Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus Formed
questionlp writes "News.com reports that three members from the House of Reps has formed a caucus that aims to stop piracy and make for stronger IP laws. One of the members of the caucus: helped author a note last fall to 74 fellow Democrats assailing the Linux open-source operating system's GNU General Public License as a threat to America's 'innovation and security.'"
a note last fall to 74 fellow Democrats assailing the Linux open-source operating system's GNU General Public License as a threat to America's 'innovation and security.'
Turn it all off then. Vast portions of the Internet run on Linux, FreeBSD (even though it isn't GPL) and especially Apache. Maybe we should all pick a day and turn it all off, at least in the US it would probably bring traffic to a halt. THEN maybe they will reconsider making stupid laws regarding the choice of one's operating systems!
The Anti-Blog
A Democrat leading the charge to outlaw Linux and open source AGAIN! I am saying this as a registered democrat before someone marks this as flamebait. And I note there is at least 1 republican involved in this my point there really is no diffrence between the major parties.
Just dont know what to do... EFF ACLU all good and well but there is no way in hell they can ever match the funds that MS MPAA RIAA et al have...
I guess its true if voting really made a diffrence it would be illegal.
Adam Smith 1700's: "Letting people choose how to spend their money is the way to stimulate the economy."
Adam Smith 2003: "But we can't let them choose Linux."
No Linux and gnu either.
After all Linux is just a pirated version of SCO Unix according to AL GORE attorney David Bios. These senators are paid for by Microsoft and Disyney.
Linux is the only os that does not incorporate drm copyprotection so it must be stoped.
Lets get together with a few ignorant and corrupt politicans educate them about this pirated Unix then only SCO has permission to write courtesy of Microsoft lobbiests.
http://saveie6.com/
This is not surprising, since his district, the Ninth District of Washington, is where Microsoft is. I am not surprised that he is representing their interests.
I wouldn't be surprised if the other Congressmonkeys behind this were being financed by the movie and record industries.
It isn't time to spam your Congressmonkey yet. They haven't DONE anything, or even proposed to do anything yet. When they actually start doing something, then it will be time to act.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
We can stop this, you know. All this idiocy can end. Intuit's about-face proves that even the big powerful companies will listen when enough people speak up.
We need to write our senators, our mayors, our governors, our friends, our coworkers - even the president. The more loud we are, the less they will be able to deny what we're saying.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
The worst part is, everyone will not really know about how he does that and this whole thing will recieve very little mainstream press, because those companies control the media, and more of it if the FCC loosens its media ownership rules.
When, as it often is (think Verizon v. the RIAA or DRM being forced on TiVos, MP3 players, and so forth), technology companies are at odds with media companies, it is pure fallacy to proclaim that it is the media companies' concerns that best represent American innovation (especially when this "innovation" is merely another teeny-bopper or an animated mouse from the last century).
Congress, I have long admitted, follows the money. But the money, in this case, is not with the IP companies but with the technology companies. Does Intel want to build chips with integrated DRM? Of course not; such a move is not inherently profitable. Does Verizon want to be responsible for its subscribers' piracy, or Panasonic for the exact digital copies made with their MP3 players?
Congress is behaving here as irrationally as the RIAA themselves (an organization so clealy ignorant and terrified of technology that they couldn't profit from it as the Apple iMusic store is now doing). IP controls go both ways; an incentive for innovation, when overly broad, stifles anything new. Intellectual property controls are certainly necessary, to some degree, but, as framed in the Constitution, to promote innovation in the arts and sciences, never to stop it.
With all the non-sense laws that our government comes up with regarding technology, wouldn't it make sense to form a group of knowledgable and experienced individuals to lobby against these laws?
;). We all know that our normal politicians can't get it right. I think we can!
I'm sure that slashdot can bring a real life political slashdot effect. Maybe it's something worth thinking about, or perhaps starting
No, it's not time to spam them (not ever, really) but it *is* time to get them to lay down markers. Some questions I wish every Congressman and Senator was on record:
1. Do you think the present copyright terms is too short, too long, or just right
2. Copyright and patent are in the Constitution to "advance the progress of the arts and sciences". Is present policy the best we can do? If not, how should the rules be changed to do better?
3. What's the maximum amount of time "limited terms" can last when it comes to patents and copyrights before terms are essentially permanent and the Constitution is violated?
These are questions that are more open ended, are likely to be answered more thoughtfully absent a bill and a recent campaign contribution, and would be useful in future campaigns because it would allow the other party to criticise an officeholder if he later sold his vote for money. At that point, it's not some obscure issue that most normal citizens don't care about but going back on your word and being untrustworthy. That kind of damage is to be avoided if possible.
Personally, I think the country is happier with the Supreme Court making a de facto decision* on the president than turning it over to the House of Representatives. The Republican majority in the House would have resulted in the same decision, and everybody would be left scratching their heads at how we would have chosen our head of government exactly the same way most other democracies do it. Most incumbents in the House would have been kicked out last year, no matter their vote for president, simply because the presidential election would draw a lot of voter interest to them.
And the new group of people in the House, being politicians themselves and knowing that having the undivided attention of the voters isn't always a good thing for one's political career, would probably work hard to push through a constitutional amendment taking both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives out of the decision making process (before you disagree with me, consider how and why Congress passed the buck by adopting the War Powers Act), whether there was truly popular demand for the idea or not. And then the President of the United States would be chosen not because of this or that issue, or eventhis or that alliegence to a particular political party, but solely on his or her ability to work a crowd. And I'm sure it wouldn't be long before TV viewers could call in their votes over the telephone in the middle of prime time. Do we really want a Chavez or a Berlusconi in the White House?
The problem isn't the Supreme Court, who was constitutionally bound to let Florida shoot itself in the foot. The problem isn't even the Electoral College itself. The problem is that the Electoral College isn't allowed to do its job. Their one and only job is to vote for somebody for president. No need for forming political alliances or back room politics or hose trading or any of the other nonsense we see in legislatures because they only have one and only one thing to do. But we have allowed political parties to tie their hands and take away that decision from them.
Who's served by these "winner takes all" laws, or even any law that "requires" the electors to vote for a particular candidate? It's certainly not the voters, because it's obvious that 49.9% of them can be disenfranchised with the stroke of a pen, for better or for worse (is there any wonder at today's voter apathy?). It's not the potential candidates, because the system requires them to be politicians, who need to spend billions to convince tens of millions of voters instead of 538. The only ones that benefit are the political parties themselves (and their donors, of course), because silencing the Electoral College ensures that any and all realistic presidential candidates must join one party or another, leaving us (voters, candidates, everyone) with the same Hobson's Choice that all too many other democracies have. There hasn't been a party-independent president in over 200 years.
If we were actually able to vote for electors, not just this party's or that party's slate but actual people who are mentally and legally able to make the one and only decision they'd have to make, things might actually turn out better.
Of course, I'm one of maybe three people on the planet that feel this way...
Actual, genuine high seas piracy is still a very serious problem in many parts of the world, particuarly the Persian gulf, SE Asia, and thanks the the drug trade, parts of the Caribbean.
http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/imb_piracy/weekly_pir
My rights don't need management.
I'm sure normal Linux distributions used by you and me won't have DRM -- if they did, we wouldn't be using them. I think this is talking about Linux, mostly embedded as well as software running on top of Linux, being used for copy protection. If the software is to be truly free, everyone should be able to do what they want with it, even if it is against the interest of others. It's just like how free speech is compromised when pornography, etc. is banned. The GPL doesn't restrict use at all, so why should it in this case? Please tell me if I misunderstood the article.
It's an operating system, not a religion.
I am one of Adam Smith's constituents, and I am frankly pissed to see that this fool is saying the things he is. Since I am tired of getting worthless form letter from everyone I email, I am going to give him a call. Anything, you recommend to say? Thank you.
Art K.
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
The problem I have with this kind of argument is this: You want to labnel me as "liberal" or "conservative". Guess what? I'm one of those "middle of the road" people that extremists hate. I make decisions on my own.
:)
Yup I disagree with conservatives. I disagree with liberals. I agree with conservatives. I agreee with liberals. What this ammounts to is: I think Ann Coultier and Bill O'Reilly are idiots who make good arguments at times. Same with Bill Clinton and Barbara Streisand. Sometimes, though, they say stuff that actually amounts to an intelligence behind their ideologies. It's rare, but it happens.
Now, to go back on-topic...
What do I think of this action by these folks who are claiming that Open Source is a threat to National Security(tm)? Nothing. I clicked on the comments here to see what people are thinking about this matter on an intellectual level. NOT an ideological level.
So, some people are raising a raucus in Washington. This happens all the time. Heck, it wasn't a few years ago when Microsoft faced a fate worse than this. In all honesty, I think Open Source got off lucky politically speaking over the past dozen years or so. And I'm glad to see it. Proprietary software needed its kick in the pants. That's not to say the Free Software movement (and its corporate-friendly equivalent, Open Source) needs the occasional kick too. But for these folks to be taken seriously, more than well-paid lobbyists will be able to make a difference.
Ideology goes three inches and a neutrino's width with me. Case closed.
(P.S. back from 3 years away from Slashdot, BTW... hoo-yeah
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
"MS and Disney represent a large body of people. These people depend on Office and Mickey to provide them with a paycheck. These people then spend their money in Florida and Washington which creates jobs for other prople. MS and Disney hope these laws will boost their profit. That, in turn, will keep the economy in their areas firm.
You may or may not like IP for philosophical reasons. You may not like MS or Disney for philosophical reasons. You may belive that these laws will be ineffective and, therefore, a waste of time. But you cannot blame these companies for trying to keep their source of income strong."
On the whole, that sounds fairly accurate, but for a couple of things; it is not the remit of a company to translate the wishes of the employees into representation to government. The relationship between the populace and government should be through indirect representation.
That's the spirit in which the constitution was written, government by the people, for the people. Instead you have corporations acting in a fashion that would have made a turn of the century plantation manager blush.
The worst aspect of it is the entire world considers your democracy morally and ideologically bankrupt because corruption is actually considered part of the process. Any other country where a representative of the people receives money to promote an agenda, and you can track their election successes on how much they've salted away tends to become regarded as a rogue nation.
So it's time for you to clean house. Mobilise. Gather statistics and make sure that everyone gets them, from the TV researchers to opposition senators. Find out how many Unix admins are in a particular city. Gather well-informed comment as to what software patents are actually doing...
Do anything but bitch on Slashdot about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
Hell, 350 letters to any major news network might get a flicker of interest, and what do you have to loose?
OD
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
(From the top contributors page)
Microsoft Corp $32,200
I'm amazed that you can buy politicians and get them to sponsor bills involving billions of dollars, for pocket change like this. The leverage is remarkable. I'm sure to buy a poltician in Indonesia, for instance, is much more expensive.
These sorts of articles are coming out faster and faster everyday. I never used to worry about it but now I am really starting to sweat. Its not just in the US where they are doing it. A lot of comments here say we will move offshore. Where are you going to go. ITs ahpopening in Australia and in Britain. While the majority of the population sleeps throuugh life, getting their news from sources that don't report things like this, they are tightening the screws. 1984 should be mandatory reading.
BTW Guns are not the answer. Peacefully protest is. Do you really think that the citizens of the US could beat the US Defence force.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
I guess we always needed a luddite caucus. If you can't beat the Unibomber, join 'em, I suppose. Congressmen calling for the stunting of technology -- how quaint.
I suppose they would have opposed the invention of the piano roll, too -- and that victrola, what a threat! The audio tape, the video tape and now the P.C. Ironically, it was these technologies that made the companies that build these Congressmen's campaign warchests.
At the end of the day, the market does a far better job of deciding what technologies the world need than does the Congress. Amazing how supposedly "conservative" congressmen don't think twice about regulating industries they don't understand to protect the interests of businesses they do. Alas, the one being regulated by them is the one driving our economy.
Distinguishing between the technologies and those who exploit them wrongly is the identifying feature of these doofuses. These guys would ban credit cards as forms of lockpicking tools because they can be used to jimmy open some old doors. We already have laws making copyright infringement illegal -- we don't need new ones to make criminals of other people who don't infringe and who make useful, important technology, just because some special interest group doesn't want to be vigilant or change business models to one that can succeed in the twenty-first century..
Luddites unite! Since we are already going to double the debt in the next few years, why not also wreck the economy?
I have to vent my spleen here folks, bear with me a minute. I read the article and I have to say these people are worst nightmare jury that open source could imagine. I read the thread up and down, and none of you seem to understand what just happend here. This is an honest paradiem shift, and nobody in this community noticed it. It is very subtle but commands a broad range of guess what? (Crackdown) Bear with me a little more, Microsoft licensing SCO? What the heck is this all about? Man that opens up another can of worms. (Microsoft defends SCO until the death of IBM?)
The FCC relaxing ownership hold on TV Monolopies? -Pet gripe. (While ignoring the lesson of Clear-channel when radio ownership was 'relaxed'?)
I cannot tell you how many jobs that little jewel will cost all the time preserving the fat cats on top.
Thanks for listening to my spleen, my killer comment is: They are lumping open source software, Spammers, P2P and Anti-DRM people into the group known as "terrorists"
How does it feel to be labeled a Spammer.
I don't like it and you should not take it.
I am even going to go out on a limb here, and say I support Spamcop. Before the flames begin, I have not found a more effective solution for free or for money. Say what you want about server level solutions, They just dont work. Witness the debacle that AOL is going through.
Sorry for the extra mini-rant I promise the punchline is:
Write your Congress-critter, Or present me with ten thousand geeks who are willing to present a united front against a deadly foe and are willing to spend 50 bucks apiece to get a lobby group formed.
I consider mystics to be Mostly Harmless. The reason I dislike Bush is because I think he is insincere and fake.
I think that his policies are not guided by conservative ideals. Like most republicans, he mixes capitalist implementations with socialist powers that were derived from socialist values. Question the capitalist implementation, and you're a liberal. Question the socialist powers and values, and you're a reactionary anarchist. Yes, I hate people who want to have their cake and eat mine too.
And while he may or may not be a real Christian (I just don't know), I do know that most people who slip "God Bless America" into speeches, do so for the purposes of manipulation. Bush strikes me as being as fake and empty as any American flag that wasn't flying on 9/10/2001 but was flying a few days later.
My distrust of that man has nothing to do with his mysticism, unless there's some sort of weird "greed cult" that I haven't heard about. (Other than the Scientologists, I mean.)
But as for your main point, yes he was elected. And to all the whiners who say he wasn't: not only does jgardn make an excellent point about the law, but the fact of the matter is that about half the voters voted for Bush. About half the voters voted for that other guy too. If having half of the voter's support is considered a corrupt appointment instead of an election, then the 2000 election was doomed no matter how it turned out.
99% of the people said, "I want someone who can afford lots of TV commercials and who the republicans and democrats, who decide who will be on the televised debates, won't feel threatened by" and that's what they got. What's so unfair about that?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.