio equipment, but only on PCs with security locks.
(4) The DMCA which just abt doesnt let you comment/work on any digital product.
(5) Billing Kazaa users - no small amounts either
(6) MP3 compression usage now demands a royalty fee.

It isn't all bad news... Consider:

(1) No one's passed a law enforcing your #1 yet... just having hearings.
(2) You can have a quiet cab ride in Finland.
(3) You can download music and do away with physical media altogether.
(4) You could move to Finland ;-)
(5) gnutella is free (and better)!
(6) Two words: Ogg Vorbis.

Re:Digital Slaves

[ender81b]

It takes the average Joe/Jane too much time to get active

Indeed it does. One of the tennants of political science theory (rational choice theory iirc) is that being active in the political process, as a rule, gains you nothing. It isn't rational . Your one vote doesn't count, your one letter doesn't count, you don't have much influence, if any, on politics. And, for that matter, politics on the whole doesn't effect your daily life enough to make it rational to participate and, for all intents and purposes, waste your time.

What you are looking for, and a lot of people, is when it starts effecting peoples lives enough that it becomes rational, and therefore productive, to actually participate in the political process. When a group of self declared nerds won't take the time the participate - i.e. isn't productive enough for their time - why would the general populace care?

Re:Digital Slaves

[Martigan80]

Your one vote doesn't count, your one letter doesn't count, you don't have much influence, if any, on politics. And, for that matter, politics on the whole doesn't effect your daily life enough to make it rational to participate and, for all intents and purposes, waste your time.

But that right there is the whole thought of it all, most people are naturally pessimistic and believe their vote does not count, and in an American typical electoral system it make's it even more so the fact, but if they band together those 3000 all of a sudden can have a united voice which is more than there is now. But say one of those decides to quit, you left with 2999, big deal right? Well slow leak that and in one month you can have 1000 left. Besides being active for something just takes a few minutes, like the couple of minutes to read this, people just chose to do something else. It comes down to choice-and most people choose to bitch rather than make a difference. As a matter of fact that's what I'm doing right now, bitching about other people bitching when I could be writing another letter.

Ciao.

Re:Digital Slaves

[Daniel]

What's happening to this planet ?

Simple: you can either take the white stick, and be enlisted as fighters to impose DMCA-style regulations on the rest of the world, or you can take the black stick, and be forever encased within an impenetrable "media shield" which prevents any music except for N'Sync reruns from being imported or broadcast. You must choose within one week, or be blasted into the stone age by our fusion weapons. We are the Ur-Disney.

Daniel

Re:Digital Slaves

[Daetrin]

#2. Restrict the length of copyright to lifetime of the creator, plus 25 years, or 75 years for a corporation.

Actually, i think it should be lifetime of creator plus 25 years, or 25 years for a corporation. That way if a corporation takes the rights of a work away from the artist (RIAA anyone?) they lose control of it after just 25 years, whereas if they leave the artist the actual owner and work out some kind of long term lease/rent/whatever, they can make money off of it for much longer.

Never hurts to have a little more incentive for the corporation to actually work _with_ the artists.

Re:Digital Slaves

[silentbozo]

It would be much more productive for us to preemptively secure the rights we'd get eventually (via public referendums/ballot initiatives, etc.), than to let the corporations force us to react. After all, it's easier to enact a law to restrict a right (ie, Californa and the "assault gun" ban), than it is to repeal that law and restore it. An additional benefit of forcing the issue is to bring the whole matter up for a true public debate.

Currently, all we hear is that consumers are crooks, that recordable CDs and the internet are solely responsible for the problems the record and movie companies are having, and that everyone needs to be sent to the reeducation camps to learn that COPIES ARE BAD. Based on this reasoning, the media companies are dictating technology and matters of the law. Give them enough room, and they'll set preceedent that will take a lot of time and money to overturn. I say, force their hand, and make them try and make a case to the general public, rather than skulking around the backrooms and corridors of Congress, buying off representatives to sponsor insane legislation, or having aides quietly changing the text of laws in the dark of the night.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocker: Despicable Conduct From a Disney Lawyer

Okay, maybe if this guy was screwing his dog, or locking his children in his basement, or running a spam operating out of his garage, I could understand calling it "despicable conduct". But what is this guy doing, really, other than his job?

Is this somehow unexpected?

Re:What?

[kcbrown]

But what is this guy doing, really, other than his job?

"It's just business. Nothing personal. You understand, don't you?"

Since that phrase has been used to justify everything up to and including murder, it has no meaning.

Got news for you: if it affects me, it's personal. PERIOD.

joke, son..

[djupedal]

How do you get the attention of a Hollywood media mogul?

Waiter!!!

OH MY GOD

[MacAndrew]

This is even worse than I gave the OP credit for! This letter could lead to the next Nuremberg trials! Bigger than the Pentagon Papers! The smoking gun!

What is this crap? Score -100; Improvidently Posted Article

look in the mirror

[djupedal]

Every time you pay $12.98 for a music CD you tell them you approve of the way they act.

Re:look in the mirror

[Tokerat]

and everytime you pirate a cd/game/movie you enjoy you are essentially telling it's creators to go back to busing tables.

No, it's like not saying anything to them at all. They have no idea you ever did it.

What would be better would be to support their compeditors. Then again, that might be like supporting US politicians; no one wants any of them because they're all dirty.(I'm from the U.S. So I'm allowed to make that analogy.)

