Slashdot Mirror
Schlafly on Copyright
WildJoeWild writes "Copyright extremists are working to control as much information as possible. Almost every week we see a new example of how they are thwarting the free flow of information. Read the rest of the article here."
Suck it down!
When they say that politics makes strange bedfellows....
Phyllis Schlafly!!!!?
This is like Jerry Fallwell's buddies coming out on the side of small webcasters.
She's still a fundie luddite.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This is a pretty strong statement. While I'm not disagreeing with it, and my views are in line with yours, the statement should either qualified as purely editorial material or backed up with a whole lot more examples than the scant article contains.
Has anyone seen a better article to match the story?
I'm in complete agreement with Phyllis Schlafley on something! This can't be happening!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Phyllis Schlafley commenting on the information age? What's next? Childcare tips from Michael Jackson? Gourmet vegetarian cooking recipes from Idi Amin?
GMD
watch this
To those of you who may not know who Phyllis Schafly is, it may be informative to read the biography of her on that site.
As a further illustration of the type of news this is, when you visit the site, you get a pop-up window inviting you to receive "commentaries" from Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Before some of you out there gag, understand that this is an important victory for the opponents of these controlling forces in today's intellectual-property field. It is not just "commie pinko liberals" who are advocating change here, but thoughtful conservative writers as well. If others follow, we may have support building from an unlikely place. I say it's good.
-Steve
FLAMEBAIT
I'm sure a lot of you are surprised to find out that freedom of information is not a left-wing specific issue. For that matter, it's not a right-wing specific issue, either.
Now that we have that out in the open, we're going to stop bashing the right-wing extremists that want to control what we can and and cannot see? Oh, and the right-wing shouldn't be too hard on Senator Fritz Hollings, the Democratic "Senator from Disney".
FLAMEBAIT
Seriously, though, I hope most of you are open-minded enough to realize that freedom of information and fair use rights are of importance to a lot of people all across the political spectrum -- regardless of their opinions on other issues.
It is odd to see two sides of the ideological divide come together. But that doesn't mean they see eye-to-eye. I've been wondering what agenda might be wrapped up in an otherwise worthy attack on corporate profiteering. I thought, what's most closely associated with the Sonny Bono Act? Disney. Hmm. Schlafly spoke her mind on the Bono Act in 1998 (here at the bottom):
So there's one theory. This anti-Disney thing is very very big with many "pro-family" partisans. She spends most of her essay attacking the stench of money given both parties to pass the Act, which is true, but what did she choose to come out so strongly on *this* crooked law? I can suggest a few more.
Take help wherever it's offered, but check what's in their other hand, too.
Here is a less petty and much more ideological ground for Schlafly opposing Sonny Bono. It discusses the ground that I very much hope the Court doesn't judge the Bono Act by -- that it has the power to decide how many years a "Limited Time" really is (I doubt it will). As the article discusses, to do so would possibly have implications for other issues the arch conservatives, and many libertarians, care very deeply about in other arenas in Congressional power from gun control to federal crime legislation and beyond.
It's a long shot, but it's there.
With friends like Phyllis Schlafly, who needs enemies?
Everyone seems to be aghast that someone like Schlafly is joining them in the fight against the RIAA.
Well, get used to it. The only political pressure that I've seen being brought to bear against the RIAA has been from conservative politicians. Funny, but "let's go back to how things used to be when this country was just starting out," has a great deal of resonance with conservatives. Interesting how that works.
Moreover the Senators from Disney and Hollywood are all, well, Democrats. You aren't going to get any help from there, friends.
The fact that someone like Schlafly is signing on with us actually happens to be great news. Before long, with any luck, conservatives will realize that a major political issue amoung young urban professionals happens to be copyright. Hell, we create more press in a day on this one political issue than most other interest groups our size do in a year. Once we get the conservatives to sign on, then we'll start getting some major traction on our issues.
So, welcome aboard, Schlafly.
Best advice I would have for anyone is to step away from the old paradigms of following any "party lines" rhetoric and even to cease getting sucked into the extremely limiting parameters of identifying one's self as "right" or "left" leaning and instead just differentiate "right" and "wrong". Makes things a lot easier to sort out.
