Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave
Tsar writes "Members of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network turned out in force as Tennessee's Super-DMCA Bill, its hour come round at last, slouched back to Nashville's Legislative Plaza. The industry heavyweights made their pitches, but were thwarted by thoughtful, intelligent comments and questions from the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications Security. My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that."
I'm an American. I love my country and I love the freedoms we have. But when will the copyright crap end? Its getting to the point where enough is enough, and the next president should be considering what to do about the situation.
On one hand, you have 60 million American felons, on the other hand, you wrestle control away from fat, rich corporations. It seems like a no-brainer.
hrrm.
If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it. Not tomorrow morning, RIGHT NOW. Get away from that Submit button and go write a letter to someone who could actually do something. Then send it snail mail to their LOCAL office (not DC office), or fax it. (Not email. Many offices don't pay attention to email, although some do.)
I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!
I'm not Seth.
I can't access the file, so here's a link to the .pdf, HB0457.pdf.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
we are going to have allot of felons.
> the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications
> Security...
It seems that whenever the term "security" is part of the name of a government body in the US, something bad is about to happen.
'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...
With Advocates like you, who needs adversaries?
The statement was true. The MPAA and RIAA for that mater promote 1st amendment rights. They advocate free speech for musicians and movie producers. They aggressively block attempts to sensor what they want to say.
Sure they spend millions trying to fight our attempts to freely use the stuff we have bought. However they spend billions producing junk^M^M^M^M^art that aught to be sensord for the preservation of what little intellect remains on this planet.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
What is SB213/HB457?
SB213/HB457 is the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which is backed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 session, versions of this bill have already been passed in eight states (and counting). This legislation negatively impacts citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software citizens can use while connected to the Internet, and gives them power to sue users for thousands of dollars per day if they infringe on that control in any way. This legislation tries to ensure that citizens have far fewer freedoms in their electronic interactions; as the Internet and pervasive computing becomes more a part of our lives, this will translate into control by a few corporations over almost everything that you do electronically.
Why should it matter to me?
Do you have more than one computer? Do you use Linux? Do you use any kind of Internet security hardware or software (called a "firewall"), or does your company use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT), or allow employees to connect from home using a virtual private network (VPN)? Do you cryptographically sign or encrypt your email? SDMCA-based legislation threatens your access to all of these. And if you don't understand some of these terms, you may already be using these technologies and simply be unaware of it. That's unimportant, though, because you can still go to jail for it.
This legislation was presented to Tennessee legislators in 2003 as a "theft of service" bill, designed simply to "update state law so that it comprehensively protects new broadband communication services from piracy and sabotage." In reality, it is much broader and more insidious. The Tennessee bill (HB457) as originally submitted would have made even minor violations of your service contract a Class-D felony, and allowed fines of $1,500 to $10,000, per device or software program, per day, on those found in violation. Compliance would cost Tennessee businesses a bundle as well; businesses planning to move to Tennessee would be less likely to do so.
"It is not a cable theft bill. It is a comprehensive broadband/Internet telecommunications bill."
-- Geoffrey Beauchamp, chief lobbyist for SB213/HB457
You Can Help!
Get informed, get educated, get involved, get organized, get effective. Read all you can about the bills. Read good analyses by people whose motives agree with yours. Write thoughtful and intelligent letters and emails to your representatives. Call them and tell him how you feel and why. Connect with other people who feel the same way that you (and we) do, and help us build a campaign to bring about change for the betterment of Tennessee.
The Tennessee General Assembly is out of session until 2004, and summer study will likely not start until the fall. You can stay current, and help us stay current as well, through our online forums. Keep up with our activities, and stay alert for important news and information that we may have missed. If you have a web page, you can add one of our link banners to your site. Please do what you can to help us get the word out about this dangerous legislation!
I'm not Seth.
That is fscking comedy. I'm seriously laughing out loud (which has nothing to do with that queer euphamism, "lol", I see so often just about everywhere nowadays).
