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

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

[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

Lawyers

[SemiBarbaricPrincess]

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

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!

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.

[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.

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.

--

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?

hmm

[hawkedwards]

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

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

[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:How about some proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

proof.

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?

[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?

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

[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!

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.

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: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: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.

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

[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: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?

-

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: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.

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)

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.

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: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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.