I manage to catch her little two minute daily audio editorials listening to various net broadcasts carried on Genesis Communications, a pretty good collection of shows with a more traditional US constitutional (and common sense) "Independent" viewpoint as opposed to acting like most talk shows as pure propoganda arms of one or the other of the two dominant political for-profit gangs, err, I mean "partys", for example the two biggees of the "establishment" like Rush Limbeau and Larry King. I consider those shows to be more like political training wheels for people just starting to get any sort of political interest going, once you can get a balance and want to go further (which should take like one show apiece from those two gents to see it for what it is, establishment propoganda), the offerings from genesis are a lot more real and hardcore freedom-oriented, as are some of the other independent media outlets.
FWIW, here is Mrs. Schalfly's website, Eagle Forum.
I pretty much agree with everything that is said in that article. I'm printing it out and hanging it on my door :).
"Good art borrows; great art steals."
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
She may be a few fries short of a happy meal, but on this issue she's on the right side.
from article: "Only last-minute intervention by outgoing Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., gave small radio stations the legislative right to play music while paying reasonable royalties."
If only we could bridge the gap between right-libertarians and left-libertarians and present some sort of unified front to resist the downward pull towards more authoritarian government coming from both parties... The fiscally moderate Democrats need to split away from the socialists, and the people who call themselves conservatives but (unlike the republican party) want personal freedom need to renounce all ties with the fundies/authoritarians in their party.
Repeal the DMCA!
-1 redundant: the article is a rehash of everything that's been discussed about copyright.
+1 interesting: here's another one, apparently somebody prominent in the editorial circle, coming out against the likes of the DMCA.
+1 underrated: like another poster here said, a good summation of all things that have been discussed over slashdot. It seems that she's been doing her reading.
This sig no verb.
Schlafly isn't new to the copyright issue. Her "Eagle Forum" filed a pretty good amicus brief (pdf) supporting Eric Eldred in Eldred vs. Ashcroft. Check it out.
> What was Nazism, exactly--and why is it evil?
..but I do not have the knowledge to judge anyone, even
.45 caliber sendoff. If you are so indecisive that you couldn't pull the trigger that is your problem. However, your continued ability to exercise your 1st Amendment right to state that view depends on people like me keeping the world survivable by culling the madmen and criminals.
I certainly don't intend to mentor you on basic elements of 20th Century history which, if you didn't get it as part of your schooling, Google can supply.
> To give of yourself for the benefit of others is most certainly
> the essence of "Goodness." If you think you have a better
> objective definition, by all means try and spit it out.
No, the word you just defined is Altruism. And I'm a devoted follower of RAH on that subject.
: Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root
: of all evil.
:
: If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine
: your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you
: still want to do it, wallow in it!
:
: From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long
: (Time Enough for Love (C) 1973 Robert A. Heinlein)
>
> Hilter or the 9-11 hijackers or the heroes who die every
> day, as "good" or "evil." And neither do you
That is where we differ. Given a chance I'd be more than willing to 'judge' Hitler or Atta straight to Hell with a
> A brave German infantryman who sacraficed himself so his
> comrades could escape, or who took on extra guard duty to aid
> weaker soldiers, is probably a Good Person--as long as they
> didn't take part in the Very Very Bad things that the Germans
> did.
Wrong. They can be 'good' only if they didn't KNOW what the Reich was doing. It isn't enough to just be lucky enough not to be assigned to guard a death camp. If you KNOW they exist and continue to serve, you crossed the line and are damned near as wicked and evil as the most feared SS monster. All that evil requires is that good men do nothing. You should defect or rebel, if you continue to serve once you have knowledge of the evil your country is doing you join the ranks of the damned as far as I'm concerned. Harsh? Yes, but life isn't easy.
Making moral choices when the cost is low confers little karma, it is doing the right thing when you know it is going to cost that matters. Most of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence died or ended up destitute by the end of the war but there were few regrets because they knew they were right.
> "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are, despite RPGing's wargaming
> baggage, hardly on par with Good or Evil. They're barely
> even real concepts.
Law/Chaos is on a par with Good/Evil, just a different quality being measured; it is very useful to put a 2nd dimension on the moral question. Just like the Pournelle Axes chart of political thought is so much more useful than the left/right one dimensional chart; even if it illustrates some wierd associations that are hard to understand. (Google is your friend if you want more info.)
> Use a broader definition of "harm" than simple "physical
> injury." Here's a few samples:
>
> * A man who throws himself in front of a train to push
> another out of the train's way has just committed a good act.
Perhaps, but I fail to see the big win in a straight up trade of one life for another. Would I trade my life for a stranger? Probably not. Would I RISK my butt for one? Probably. For a spouse/child/friend/etc? I'd like to think so, thankfully haven't faced that test.