-bZj
.sig
someone really answer this question please.
is your country actually still any good place to live in?
i dont see any attractive stuff at your place, and it gets scarier every day, and the paces have gained in speed since the bush administration....
..as long nobody tells things about us or our tech that we don't like.
and by the way, that korean manual on your vcr is a 'copyprotection device', so don't press that button with a red circle.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
In all seriousness, the people of Tennessee need to stomp this law into the dirt, before it can spread throughout the country. You may deny it, and say that only the hicks, to use a generalization that would only be relevant in NYC and LA, would approve of something like this, but it's only a matter of time before a whole bunch of states pass this kind of legislation.
On a side note, the -IAA crowd couldn't buy off Congress all at once to get their way, so they're purchasing state legislatures one-at-a-time now? Why don't they just save up for a few months or years or whatever to get what they want? It's what the rest of us have to do!
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
The thing with the DMCA is that it's all about trying to thwart people from cracking copy protection mechanisms. And a key step in the process of breaking protection is its eventual transmission from its original source to its eventual destination. IANAL, but from my readings, the DMCA will be coming down as hard on mechanisms which facilitate the transmission of protected materials as much as the mechanisms which are used to circumvent that protection in the first place. Now, let me describe to you the perfect DMCA-circumvention transport tool. It's simple to use. It moves data (software especially) with a minimum of fuss. It can check for differences between the source and the sink, and make appropriate changes to what's being grabbed. And you can use it to upgrade Debian.
Yep, it's apt-get I'm talking about. This is something which has started to get some serious consideration on the Debian mailing lists. What if apt-get is in contravention of the DMCA? What is apt-get is considered to be a tool for the transmission, installing and dist upgrading of pirated/cracked data protected under the DMCA? It's something which is keeping people like Ian Murdoch, Bruce Perens and Joel 'Espy' Klecker up late at night talking with their lawyers just in case the worst does happen.
So fellow apt-get users...please take a moment to consider the precarious position we are all in as a result of this DMCA madness. Write your local congressman. They need to know how evil the DMCA is. And send them a Debian CD-ROM while you're at it...maybe we can win over some Windows users in the process!
apt-get peace out, comrades!
She then introduced the next two speakers, who she said "speak around the country on this specific piece of legislation." Senator Trail asked her why we needed this legislation at all since we already had laws that made cable theft illegal. She stated that the existing law only covers analog, not digital cable theft--giving the impression that, without this new bill, digital cable theft is legal. In responding to Senator Trail's continuing questions about this, she also admitted that the primary goal of the new legislation was getting stronger civil penalties.
Are they actually claiming that it's legal to steal cable TV if the cable is digital?????? WTF???????
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
This is what happens when you don't democratically elect a leader.
----
I live in Chattanooga TN and I can tell you that most people dont know that this is even going on. Hell, Tennessee has astronomical rates on T1 lines and we wonder why we dont have more computer industry. The truth is that our politicians don't want us to know that in the name of freedom our real freedoms are being taken away. I love Tennessee, especially Chatt, but this just goes to show you how stupid our poiliticians are. In fact after reading the bill, it seems that only coorportations are having their rights protected. I understand not breaking the law and i dont, but it seems like this bill will be abused.
Whatever. The MPAA is a leading beneficiary of the first amendment, but frankly if the first amendment were repealed tomorrow the MPAA would do what it must in order to survive... go back to making propaganda films and the like. At least Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay would still be thriving.
-- thinkyhead software and media
In the world of electronic data transmission the notion of theft is much blurrier than it used to be. A company that sold onions could point to an onion thief and say "he stole seven onions so we want seven equivalent onions as a remedy." They could easily prove damages because they have physical goods on hand.
The issue becomes blurrier in the case where - at the end of their season - the onion company ends up with a lot of rotten onions that they can't sell. They cannot claim unequivocally that the individual onion thief caused them any damage. They would have to know whether the onion thief would have bought the onions he stole, or whether those seven onions would have rotted with the rest.