The problem is that the current legislation is good for all content creators (and terrible for consumers). The big guys get our money, and we get to pay more of it. Therefore, it's not hard to convince our distracted (oblivious?) government entities that the consumers crying for this to end are nothing more than common theves trying to preserve their black market for bootleg movies.

The really sad thing is such piracy situations actually occur, and then lawers use the scam as an excuse to pull their own scam to help make more money on top the the billions they already take in.

Can you sue for "unfairness to consumers"?

Re:look in the mirror

[moncyb]

Most CDs from CD Baby are about $10-$15. They don't have artists from the major labels though. ;-)

Disney does own "audio studios" (I assume you mean music labels). According to my info they're Buena Vista Music Group, Hollywood Records, Lyric Street Records, Mammoth Records, and Walt Disney Records. I'm not sure what you meant by your limp-bizkit comment, but if you're saying that they are "clean cut" you are wrong. I hear they also own major stakes in the porn industry too...not very clean at all.

Right here...

[ryman]

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.

Re:Oh Sweet Mother of God

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd jizz myself

Seriously, you couldn't have picked another verb???

Here it is...

[ryman]

Check it out.

Mod parent up.

[quintessent]

The link is there.

View from the other trench

[USC-MBA]

For those of you wondering what the "enemy's" take on all this is, the MPAA's site has their description of Broadcast Flag here. My favorite part:

"It is unfortunate that some people may attempt to illegally hack or break into this security system. However, even if a few are successful, the flag will not be worthless. Most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag. We are hopeful that the broadcast flag will enable content providers to release more of their programming in HDTV format and drive the market forward providing new options for consumers. Consumers should not lose out just because there is threat against the technology"

As if Broadcast Flag existed to benefit consumers instead of purely protecting the interests of media corporations.

The problem faced by the EFF and like organizations will be convincing the public that they are not a bunch of .mp3-trading IP thieves. They are up against the deep, deep pockets of the entertainment industry, and faced with a credulous public which, as a rule, follows blindly along with the flashiest commercials (or most effective marketing campaign, as we were taught in b-school). I sincerely hope the EFF will be able to put a responsible face on digital copying and fair use issues, and will not end up looking like amoral war3z kidd33z

Re:View from the other trench

[Kiwi]

The problem faced by the EFF and like organizations will be convincing the public that they are not a bunch of .mp3-trading IP thieves

Actually, I am getting the sense that Slashdot is becoming more and more dominated by mp3 traders who spout empty slogans like "Information wants to be free" or "Oh, I don't like the cost of CDs, so it's perfectly OK for me to copy them and share them with all my friends".

The problem with these kinds of people is that it is obvious that such people are really not concerned with the people who make the music in question; they are only concerned about getting the fruit of those people's labor at the lowest possible cost.

When comments like this get moderated down, I know too many people who blindly support self-serving file trading and have no consideration for the people who actually make the music are becoming moderators.

Let me put my position out there: I am opposed to any type of software piracy. I think Microsoft software costs too much, so I use Linux. I think most CDs cost too much, so I go over to mp3.com or buy the RAP CD ($15, 4 CDs full of music) instead of buying mainstream music. I think most movies and TV suck, so I only watch movies or TV as a social gathering. Instead, I hang out with college students or go online.

Yes, I am opposed to legislated technological solutions because they make anyone with a digital recorder guilty. The RIAA's efforts of 15 years ago, which created the HRRA, killed the DAT audio format. I am sure that the RIAA, unfrettered, would destroy the PC revolution.

- Sam

Re:View from the other trench

[fuzzybunny]

You make some good points, and, even though I disagree with your fundamentals, they are honest.

However, there is one aspect that's often disregarded; it's that of quashing competition from free/sources using legal means.

Exactly the alternatives you subscribe to, such as using free software and buying non-mainstream music, are fundamentally threatened by commercial moves to technically and legally regulate how we consume information.

I realize that this is taking the slippery slope argument ad absurdum, but I can easily see something like broadcast flags (among other legally mandated means of content regulation/control on hardware devices--imagine that!) eventually leading to a world where I am prevented from consuming exactly those alternatives.

No, I do not own a DVD player, yes, I run FreeBSD, yes, I buy (mainly older and used) CDs--but what if I'm no longer allowed/able to access my entertainment because, say, new CD copy protection breaks my old bookshelf system, my PC doesn't work with my cable modem provider anymore because they require access to check my OS, and my (little-used) TV doesn't let me access even broadcast shows anymore because (a) free TV has been forced into some sort of content protection scheme which doesn't work on my old box?

Great prospects..

Re:View from the other trench

[evilviper]

Most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag.

That's the best quote I've heard in some time!

So the flag is not a barrier to those that are doing the hard-core copyright infringement, but only impeeding on fair use by average consumers.

I'd like to see MasterLock try to get away with that! "Sure this new lock of ours can be opened in 2 seconds with no effort, but most people won't even TRY to open it."

Re:View from the other trench

[Rogerborg]

• I sincerely hope the EFF will be able to put a responsible face on digital copying and fair use issues, and will not end up looking like amoral war3z kidd33z

Sure, they could lie about the most prevalant use of P2P, or they could just keep pushing for Sony decision to be applied here: that even though most use of P2P (at the moment) is infringing, there is a substantial non-infringing use, which is enough to justify not banning the technology, and if copyright holders want to profit from the technology, they are free to do so as they did (big time) with VCR's after they finally lost the case and had to stop whinging about them.

There's no need to take the moral high ground here, just keep reciting the precedent and challenge the ??AA to prove why it should be otherwise for P2P.