> * A man who pushes someone else into the train's way to save
> themselves has committed an evil act.
Agreed.
> * Giving your lunch to someone who's hungry and hasn't eaten
> in four days is a good act.
No real problem here either. But better still to trade with him. He still gets to eat that way and retains his honor. Man does not live by bread alone.
In case you haven't guessed yet, I'm a Libertarian. I have found that the non-initiation of force principle is a very reliable way to assess the Rightness or Wrongness of a situation.
Democrat delenda est
A number of years ago, when Al Gore's wife Tipper forced all those ratings stickers on us all, one of the names behind the scenes was none other than Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum. I find it very hard to believe that she's changed tunes so much that she's now willing to defend the idea that music and information should be free.
...think about this, given that the sort of censorship Gore, Schlafly and any of the others at the time essentially shot down Dead Kennedys after their show trial. For those who have not heard about this, pick up a copy of Jello's third spoken word CD, Tales from the Trial, which goes into this and other censorship issues in great detail. As far as I'm concerned, somebody like Jello, who's pretty much dismissed by the Right, has to be able to seriously back himself up.
I'd love to know what Jello Biafra and his crew at Alternative Tentacles...
http://www.alternativetentacles.com
Frankly, I do not trust the likes of Schlafly, Falwell, Gore etc because, given their past, I cannot help but think their using this as a lever to impose still more censorship.
Conservatism is a powerful ally to have in this. It's obvious that most of the people here haven't hung around a lot of conservatives, because if they did they'd know that most conservatives are very sympathetic to libertarianism. A lot of Conservatives are disenchanted with the RP and see the LP as a party that could one day be the party they vote for.
The Bible-beating, screaming-from-the-pulpit, social conservative is a very small minority among Conservatism these days. The fact of the matter is that they are the best allies to have here because of their strength in Congress and anti-government -as-the-solution views on most issues. The best the left would offer is an all or nothing deal. Either have too little IP protection or have some convoluted "compromise" that still leaves us half fucked. Notice that most of the calls to repeal the DMCA are not from the left, but the right and libertarian sides?
It isn't because they're not receiving a lot of campaign money either. Most conservatives are opposed to such blatant handouts to corporations. So look at Schlafly as a useful temporary ally if nothing more.
Uh oh! Did I just suggest that conservatives are usually good people and not inherently racist, filthy and nasty sexist homophobes? No doubt, some enlightened leftist will mod me down to -70 and put my name on the hit list of "fascists" to kill.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
One of the watershed moments in Microsoft's history was when Robert Bork openly supported the anti-trust trial. Bork and Nader agreeing on an issue and mostly agreeing on the punishment is truly damning. It means that you're a real asshole as a company more or less.
.22 let alone a 30.06 or 9mm). Guess what people, you win in America through coallitions, not coups and a coups is the only way you're going to win without allies.
Don't put Oliver North and Poindexter in the same category. North may have screwed up there, but he's not an unapologetic, militant, anti-freedom ass like Poindexter. Having North come out in favor of our side would bring a lot of conservatives because they respect him (though none respect what he did in Iran-Contra).
It never ceases to amaze me how similtaneously zealous and impotent the slashdot crowd is. With all of the wealth, intellectual and financial, represented here, the EFF could be made into a lobbying machine unto itself in the IP wars. When powerful conservative icons come out in favor of what amounts to the exact position most espouse here, what's the reaction? Cool, welcome aboard? NO!! It's fuck off, NAZI punk mofo! And you people wonder why john q citizen dismisses the majority of you as beanie-wearing, coke rimmed-glass, nassle-voiced math nerds who are pissed because they never got a dance partner at the prom.
My God, you people by and large have no diplomacy whatsoever. Rather than welcome potential allies, if only as an alliance of convenience, you take the hard way which is to go it alone. It's just another form of unilateralism, but it's probably the most idiotic form. In a democratic republic you can't win that way unless you happen to wield a lot of firepower (most of you nerds probably can't even handle a
And see therein lays the problem. Y'all are stuck between a rock (being too stupid to form alliances with like-minded people on such issues) and a hard place (going it alone which means in the long run either getting stomped in the court of public opinion or by 80,000 federal agents and around 3M military and national guard personnel). Welcome to reality people, the only viable option is to make Schlafly a part of the war against the RIAA and MPAA.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Orrin Hatch is a Mormon, not a Christian. Or maybe somewhat "Christian." But hardly "very Christian."
Study Mormonism a bit. It's pretty off-the-wall stuff and has very little to do with mainstream Christianity.