In the case of cable tv or music downloads, it seems to me that a company has to be able to show that a given individual thief would have bought the item in question.
In other words, a million dollars in "theft" probably only amounts to a thousand dollars in actual damages. And that's a generous estimate.
Obviously companies have to sustain themselves somehow. However, it ought to be done in ways that make creative use of the newest technologies. It ought to be done through adaptation, not through shortsighted legal scheming.
If I were the President of Show Business I'd tell the music and movie folks to suck it up and send the lawyers home. The present may seem scary, but there's no need to panic and start making kooky demands. In the longer view this is just a little bump in the road.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Yes, residential customers really like flat rate plans because they know exactly how much they'll spend every month. But they have a Faustian downside: they give the carriers an excuse to severely limit and control how you use the service. Just as all-you-can-eat cafeterias have rules that regular restaurants do not (e.g., against sharing food or taking it home) most flat-rate broadband plans prohibit connection sharing, business use, running servers, etc.
If the carriers instead charged by usage for the shared part of their network, then they would have far less of an arguable case (i.e., none whatsoever) for claiming that a NAT box, even if you use it to provide service to your neighbor, constitutes "theft of service". If you pay for those bits, they're clearly yours to give away.
I know it's unpopular to argue for usage-based billing. But if I'm forced to choose (and I think I will be) between flat rate plans with lots of heavy-handed restrictions and a pay-as-you-go plan with no restrictions at all, I know what I'd do.
Groups like those opposing the Tennessee bill should educate their lawmakers that it's simply not their job to protect unsustainable business models. Although broadband service is frequently provided over cable TV facilities, it is nothing like cable TV. With usage-based billing, even your average legislator might see how analogies between NAT boxes, which support a two-way telecommunications service, and illegal cable descramblers, which gain access to a one-way broadcast service, simply don't apply.
Imagine also the public outrage that would finally be directed against Microsoft when end-users have to pay for all the traffic generated by their worm-infested machines. Not only might that create an incentive to get such machines quickly off the net, we just might see a lot of ordinary Joes defenestrating their copies of Windows. Clearly a good thing.
Even the MPAA and RIAA couldn't complain, since usage-sensitive billing would discourage file sharing. (We don't have to tell them that everyone would simply revert to the way music was widely pirated long before the Internet: by exchanging physical media.)
Oh, and the spammers would have to pay more, too. Wouldn't that alone make it worthwhile?
It's not a federal bill. Unless you live in Tennessee those senators are not real interested in your input.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Somehow, this came to mind after reading the first comment :)
I'm sorry, but this have nothing to do with the president (we all know who we are all talking about). This is about the faillings of this so called democratic govenment.
In a democratic government we have people electing their representatives so they can have their interests defended and laws supporting their needs and opinions. The way US government is organized it just doesn't happen this way.
The legislative is mostly supported by huge corporations that use their power and money to buy the ones that was supposed to defend the people interests.
And what happens then? Then we have draconian laws that protect most corporations, harming just a few of them, aproved, even if them simply don't bring any good to the people. That's the case of DMCA, for examplo.
What can be done? We can try changing the way we vote, and the way we participate, avoiding being confused and manipulated by huge organizations and voting in politicians that really represent us.
IMO we need even more. Politicians should not be allowed to be paid by corporations. Corporations should not even participate in politcs decisions. Politics campains should be maid on the streets, squares, not on TV. We should be able to contact in person our representatives.
Will that be true someday?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
But I'm starting to think that big corporations will only stop stamping on peoples rights when top executives start getting shot by the people they are screwing over.
Jefferson certainly knew about the writings of the Denis Diderot and the Marquis de Condorcet. Diderot was commissioned in 1763 by the Paris Book Guild to argue for a copyright equivalent to physical property; he went so far as to claim that works of authorship were in fact a truer form of property, as they were entirely the product of their creator, while physical property could be formed only from natural resources and the work of other men. Condorcet held that ideas originated in nature and, unlike real property, could be cultivated by all without diminishment; on the contrary, he wrote, the dissemination of ideas benefitted the common good. Diderot portrayed the artist as a creator; Condorcet saw a discoverer. Diderot perceived ideas to exist for the benefit of one man, Condorcet wished them to enrich every man.