Re:View from the other trench

[rnturn]

``We are hopeful that the broadcast flag will enable content providers to release more of their programming in HDTV format and drive the market forward providing new options for consumers.''

Oh yah. That's just what we've been waiting for: ``Just Shoot Me'' on HDTV. Hollywood blockbusters 18 months after they were released as rentals, butchered in order to fit into a two hour time slot, further butchered to make room for commercials, on HDTV.

Re:View from the other trench

[mangu]

people are really not concerned with the people who make the music in question; they are only concerned about getting the fruit of those people's labor at the lowest possible cost

That's entirely true about me. I'm not concerned either with the people who make clothes, cars, food, etc, my only concern is getting those products and services at the lowest possible cost.

On the other hand, artists aren't concerned about us, either. Their only concern is selling the fruits of their labor at the highest possible price. The problem with "piracy" and DRM comes from this conflict: artists and media companies value the artists' creations more than the public does.

I have met a few musicians, I have had music lessons from professional musicians. I paid for those lessons. I agree that musicians are entitled to earn a living, like any other worker. However, I have never met a published musician who was poor. And the richest artists, who sell more records, are exactly those whose work is most pirated. The bottom line is that "pirating" music works more as advertising for the artist than as stealing music.

Link

[Raul654]

For those of you who are puzzled and don't know what email the post is referring to, please check this out

Email I sent to phil

[Nept]

Hey Phil,

In reference to your email archived here
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513391182
regarding your remarks about DigitalConsumer:

[quote] They represent nothing more than a free website.[/quote]
vast majority of websites are free. CNN is a free website for example. So is NY Times and BBC. Heck, even the FCC is a free website. If by free you mean non-profit, I can't see what there is too demean about that. Of course, I see the point you're trying to get at. You'd like everything to be corporate/controlled by big business and nuts to the little guy, or in your words "sustainable". If all REAL PEOPLE wanted what you want, why does Disney et al have to fight so hard (and underhandedly) to get their legislation passed?

[quote] We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters [/quote]
so...the site is run by 2 .com millionaires but they want everyone to become artists/waiters? Can you explain this bit of logic to me? The difference between a waiter and a millionaire .... seems vast. Almost as vast as the difference bewteen an artist with soul and a lawyer without.

DON'T SELL OUT TO LAWYERS WHO NEGLECT TO MENTION THEY REPRESENT VAST CORPORATE INTERESTS!

his email

[sPaKr]

Mmmm.. I LOVE the SMELL of FLAME war in the Morning. Posting his email address.. nice touch.. ssshh...."What was it?", "A disturbance in the network.. it felt like a 100,000 flames hit a Disney lawyers mbox.. and then silence"

Re:his email

[Nept]

yea, except their email server is down for mainteance, and anything you send 'em will get bounced back...
nice thought though.

Re:his email

[diaphanous]

Mmmm.. I LOVE the SMELL of FLAME war in the Morning.

A disturbance in the network.. it felt like a 100,000 flames hit a Disney lawyers mbox.. and then silence

By posting this comment, you've infringed on two pieces of MPAA Intellectual Property- prepare to submit your body's memory and i/o features to Organic Digital "Rights Management".

dollars

[djupedal]

And every time I buy a painting from an artist or a song directly from a musician I'm telling them I appreciate what they do.

MS makes a tasty 480% profit on their software.... EMI gets more than 80% of the profit from each CD. It really isn't that hard to detect the bad guys in this create/buy/sell/profit/pirate game. clue---the consumer is down on the list.

Re:dollars

[djupedal]

I think you're confusing marketing and mass production with the ability of a single individual. Don Henley can't sit in his studio and burn CD's by the millions, now can he? But he can put up a website, with 10 or 20 MP3's, and let me use PayPal to download the ones that interest me. Can Don make money this way? Depends on his overhead and success with his fans. Can he get stinking rich? Not until the corporate stench leaves the room, no.

The major houses have no qualms about taking advantage of any artist they sign. None.

Anyone that imagines I can cause pain to a recording artist by duplicating his/her CD at home needs to study the economics of the recording industry just a bit closer. I worked in that industry just long enough to decide there was nothing glamorous about the way signed artists are treated.

My point is this...the houses make a profit any way they can. I make a statement any way I can. One of us can sleep at night.

Re:dollars

[Stalyn]

by them I meant the artists. If you do indeed steal a cd instead of buying it you are surely taking x amount of cents out of their(artists) pockets. And really it doesnt matter how large x is... its still wrong.

Re:dollars

[QuantumG]

Sigh, get a real job. Seriously, in what way does being an "artist" exempt you from earning an honest living? Artists hide behind middle men like promotionists and recording studios because they cant muster up a good sales pitch themselves. On the other hand, free music is coming along, with such great songs as Inside by Maxwell Strait and other great songs. Hopefully, one day, people will do what Max has done and wake up to the fact that you don't need a label or a promotionist to get on the cover of Rolling Stone.

Re:dollars

[djupedal]

Yes, that perhaps reads better, thanks.

Look! He admits it!

[knodi]

I quote

In my spare time, I monitor the web for new technologies and trends, track the goings-on of many 'consumer advocate' groups, and quietly work with my compatriots on proposals to create the entertainment industry of the future.

Sound shady? Nah... Who could mistrust a proud member of the Rockland High School Academic Hall of Fame? Hey everybody, sign his guestbook @ http://www.ryze.com/view.php?who=pblelyveld His job at disney is not as mere IP attorney. He's actually the VP of Digital Industry Relations. I agree it's unethical not to mention your affiliation like he did, but read his job description of his first position at Di$ney

Lelyveld joined Disney in 1997 as director, Digital Industry Relations. In this role, he worked with the company's business units on a wide range of initiatives in advanced television, digital cinema, emerging media and content protection.

