Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Schlafly on Copyright

Posted by michael on from the cannons-to-the-right-of-them dept.

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."

5 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. Phyllis Who? by Tyriel · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  2. For Further Reading by DeadSea · · Score: 2, Informative
    This appears to be a nice summary of the "Your Rights Online" section of Slashdot from the past year. There is a paragraph about each of the following:
  3. The wolf in sheep's clothing... by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...is still a wolf.

    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):
    The new book Disney: The Mouse Betrayed by Peter & Rochelle Schweizer proves conclusively that Eisner's Disney Company is the enemy of all the family values which Republicans cherish. So, why did Judiciary Committee Republicans quietly put through legislation that hurts the public interest but is so immensely profitable to Disney?

    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.
  4. Schlafly filed in Eldred vs Ashcroft by phr1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:More meat, please. by gilroy · · Score: 3, Informative
    Blockquoth the poster:

    the statement should either qualified as purely editorial material or backed up with a whole lot more examples than the scant article contains.

    Well, I counted 13 examples of abuse in the "scant" article ... not counting the warnings about three other abuses being quietly pushed. I think there's enough there to justify a little hyperbole.


    My goodnes. Did I just defend Phyllis Schlafly? Must be part of that Twilight Zone marathon on SciFi... :)

    --
    The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach