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?
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
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...
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
(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?