This guy's not a flunky or an overzealous marketeer (like mouseketeer? hah!). He's a professional. (last quote from http://laughingplace.com/News-ID10005230.asp)

Don't sell out to millionaires

[willpost]

Hold out for the billionaires claiming to represent the people!

We do not want to live in the world where we are all artist/waiters... the copyright lawyers would never get tipped!

--a former artist/waiter

Re:DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES

[Reziac]

With the right rephrasing:

DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE ARTISTS

(Stupid lameness filter, I'm yelling on purpose)

its a changing world

[geoff lane]

All the media companies are facing a horrible prospect - no longer can they control the path between the artist and the public. If they don't
learn to cope with the new world they will die.

As Lau Tzu says

[DrSkwid]

Morality the the penury of faith and trust and the beginning of confusion.

Laissez Faire

[cheshiremackat]

Ok ... this could be Karma suicide (flinch) but I think /.ers need to examine the strategy everyone here seems to support. Everyone agrees that the MP/RIAA and the media co's are pushing IP law to the limits... I agree, but I think the strategy of stopping _every_ attempt as soon as it pops up is futile... Simply put, they have deeper pockets than we collectively do, and they certainly have better representation both legally and politically... I AM NOT ADVOCATING rolling over and playing dead, but I am advocating passive resistence... I think the mainstream computer user does not understand what the media companies are attempting to do...and I also think their efforts will be useless... Consider the advertisements that the computer field uses to attract new companies..."buy a new P4 to download music"... "use XP to edit video"... "get broadband to speed downloads of music and video"... I want to know what happens when Joe User tries to do any of the things that are advertised... buy a CD from bestbuy and you cannot play it on your computer? I bet the CD gets returned... rent a DVD and cannot play on computer?... complaint to Custserv @ blockbuster... download music and it won't play on another computer, AND you just paid full frieght? I WANT to see the media co's get what they want... their sales will tank... who will buy a CD they can only use in one device? Remember all the grumbling when CD's came out (now I have to buy all new CD to replace my cassettes), Atleast the sound was better... a DRM CD only benefits the media co's... nobody will buy it... I forsee two outcomes to passive resistence. Firstly, the media co's will go to far and the gov will react when Joe Consumer feels he is getting ripped off... the gov likes to act fast when ALOT of people are watching (not just a few thousand geeks)... Secondly, the harsh DRM/palladium regime will create oportunities for new players... everyone on /. seem to hate M$... so screw 'em... they get to close to the MP/RIAA then someone (linus/India/ Lik Sang) will step in to offer people what they want... Remember information wants to be free, and consumers always prefer the *easiest* solution... someone will step in to offer a better solution... To conclude, I am only suggesting the /.ers who understand what is going on, to inform as many 'average' computer users how to use the technology the media co's want to stop... hate the RIAA??? teach someone to use KAZAA or limewire... I would like to see the RIAA/MPAA ask users to pay in the U.S> like they did in Denmark... how many calls to congressmen would that generate? C'mon Hilary... I DARE YOU... Average users will be pissed when P2P gets shut down...don't buy DRM products... import the non DRM one (Gabriel in the EU for instance)... the more the average user gets used to certain technology the more they feel they are entitled to it... (flinches as he hits submit)

Shocker? Hope you're joking.

[Maul]

I really doubt that this is very uncommon. I'm sure whenever the government asks for public opinion on if or not they should do something that will affect a big business, that big business has people "pose" as ordinary citizens to try to sway government perception.

Personally, I don't understand why the government feels the need to interfere with the market in this way. They already interfere TOO much. While it certainly doesn't sit well with me that big corps want to promote this sort of thing, it pisses me off even more that the government is even considering regulating it.

Easy

[dxkelly]

They stopped voting.

It's not the Broadcast Flag, it's VCR POISON.

[Effugas]

Here's the thing, folks.

Broadcast is good, right? And the flag is GREAT! So, the Broadcast Flag sounds all nice and wonderful. You have to be technically aware to realize what it is:

VCR Poison. One swallow of tainted material, and everything dies.

The FCC is being asked to mandate that every VCR dutifully swallow any poison sent by a content provider. To refuse the poison would carry large fines and possibly jailtime. And the poison is cheap! The only cost would be a single switch:

Kill VCRs? ( ) Yes ( ) No

It's Just That Simple.

It's not "The Broadcast Flag". It's VCR Poison, and the FCC is deciding whether or not to allow it. This is still a democracy, folks -- what do YOU want?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Re:Don't be fooled by those on the payroll!

[erroneus]

Are you on crack?

(Oh, did I just get trolled?)

How can you support such an opinion? Where are the facts? What is the evidence? I think Slashdot culture is still the reigning thought here but that's not to say the "FUD" speakers don't often have something important to say... especially when it's worded well.

But think of it this way: Read the responses to the opinions you don't like and learn better to reverse or refute the statements made by others -- you'll become a better debater this way. Further, you might just be able to train yourself in delivering an opinion that makes a difference somewhere.

Don't hate the opposition, respect them and appreciate them for making you stronger.

Re:WAITERS???

[Tim C]

Either that, or he meant "struggling artists, working as waiters to make ends meet while waiting for their big break". It's something of a Hollywood cliche, I believe.

DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES

[StrawberryFrog]

The text says DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE

That would also do well as an anti-Disney, RIAA, MPAA etc. slogan.