Had the framers intended a Diderotian system, they would have implemented one. Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke. But if you want to speculate about Jefferson's mind, why not ask the man himself?
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.... -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
Furthermore, nothing that the industry said in the linked "hearing notes" seemed unreasonable or underhanded to me. Despite the attitude on slashdot, things do have to be paid for. Grown-ups know that. People who steal cable, uncap modems, or resell (or even freely give away!) broadband are harmful to society's infrastructure, and have to be criminally prosecuted. Civil prosecution is too expensive, difficult, and slow.
Look: you can't justify stealing "because it's there" or "because you aren't hurting anyone". The power grid, the water mains, and sewer system are also all "there", but try illegally tapping into them and see how fast you end up in court. And rightfully so: they have to be paid for fairly if we (as a society) want them to be available. And arguing (as many do) that you are already paying for capacity that you don't use yourself is like arguing that there is more food at an "all-you-can-eat" buffet than you personally can eat, so you ought to be able to take out enough for all your family and friends.
Come on, people - grow up!
Download.com says that more that 2.1 million copies of Kazaa have been downloaded. When you determine the number of users that will use Kazaa to download music illegally, you're probably looking at several hundred thousand. These figures are certainly known to the major computer manufacturers. Therefore, computer manufacturers and software developers like Dell, Gateway and Microsoft would be in violation of this bit here:
as the companies make products which they know will be used for illegal purposes.
Boy, "Microsoft vs. the RIAA, MPAA, et al." would be so much cooler than "Microsoft vs. The United States."
I'm assuming that, because you are posting on slashdot:
1) You have a computer
2) You have the leisure to post
3) You are probably not blind or mentally retarded.
4) You probably went to school - in other words, had access to education, and did not have to work instead.
5) Probably do not live under an oppressive government that forbids private use of things like the internet.
I could go on, but I hope the point is made. Compare to many of the people in the world, and especially compared to many people throughout history, life has already been unfair in your favor (as it has in mine).
I've already said it countless times, but if you haven't already read The Right to Read, do it now while you still have the right to do it. From what I witness it might change in the near future. That's funny that we all were laughing out loud at Richard when he wrote his "stupid dystopian science fiction which will never happen outside of a paranoid mind foolishly guarded with a tinfoil hat" and at the same time we all kept allowing it to slowly happen. And who looks like a fool now? Sadly, not Richard but us. It certainly doesn't make me feel proud at all. The DMCA is the fruit of our own inaction, our own inertia, our own plain stupidity. We all have to remember that. We have to take the responsibility if we ever want to overthrow the law system we don't agree with. The DMCA was introduced democratically and it can be fought only democratically, where everyone takes the responsibility for the will of the majority. It is a great time to renew our EFF memberships because that is our freedom at risk.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
...to be proud that I was born in Knoxville.
I guess hicks don't like oppressive legislation, regardless of it's focus.
Just what constitutes a "communications service".
For example, does the "communications service" end at your cable/DSL/dialup modem?
Or does it end at your web-browser?
Or what?
If we cant get these new bills overturned completly, we should push for clear definitions of just what a "communications service" is to be enshrined into the bills. That way, they can only be applied in the ways that the law-makers intend.
My take on why these bills are being pushed for:
1.to enable companies providing "communications services" (e.g. cable providers, telcos etc) to go after people who are stealing service (e.g. cable pirates, phone phreakers etc)
2.to enable those same providers to have greater controlls over the networks (for example, cable companies can make it illegal to plug digital recorders into their networks and record stuff)
Now, I just skimmed down through the bill itself (which I doubt many else here have done), and I'm wondering what specific provisions are objectionable. This bill seems to be aimed squarely at those who pirate satellite, cable, and/or telephone services and those who sell or make the equipment enabling such activities. Frankly, I don't have much of a problem with that.
