Slashdot Mirror
Hollings vs. McCain on Broadband and Copyrights
tabdelgawad writes "The Washington Post has a mostly speculative article on the effects of John McCain (R-AR) replacing Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings (D-SC) as chairman of the powerful senate Commerce Committee. Topics in the article include the future of pending broadband and copyright legislation as well as the Senate's relationship with the FCC. Best quote from the article belongs to ITAA president Harris Miller: 'If Jack Valenti had been around at the time of Gutenberg he would have organized the monks to come and burn down the printing press' :-)."
Why are you guys posting! It's Christmas, go enjoy the day with your family, I can't believe what nerds you are for posting, and...
oh wait. shit.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Which liberal are you funding?
From the looks of my 1040 this year, all of them.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Neither organization would consider McCain's 2001 year to be "highly conservative." The American Conservative Union rates senators on this page. A higher rating means more conservative. For example, Arizona Republican John Kyl scores a 100 (very conservative) while California Democrat Barbara Boxer scores a 0 (very liberal). Senator McCain scored a 68 in 2001. In 2000 he scored 81 and his lifetime rating is 84. He is obviously becoming more liberal by these ratings.
McCain wasn't the lowest scoring Republican, as Sen. Spector from PA and both the Maine senators scored lower. McCain also scored higher than any democrat, the most conservative of whom is GA's Miller, with a score of 60. For reference, Sen. Lott scored 96 and Sen. Frist scored 100, while Sen. Daschle scored an 8 and Sen. Kennedy scored 4. So, by ACU standards, he is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, though he should not be called a liberal.
The Americans for Democratic Action have a similar system, but they score it oppositely: a rating of 0 = very conservative and a rating of 100 = very liberal. You can see a .PDF file of the 2001 ratings on this page. Sen. McCain scored a 40, higher than the lowest Democrat (Sen. Miller of GA) who scored a 35. By ADA reckoning, McCain was tied for the most liberal Republican Senator (with Spector (PA) and Sen. Snowe (ME)).
His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.
Give us some examples.
The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Act. This act was assailed by many conservatives as being unconstitutional and giving incumbants free reign in their campaigns.
In the areas of policy of most concern to the Slashdot community (Telecoms, IP rights and so on), McCain is probably the best person the US has for the job. Based strictly on his voting record and the policies he defends, we often wouldn't see eye to eye, however philisophically he is very much in the same camp.
McCain tends to take positions based on a populist stance--certainly the best way to do it in a democracy. Less so than most other politicians he listens to ALL voters--not just Republicans, or corporations, or lobby groups.
That's probably why the Post article is all wishy-washy. Normally you can count on a Democrat to bend over and take it in the butt from Jack (Valenti, or most others in the entertainment industry cartels) and for a Republican to bend over and take it from Bill (Gates, or the BSA or others trying to lock people into their tech IP).
McCain is going to be hard to pin down by the pundits because he'll be influenced by everyone and anyone, and the press in north America is very poor at correctly gauging what populist sentiment is--it tries to steer public opinion rather than follow it.
All in all, it is a promising move to have committees steered by those like McCain. The press AND government these days really have a problem listening to what the public wants...
I know I'm going to get nailed for this, but I get so sick and tired of the garbage people spew about copyrights.
If I said I didn't have an incentive to grow oranges unless I could plant a tree in your yard, or I said I didn't have an incentive to make cotton without owning slaves on the plantation, people would see it as the shallow and worthless arguments they are. But if I say I don't have an incentive to create and bring works into the public domain unless I have a copyright monopoly - people just take it on faith. They don't even question it. They just assume on faith that society would fall apart, and artists would be ruined without them. They ignore simle facts like that the entire renassance happened without them, and like how copyrights were originally created as a form of censorship and not a property nor an incentive to creators. They ignore and write off the consistent, dramatic, and often unpredicted success of non "owned" technologies - like Linux, tcp/ip, x86 compatable interfaces, etc...
Not only that, but they completey ignore, blow off, or sweet talk all the bad ancillatory effects of cpoyrights. Eg the failures of hollywood culture, the unethical effects of Microsoft and other companies that leverage intellectual property in a way that does not benefit society in the slightest, biases in the media, overpriced overly revised and modified college books and books of other educational means. And the things that copyright lead to like the DMCA. They ignore things like how the effective enforcement of copyrights is going to require centralized system of checks and enforcement that is costly, invades privacy, violates due-process, and is just plain big-brotherish. And even *if* such a systyem could be held up in the US, implementing that in other countries wiothout constitutional protections could be disasterous, even murderous (eg china).
They ignore simple physical facts. like the fact that normal property has natural limits in supply and demand - that imply markets and property law, but that information has no natural limits. If the government gave someone a monopoly on growing potatos, and then fradulently called that a market because someone could buy or sell that monopoly, they would call it big brotherish and overbearing government regulation. But when they do it with information, people just call it a right, an entitlement, they can't even see that if anything information should have less restrictions in government regulation - not more.
If the government called the right to beat people over the head a property right, would beople just take it that that's the way things should be because they called it *PROPERTY*. Just because government or institutions call something a property does not mean that it is. Think about it.
btw. Merry Christmas