Vote with your dollars

[micro_SUXX]

I know this isn't the solution most people want, but if you don't like what the industry is doing then stop doing business with them. I know everyone likes their movies and music but if the industry feeding them to you is acting reprehensibly then don't give it your hard-earned dollars. If you must, build your back-catalog now and then when you can't stand their conduct anymore (the next time the government gets on their knees and gives them another stupid law to allow them to keep their antiquated business models) STOP GIVING THEM YOUR BUSINESS.

I know there will always be plenty of people who WILL continue to do business with them but we can lobby to our friends that might care and if enough of us stop buying the crap (and most of it is crap - it's the new opiate of the masses, designed to keep you from questioning what the terrorist regime in Washington, DC is up to) then maybe those new measures won't be worth the cost (lobbying, bribing, implementation costs, etc.) of putting them in place.

Only you can break the cycle.

Still time to comment

[bsdguy]

You can still get your comments in to the
FCC. They are accepting them until 2359 6 December 2002.


http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/fcc.flag/

will take you to a form that will properly format and send your comments to the FCC.

The last day for FCC comments is TODAY!

[jms]

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.

Slightly OT

[Man Eating Duck]

The poem cited above was written by a man who was vitctim of the nazi holocaust. It's magnificient, but I feel it's a little out of context here...

I mean, the DRM/'right-to-backup-your-media-debate' is important, but the holocaust issue is in another league entirely. Literally millions of people exterminated. Get a perspective, please, don't trivialize REAL atrocities.

Go ahead, mod me down.

Re:Slightly OT

[Tony-A]

but the holocaust issue is in another league entirely
Get a perspective, please
But the poem does put it into perspective. If we wait until we are personally concerned, it may be much too late. ( I personally do not care about off-color Disney movies ;-)

Re:Slightly OT

[Alien Being]

I think the current political climate makes this very appropriate.

In Germany, the Reichstag burned, and "patriotic" Germans gave Nazi's the power to burn books, turn Jews into scapegoats, and make war.

We need to speak out against powerful groups (Disney, FCC, congress, white house) while we still can.

If they get this one thru, the next step could be to require that your tv "phone home" to report on what you're watching. Will it be time to speak up then? Or, will people let it slide because "they have nothing to hide".

Dotcom Millionaires?

[thumbtack]

I didn't know there were any left....

Re:Why the focus on Disney - GODWINS LAW VIOLATED.

[AyeRoxor!]

Ohhhhhhh, sorry! By violating Godwin's law, you have just lost the argument. But hey, thanks for playing!

This is the submission I just filed this morning

[jht]

I just submitted this via the ECFS system - the docket number for this comment request is 02-230 for those interested in filing their own comments. They have to be in by today.

Today, Americans have the unhindered ability to view their programming of choice. Whether viewed over-the-air, through a analog or digital cable system, or through a satellite receiver, they can watch what they want, transfer it to a recordable medium (be it VCR, DVD, or the newer PVR systems like TiVo), and archive it. They can use this recording for purposes of time-shifting, or for viewing repeatedly at a later date, or they could even (if they use recordable media) share the recording with a friend.

Existing copyright law prohibits the commercial use of these recordings, and payment mechanisms are in place already for the legitimate commercial use of recorded media.

My point here is that there _is_ no "analog hole", nor is there a significant threat inherent to the conversion to digital broadcast streams from the current analog system. All I, as a consumer, am looking for is the exact same ability to archive and time-shift broadcast media that I have today. No more, no less. It is merely a benefit that media will become digital in nature - it makes it easier for me to exercise my rights as a citizen and a consumer.

Media companies, with their emphasis on copy prevention, are trying to create a problem that doesn't really exist in the mainstream today. Today, in the analog world, it is already trivially simple to pirate movies or television for non-legitimate commercial use. Yet that ability has not materially harmed the broadcast industry or it's revenues. Instead, the threat to broadcast companies has come from the fragmentation of traditional media into hundreds of specialty broadcasters, each of which now appeals to a smaller, more specialized audience. Until ESPN, for instance, all viewers had to get their sports coverage from the networks. As ESPN has thrived, networks have scaled back on their sports coverage, and multiple other sports networks have emerged, on both the national and regional scope.

This same principle applies to almost any special interest today (the Golf Channel, HGTV, Food Network, TLC, Discovery, to name just a handful). This fragmentation is seen by most to be a good thing for the consumer and for the industry as a whole. Yet it's the biggest single threat to the largest broadcasters. However, we don't see any legislative or rule-making effort targeted at trying to eliminate the diverse competition. Digital television is exactly the same. Restricting usage and recording rights will only slow the adoption of digital TV by the American consumer, and circumvention (legal or otherwise) systems will rapidly appear. The industry's proposals will only have the effect of making the normal, expected behavior of nearly 300 million television viewers illegal. That's just wrong.

My letter to the lawyer

[mattr]

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:36:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Matt Rosin
To: phil_lelyveld@corp.disney.com
Subject: Your post

Dear Sir:

It has been quite amusing to read about the results of your actions as
noted in the story "Shocker: Despicable Conduct From a Disney Lawyer" on
the front page of slashdot.org.

I would like to say that I have long since stopped buying your company's
products as I do not support such duplicity and sheer underhandedness as
appears to have become a cancer in your organization. I, representing the
hearts and souls of approximately 1 million anime fans, sincerely
recommend that you take a day off to reconsider your professional and
corporate goals. You can start with doing a search for Disney on slashdot
after reading the thread about yourself.