The only objectionably provision I see in the bill is the one which states that to "Knowingly assist others in committing any of the acts prohibited by this section." Under the most liberal interpretation, this can be construed as a DCMA-style anti-free-speech provisions, but I doubt very seriously future case law will show it as such.
I saw nothing at all regarding copyrights, patents, and p2p. So again, I ask, what am I missing?
Jeff
"At that point, Ann Carr [lobbyist] was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service."
Here is a population/household stat on Memphis.
Memphis Population: 650100
Male Population: 307643
Female Population: 342457
Households: 250721
Median Age: 32
Average Household Size: 2.52
Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.
Do you believe that?
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
Contact your representative.
Votes come from people, not corporations.
Money comes from donations, money will advertise, hopefully buying votes.
Either buy the vote with action, or buy it with the advertising money.
Without money, nobody will even know what they stand for.
They need both, you just have to play the game.
Hold on a second. First you accuse the USA of being intolerant of dissent, and then you boast about how the Netherlands don't have a Pat Bunchanan or a Rush Limbaugh?..
Are you under the impression that those two represent the American mainstream? In the Netherlands people with their views would certainly be considered "voices of dissent," so why aren't you willing to be tolerant of them?
Or, wait, was it only left wing voices of dissent we should encourage? Gotcha!
My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that.
Amazing, it sounds just like Microsoft. These days, we need to make everyone qualify their statements - back them up with evidence. Self-congratulatory, passing phrases such as the MPAA's try and show true substance where there is none. If they were a real business providing value, they wouldn't need to make things up to sound good.
"I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights..."
:wq
So what? It could have been far worse, you know!
Limbaugh and Buchannan are hardly "dissent" if they are praised by the party controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress as elloquent speakers advancing the conservative agenda. They don't fight *against* the government, they fight to *advance* the agenda of the current government.
It is true that the "Founding Fathers" were divided about just about every issue. The whole State power versus Federal power took 2 tries because the States won the first time, but the Articles of Confederation proved impractical.
But when referring to the Constitution, we assume the "Founding Fathers" were the ones whose ideals were codified. Many of the ones about copyrights orginated with Thomas Jefferson, just like the banking system came from Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were able to find compromises between those who believed free spread of information was important, and those who believed that business would suffer without the monopolies granted by copyright. These compromises are what made our system flexible enough to survive. In this instance, the compromise was that there would be monopolies, they would be granted to the creators (rather than the publishers), and they would exist for a LIMITED time.
Today, we are violating the spirit of this. Big business has wrested control of many of the copyrights from the creators for music, and made a good effort to do the same for books back in the 1970s. And the time limit is almost useless. Rather than 17 years with one possible renewal, it is now life + 50 years and growing. We have also contracted with Europe to defend this practice, so it is unlikely that the U.S. can fix it internally.
Many stories published on the early internet came with copyright notices that allowed the works to become public domain after 120 days. There is little reason for computer books to keep their copyrights beyond a decade, as the technology could be obsolete in 4 years. Creators can limit their own copyrights, and many do. Big business will never relinquish anything unless forced by law. It will probably take another revolution for the public to win back control of ideas.
Technology has changed the need for copyrights. Historically, they were granted to a specific publisher to prevent other publishers from stealing popular works. Then they were granted to the creators, to encourage them to create more. Then the publishers bought them from the creators. But every law assumes that the COPYING takes effort, and that is no longer true. I did not need to publish this as a pamphlet and try to sell them on street corners for a penny each. I wrote it; I published it; you are reading it, and any costs in the process are subsumed in the overhead of having a computer attached to the internet.
---
I would like to use a well-thought license that allows works to enter public domain for most purposes within 20 years, but still allows me to benefit if Disney decides to turn my work into a movie. Of course, this clause in itself would prevent Disney from making a movie from my books, because they only publish material if they can retain all the profits. They wouldn't publish something like Star Wars because Lucas insisted on keeping the associated toy franchise. Why should they make my book into a movie when there are still tons of material already in the public domain from before their efforts to extend copyright into eternity?
