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."
I'm in complete agreement with Phyllis Schlafley on something! This can't be happening!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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.
"Good art borrows; great art steals."
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
Well, I counted 13 examples of abuse in the "scant" article
My goodnes. Did I just defend Phyllis Schlafly? Must be part of that Twilight Zone marathon on SciFi...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I think the link you're looking for is
http://yro.slashdot.org/
> 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