Of course if you choose to refuse this chance at improving your karma
then you can just go on living your life as your did before, seems like
a spectacular version of hell.

Sincerely yours,

Matt Rosin
CEO Telebody Inc.

Please don't underestimate the public. Its silly.

[El Camino SS]

they would rather sit down and surf, watch TV, or even just vegetate rather than driving somewhere for a meeting or to even write a damn letter. I bet more than half the people here will bitch all they want, mod people up or down-but writing a letter takes too much time.

Have you ever thought that the public may not have the same issues as you do? I mean, there are a lot of more important issues in the world short of copyright infringement and the DMCA. I mean there is a whole world out there. You pessimists really think that the public is going to rush out and do all the things these lawmakers and their ridiculous rules tell us to do?

Simply put, most families are a tight rope act. Most people don't have the time to do much besides keeping that ship afloat.

Good luck. Most people have a heavy job responsibility, and a kid or two. It takes all of their time. AND I MEAN ALL OF IT. So the next time you think that the public doesn't care about issues, watch the ratings for the nightly news, Bill O'Reily, and CNN.

Don't assume they are idiots. It is not a crime to be a conservative or a liberal. It is not an assumption of someone's stupidity because they don't know DMCA rules implicitly. The public is not brilliant, but here in America, it is not dumb enough to believe everything it hears on TV, or from some corporate attorney.

Although many of you very vocal, very young ctivist types think we are all losers and you alone can save the world, TRUST ME ON THIS ONE: You will soon see the truth about all of this.
The public truly knows which end wags the dog, and who all of the bastards really are. Go ahead, take away all of our rights, see what happens in America.

Britney Spears

[moncyb]

I don't think Britney's label (Zomba) is a member of the RIAA. But you are correct that big media companies still get money even if you boycott them. The current compulsary licensing system makes sure of that. You even pay "royalties" on "digital audio equipment" such as CD burners.

Re:Please don't underestimate the public. Its sill

[Martigan80]

So the next time you think that the public doesn't care about issues, watch the ratings for the nightly news, Bill O'Reily, and CNN

So who do they actually poll? Is it a truly diverse crowd? Then again do you see any other news besides those, and please don't tell me that FOX is a good news source, they are the WWF of News.

Don't assume they are idiots

Never have I made such an assumption. Ones choice of lifestyle does not qualify them as an idiot.

And yes your are totally correct about saying many people are having a hard time trying to make ends meet, but then I see so many people running up credit cards, renting lots of movies, drinking with the friends, and so much more so there must be some money and time somewhere. But I believe that you point about not having time to care is absolutely true. Everyone decides what gets their time and attention. My point was that a lot of people claim they don't even have five minute to write an email, but they have a couple of our to go out with friends or family. I was not saying to rip your life apart and totally dedicate to a cause that is just plain useless, instead just take five minutes here or there and write a letter read sometime, voice you opinion at the right place. Just to make a little change takes a little change not one dramatic change for a week or a month and then revert back.

My intention here was not to offend anyone, even though I obviously have, but just to make people realize that all the time they are spending complaining on the phone, to friends, to newsgroups, and where ever else; they could focus that energy directly towards the cause of their frustrations.

Silicon Image

[rnturn]

Anyone else read the logo at the top of the first link and burst out laughing:

``Silicon Image

All Digital - No Limits''

Then they proceed to provide quotes from people like Lelyveld extolling the virtues of the S.I. content control.

Don't know about any of the rest of you but, just a few years ago if someone mentioned the phrase ``secure interconnections'' to me I would have been thinking something like ``Ah, a connector that provide a tight electrical connection that won't fall off'' and not an attack on my fair use of a broadcast signal.

Think about this a minute

[nosilA]

There is no authentication on ECFS, it's entirely possible that this comment was not truely submitted by Phil Lelyveld or that it is the SAME Phil Lelyveld. Given how poorly that comment is written, I would tend to guess it was an imposter trying to undermine his own statements.

Secondly, the FCC is intelligent enough to ignore this type of comment.

Finally, if someone were an employee of company X, but were not speaking officially on behalf of said company, it would not be proper for them to list the name of the company or their position within it. If this was the real Phil Levyveld, and he was being serious, his comment is much better posted as a semi-anonymous citizen than with the name Disney attached to it.

-Alison

Re:Think about this a minute

[Doppleganger]

Actually, I would think it would be much more proper for such a person to reveal that he works for Disney, but clearly state that he is not speaking on Disney's behalf. That way, readers get warned that he has a vested interest in the outcome, but he makes it clear that he's stating his own opinion.

By posting something that supports Disney as a "simi-anonymous citizen", he has left himself and Disney completely open to accusations of astroturfing... assuming that the comment was posted by the *real* Lelyveld, of course.

Re:A world of artists.... Oh God no!

[gregm]

Trust me, you don't want me to be an artist...

Letter to the FCC

[SloppyElvis]

FCC, listen up.

Transition to DTV is not hindered because content providers are reluctant to provide material without digital rights management. Such a hypothesis is most certainly a farse given in efforts to enact governmental regulations aimed at gauranteeing the establishment of a powerful yet unregulated national industry. Television as it is today provides no copy protection, yet there is no dearth of content. That in and of itself proves the sentiment above to be phony. In fact, the prevalence of the home video recorder in American living rooms evidences this claim, and VCR production has developed into an industry in and of itself. By the guiding hand of the free market, content providers will produce high quality digital content for television when consumers demand it and will accept none other.