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
apexchin, after skimming it I also did not see anything objectionable... but that is what concerns me. Please take a couple of minutes and read the link to "The Right to Read" posted above by Pan T Hose. It is possible that somewhere in the bill is a key phase, maybe only a couple of words, that they want passed into law. To get it passed they use the magician's trick of distracting you with one hand while the other does the "magic." In this case it is obscuring there intent with lots of words that don't case objection, counting on no one really reading the whole thing in complete detail. The brad strokes tell the story. 1) If they where interested in stopping cable thief then why do they go through 3 warnings before taking legal action, as stated in the testimony. 2) The given testimony states that there has been success in civil cases with the current laws. Conclusion: the cable industry does not want or need this law to stop cable thief as they say they do, but are trying to passing it on a state by state bases ... so i ask you why are they doing it. It smells foul to me.
What to do (the open source approach) Lets all take the time to read this bill and find the needle in the haystack. The line item at the heart of this legislation, then take the advice given above and write to your senator and congressmen telling him or her about it.
My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that."
You misunderstand. They meant THIER first ammendment rights. They should be allowed to make movies about terrorists chopping up babies and selling it as dog food to the communists. Why? Because they're big. Everyone knows big media cartels have more rights than computer "hackers". After all, which of the two can afford to bribe politicians?
It's been a long time.
The MPAA is fighting companies that want to make it possible to watch movies with your family. If you make a product that does not alter the original DVD, but merely allows you to watch it with the most offensive scenes edited out, the MPAA want the Government to put you out of business and make your product unavailable.
Nicely said.
Void in Tennessee
You can't handle the truth.
Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave
The title never gives enough information. It is a vampire or a zombie? I don't know if I should go and buy a wooden stake or lighter fluid.
Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave
Just in time for Halloween.
LE+
As a Memphis resident and Nashville hater, I have to say that this doesn't surprise me. The country music industry is based in Nashville, and is the source of much of Nashville's prosperity. There are also television shows filmed in Nashville (there was TNN - The Nashville Network, and there is some country square dancing show that a lot of people watch that's filmed at some club on Nashville's Broadway (their version of our Beale Street or New Orleans' Bourbon Street). So, it's in the Tennessee government's best interest to protect this industry the best that they can. I hate to see it happen, though.
According to the US Census, New York state has a population of 18,976,457 (2000 Census).
Please explain to me how, in a democracy (okay, a republic) with involved citizens, 18,976,455 people can have contact in person with 2 people? (NY state has 2 US Senators, who, theoretically, each directly represents the entire population of NY state.) (Or even the 14.2 miilion that are over 18.)
Much as I like and support being politically involved, your solution does not scale well. You need PACs, organizations, lobbyists, and political staff.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I remember back in the day working for an independent label in Nashville, the head asked us to snag some songs off of Napster for his kids before they shut the service down. If you ask me I think the problem is that these people want their cake and to eat it too. They use pitch correction and all the great things tech affords them to manufacture music. P2P is the disease that simply makes that an invalid way to do business. I find it ironic and sometimes hilarious. I remember a piece done on the local news about how wonderful it was that a country star could stay at home and record his vocal tracks. Get off your ass and get to the studio! Interact with the musicians, that's what you're supposed to be! Makes me sick...
Also, I'm originally from Chattanooga, and agree with you it is shocking how uninvolved with state government people are when you get outside of the interstate loop around the city of Nashville. We need to encourage each other to do something about our lack of knowledg work and that 9.25% sales tax rate... Yes folks it's almost 10% here. Chattanooga's problem with tech stems from the fact that the government there doesn't encourage anything besides tourism in a big way. That's half the reason why I moved away, though it is easily one of the most beautiful places on earth. Seriously I think that city would be a great place for some automotive suppliers, every other city in TN has several large operations. Nashville's economy is pretty strong although it seems way too focused on health care... I'm also convinced that someone could go in and turn the local ISP's in Chattanooga upside down, because their customer service is lacking...