There is no mandate for such regulation as the Broadcast Flag issue, and there is no saleable avenue by which to present such a work to the American people as something that is in the best interest of the country. The fact of the matter is, DTV rollout has been slow due to the expense of HDTV equipment. Manufacturer and retailer propaganda has clearly illustrated the superiority of the high definition format to the American consumer, yet in our current state of economy, the American consumer simply cannot afford to take out a loan simply to purchase a television. Take heed not to enact regulations that our nation cannot afford during this troubled time, and take action to preserve the free enterprise that has built our nation from a dream.

Can a free website live in a nation without freedom?

Re:I guess this is a case where...

[Mahrin Skel]

Actually, it was him remembering history. Those stupid laws about having a man on horseback ride through town carrying a red lantern to warn everyone an automobile was about to come through? Buggy whip sharpeners, blacksmiths, livery stable operators, and coachmakers got those passed in an attempt to prevent the adoption of the automobile, because that would destroy their industry (which at the time employed a significant percentage of the population and provided service to nearly everyone).

Any parellels between that and the DMCA/Hollings bill are surely a coincidence, right?

--Dave

What I felt like emailing to Phil but didn't

[Arcturax]

Dear Mr. Lelyveld,

I wanted to write in support of your efforts to silence the little people and crush their rights and lives under your corporate bootheel. You are doing a fine job in helping to create more misery on Earth and I so enjoy seeing that.

To give you further incentive to continue your good work, I wanted to let you know that when the time is right, I have a special reward for you here in my own land of fun. I can assure you it is far more interesting than that Disneyland park you use to coerce the children into making their parents give away money that could have been used to educate them better. I have some very special attractions lined up for you and some of my best personal servants lined up to service you upon your arrival.

So keep fighting the good fight and don't let those miserable little louts get the upper hand. Remember that you are earning a most delightful place at my feet when your time comes.

Sincerely,
The Devil

Re:Lost Government

[Gonarat]

We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job
and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.

When the Federal Government started, Congress was not a full time job. Representatives came to Washington to take care of business, then went back home to Represent. As time went on, being a Representative or Senator went from a service position to a full time job. While this may not seem to be a big issue, it has lead to career Congress People (I don't know any 100 year old Congress People *Strom-cough*, do you?).

The biggest problem today is the amount of money it takes to run for office. A Representative has to run every 2 years, so that means they must come up with Millions to run every even-numbered year. A Senator has it a little better, their term is 6 years, so they have more time to raise the Money.

The result of these costs is that to run for Congress, one must raise the funds to run campaigns. A major source of these funds are (surprise) major Corporations. Most Congress People are not going to do anything to upset those who have helped them get elected -- and since most Slashdotters do not have megabucks to donate, that means we are ignored.

Re:Why the focus on Disney - GODWINS LAW VIOLATED.

[fudgefactor7]

Re-read Godwin's.

"[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful."

It's only a faux tradition that the mentioner loses. And besides, Godwin's "law" is bullshit.

FCC notice of correspondance acceptance

[SloppyElvis]

"This confirmation verifies that ECFS has received and accepted your filing. However, your filing will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining, read-only formatting, a virus ..."

What? I can't include a virus in my submission? What's this country coming to? (and why do they need to state such a restriction so clearly? Did the word "implied" lose its meaning?)

Re:This is the submission I just filed this mornin

[jht]

In fact, that's one of the best ways that media companies are responding to the fragmentation threat. They're buying existing channels, and they're starting their own narrowcast channels, too. Not only does that help the networks stay afloat, but it also, in the long run, increases viewership overall - it's just more fragmented than it was in the days when the whole nation watched the last episone of M*A*S*H.

Discovery is another good example - it's pretty much a company owned by three big media conglomerates (Liberty, Cox, and Advance/Newhouse). But it was started and exists to exploit several niche markets, and does so effectively. They have 8 channels here in the US, a chain of retail stores, a merchandising/licensing operation, and a business producing content for other companies. They don't have one single monolithic channel that the whole nation turns to. They're exploiting the market niches that they fit best into. Generally speaking, that's the strategy that best fits the market nowadays.

ESPN is an interesting case. First, they were founded as the "original" cable niche player, though Getty Oil was a huge investor. Then ABC (when they were an independent company) jumped on-board, and ESPN got more and more assimilated as ABC got bought by Cap Cities and then Disney. Now ESPN is a conglomerate unto itself, with restaurants, multiple channels, a magazine, and a distinctive ESPN "brand". Meanwhile, the ESPN concept kicked off the explosion in sports networks, with channels now like the Fox Sports Net national and regionals, NESN, YES, MSG, and a host of others all over the country (like Sunshine, Outdoor, the Golf Channel, and more). But ESPN was there first.

Another Applicable Quote

[ginbot462]

When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.

Re:WAITERS???

[Lothar 0]

There are a quite a few Hollywood moguls who should become waiters. Maybe they would learn a little humility.

Re:Lost Government

[Sir Tristam]

We lost control when
1. Congress became a full time job and
2. When it started costing Millions of Dollars to run for office.

Close. We lost control when

1. the Interstate Commerece Clause of the Constitution stopped being interpreted as giving the Federal Government control over trade between States only during the actual conduct of that trade, and started being interpreted as giving the Federal Government creation to destruction control over anything that might ever be involved in trade between the States; and
2. the Supreme Court went along with it

This made the Federal Government hold a lot more power than it had been intended to have, and thus made it more attractive to have Congress as a career. It also increased competition for the seats, leading to the massive fund raising needed today.