Nice to see a post from a well informed Chattanoogan. Yes folks we call ourselves Chattanoogans...
'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...'
If you have to state it for yourself, then you most likely aren't.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
irony is posting a comment instructing people not to post comments. irony is also replying to your own comment after you told people you didnt want to see any replies.
n/t (no I'm not the person that posted it, but wow, it is a worthwhile read)
There's so much oxymoroniness in that one phrase than it can make the Iraqi [mis/un]information minister into a wise sage.
We should not be surprised when corporations seek to use the power of the state to their advantage, since business are about nothing more than self advantage. So are many individuals - and that is perfectly fine. The problem lies with the government that holds enough power to make such abuses possible, not with the corporations that try to benefit. And yet many think that we can get rid of "big business", or limit its activities somehow, and thereby solve this problem.
In communist countries, where no corporations exist but the power of the state is unlimited, private citizens always attempt to "work the system" at the cost of their neighbors - but nobody claims to be "anti-human" as a result. That would be ridiculous, of course. But it is also ridiculous to be anti-"a large group of humans that have joined together for business purposes", which is all that corporations are.
Unfortunately, any intelligent understanding of this topic has long since been drowned in a flood of thoroughly conventional leftist talk of the "oligarchy" and the "plutocracy" trampling on the "people". But is this old Marxist dichotomy useful? I think not. The division of society into private and public sectors - now that makes more sense, as do these simple rules:1) Always expect private entities to act in self-interest. To do otherwise is the worst kind of utopianism.
2) Design the government in such a way as to never benefit private entity A at the expense of private entity B.
3) If your goal is to end abuses of intellectual property legislation, then enlist the aid of libertarians - but stop scaring them away with talk of the big bad corporations. It is, after all, reasonable that those who seek to do away with intellectual property will move on to get rid of property of all kinds, resulting in fascism or socialism (which are really the same thing anyway). And try to remember that at least SOME people really did invent some new idea, and deserve to profit by it. Many slashdotters will probably find themselves in this position sooner or later, and it won't do to cry about it then!
Of course, maybe it is worthwhile to be a bit extreme when the opponents are so extreme on the other side - but remember to tone it down when you actually start winning.
eikimartinson.com
Mods might want to read that TROLL part of this fellow's name. You see, he posted (almost) the same comment under the Diebold story.
Except that some of the details of the story had changed...
E.G. sounds like he's just trolling for karma, so he can post something stupid at +1 sometime later.
Huh?
In what particular way have they supported the first ammendment? I can think of no way at all.
"Piracy" has nothing to do with the first ammendment, except, perhaps, by being an example of something that goes further than the court will allow in the way of self-expression. If that is your interpretation (??), then they are against the first amendment, but I find that stretching things a bit.
Fighting censorship? Them? Not hardly. I would need to see a clear example (please include URL) before I would believe that. Certain *members* of the RIAA have supported the first ammendment. Not the same thing at all, and not sufficient to excuse them from the treasonable corruption of the legislature which they have appearantly engaged in. Perhaps felonious would be more accurate than treasonable. I'm not sure. "Conspiracy to cause Senators and Representative to violate their oaths of office" seems to me like it should be both, but IANAL.
P.S.: I am willing to agree that *SOME* members of the RIAA may have occasionally defended the first ammendment, but this is based on the assumption that there's some good in everyone. I am unaware of any examples, while I am aware of many examples where they supported suppression of "dissident speech". So I certainly would even challenge the milder assertion that "most members of the RIAA have favored the first ammendment most of the time."
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Note that I didn't say that American poor were wealthy by the standards of the United Kingdom, or France, or Sweden - I said "many nations". Places like Ethiopia, Somalia, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, Malawi, Haiti, and so forth. Places where you're likely to see Sally Struthers pitching another Save The Children fund-raising campaign.