Scale back the reach of the Interstate Commerece Clause to where it had been intended, and you'll scale down the centralized powers of the Federal Government (redistributing them back to the States where they were intended) and those two issues you mentioned will pretty much go away.

Chris Beckenbach

Re:A world of artists.... Oh God no!

[twitter]

You say:
Trust me, you don't want me to be an artist...

Unlike Philip Lelyveld, I have respect for artists and waiters. Both meanings of that statement are true:

P_L_respect = 0

aritst_respect = 1

waiter_respect = 1

If he and others did not use the law to protect racketers, your would be a little better.

Re:My email message to this PARASITE!!

[Flower]

And this is the exact type of rambling, over-the-top, tin-foil hat (fitted with a simple microchip in a year's time... Please) absurdist shit that drowns out sane disagreement. The guy, as a citizen, writes a three line retort to an organization's comments and all of a sudden he's a PARASITE.

Thanks for using a modicrum of common sense and rereading (out loud and shouting at the top of your lungs by the end. in front of people too. best if it be your parents) what you typed before you hitted submit. Now all Phil has to do to negate hundreds of rational arguments against his case is to wave your tripe in front of the curious thus proving our side is nothing more than a bunch of prepubescent nut cases.

Seriously folks, if you absolutely must react to this "event" at least have the moxie to compose a thoughtful response.

Re:Please don't underestimate the public. Its sill

[Dun Malg]

they are the WWF of News.

I think you mean the WWE of news. World Wildlife Fund "0wnz" the WWF.

He's being honest, you know.

[twitter]

When he says, "We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters." He really means it. Phil Lelyveld would hate to have a real job and do things for people. He does not want to live in a wold that does not sustain his and a few select others ability to rape everyone else.

(gets out notebook)

[Hubert_Shrump]

What other authors does Iron Maiden suggest?

Re:(gets out notebook)

[Luckster7]

Iron Maiden also wrote a song about the old film The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner and named a CD after Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Those guys at Iron Maiden could have made a living being book critics, they have good taste. They have not written anything about my favorite author, Roger Zelazny, however. To the best of my knowledge only Hawkwind has done that.

artists and waiters

[wfrp01]

Artists and waiters do a lot more good for this world than corporate executive pig dog fuckwits like Phil Lelyveld.

Yeah, there are way too many artists. A vice president of Disney saying 'fuck art'. Big surprise.

What kind of a loser would want to be an artist, anyway? Michaelangelo. Jimmy Hendrix. Mark Twain. Stanly Kubrick. Umm, Walt Disney.

How do such complete and utter morons end up in such positions of power and influence? Something is really wrong about that.

My letter (don't like form letters)

[richardtallent]

Just for the record, I AM NOT of the the "dot com millionaires" that Mr. Lelyveld of Disney despises so. I am just a normal guy who makes a living on intellectual property (software development).

The broadcast flag would, first and foremost, have a chilling effect on free speech by making fair uses of copyrighted works (for research, commentary, parody, etc.) illegal under the DCMA (the flag being a protection device under that law).

In addition, whereas the home user's right to time-shift and archive programming has been upheld for nearly two decades (Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 1984), such a broadcast flag would render PVR (ReplayTV/TiVo) technology illegal. These large corporations use OUR AIRWAVES, track wires through OUR BACKYARDS and right-of-ways, and take up limited beaming locations in OUR SKY. They are, in effect, localized and publicly-permitted monopolies.

I can't trample through your yard, hoist a lemonade stand on it, charge you for a drink, and then force you to drink it all right then, right there as I blast advertisements in your ear. Yet, these comanies have licenses granted by your agency to use our resources, and still force us to enjoy their product exactly when and how they feel like it.

In the end, comsumers should decide what they buy, when they enjoy it, and how they use it. Existing copyright laws are sufficient to protect these companies from true piracy, new "features" like this broadcast flag would make non-infringing uses illegal and will only hurt the average consumer who desires privacy and flexibility in enjoying the entertainment they pay good money for. The flag itself (as proposed) could be easily bypassed by pirates, as can *ANY* encryption technology given pirates with enough financial incentive to do so.

In closing, I urge you to require the content industry to demonstrate that its proposed technologies will allow for all legal uses and will actually achieve the stated goal of preventing piracy. If they cannot, I urge you not to mandate the broadcast flag.

broadcast flag comments due today

[wfrp01]

BTW, it's important to know that today is the last day you can submit comments to the FCC telling them what you think about the broadcast flag. For more details:

http://www.lxny.org/announce/2002/FCC.6.December.2 002.html

Re:This is the submission I just filed this mornin

[Strange Ranger]

Thank you for the docket number.

I just made a few edits to the Digital Consumer letter, and cut & paste it into the official FCC comment submittal form.

That way it's not just another Digital Consumer spam.

And the best part...it took less time than posting this comment.

So ya'll get to it.

To quote Gerge Carlin

[JudgeFurious]

"Fuck Mickey Mouse! Fuck him in his asshole with a big rubber dick! Then break it off and beat him to death with the rest of it!"

I think George pretty much covered it.

Re:Lost Government: 17th Amendment

[jms]

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.

Re:Please don't underestimate the public. Its sill

[Our Man In Redmond]

So the next time you think that the public doesn't care about issues, watch the ratings for the nightly news, Bill O'Reily, and CNN.

People who really care about the issues will do some digging and get some information rather than sitting there like a lump letting the nightly news, Bill O'Reilly, and CNN tell them what to think.

Re:Lost Government: 17th Amendment

[jms]

I know. They all expected that it would be replaced by something better. If only they knew.