So the standards by which you measure the social safety net available to the least fortunate Americans are those set by Ethiopia, Somalia, Laos, Cambodia, Bhutan, Malawi and Haiti? Countries regularly hit by draughts, famines, other ecological disasters, civil wars and/or coup d'etats?
What are the GDPs of those nations? And what's the US's GDP? Rather than talk about countries that don't have a pot to piss in shouldn't you be talking about those that do?
Seriously, if you're going to compare systems then try and compare like with like - compare the US to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. You're not a third/developing world nation, so don't compare yourself to one.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If only everyone would defenstrate their Windows machines!
fenestra, fenestrae (female noun) : window
fenestrare, fenestro : (to) window
defenestrare, defenestro : (to) dewindow
defenestrating a computer = uninstalling windows from said computer
*Do* they now?! I supposed that's why Buchanan denounced the war in Iraq as the product of a Jewish Conspiracy(tm).
First, let me summarize my initial post to this thread, because it appears you didn't comprehend the "house that needs some work" metaphor I used to describe the US:
The people of the United States enjoy a number of freedoms. Those freedoms are also enjoyed by the people of numerous other countries. Incidentally, most of those other countries with comparable freedoms also borrow ideas from ancient Athens and the Roman Republic. The people of the US - and Europe - enjoy a far more prosperous lifestyle than people who live in nations where communism, fanaticism, and/or nationalism are the rule.
I made sure to point out that the US implementation has its drawbacks, and distinguished between fundamental problems and correctable, transient problems such as the current administration's policies and legislation.
In my second post to this thread, I measured economic prosperity against the only universal scale that came to mind, which happens to include the people of the entire planet. My motivation was to demonstrate the apparent superiority of democracy, responsibly-practiced capitalism, and civic freedom in contrast to governments that brutally suppress dissenting opinions and actively deprive their people of life's basic necessities. I was sure to mention that Europeans also enjoy a well-above-average lifestyle in contrast to most of the rest of the planet. At no point did I claim that the United States was perfect. Neither did I claim that the US government was the best system on the planet. I said it had one of the best systems. The differences between the US government and most governments of Europe are differences of degree, and differences in the details of implementation. The basic principles are nearly identical.
I know we have a poverty problem here, and I believe that there should be help available to the poor. I don't, however, believe that wealth should necessarily be distributed equally among all. Some rich people are rich because they busted their asses all their lives, played by the rules, and achieved success the hard way. They deserve every penny they make. Some people are poor because they pissed away their chances to advance themselves, refused to earn their way in the world, and have no desire to do anything that involves work or self-reliance. They deserve nothing but contempt. The rest, the people who are just having a string of bad luck and don't mind working for their keep, deserve the help they need to make it on their own. I don't like the idea of a hand-out, but would be thrilled to death if we had job training programs available to anyone who needed the hand-up. Low-cost home ownership programs like Habitat for Humanity, which help provide those on the rebound with a place to live as well as the satisfaction that comes with owning their own home, are an excellent idea. Teach a fish to man, and all that jazz.
To answer your other questions, the only numbers I could turn up in a quick Google search are from 1991, and only address mean real purchasing power, but here goes. The average United States citizen's real purchasing power as of 1991 was $22,204, the highest of any nation on earth. Germany came in 2nd at a mean real purchasing power (MRPP) of $19,500. Canada was 3rd with $19,178. Japan's MRPP was $19,107. Denmark's MRPP was $17,621. Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Finland rounded out the top 9 for 1991 in MRPP.
In short, yes, there are plenty of countries out there with lower poverty rates. There are countries out there where the poor have better access to health care. There are countries out there with just as much freedom as we have. Relatively speaking, though, few have any of these things, and it's a rare country indee
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
The Articles of Confederation left much power in the hands of the States. This was impractical because the Founding Fathers were attempting to create a nation, not an alliance, and although we were called the United States of America, the federal government could not write treaties, trade agreements, and other basic tools of nations without begging the individual States to approve every action. The second Revolution (what else do you call it when you rewrite the entire rulebook for a nation?) was designed to grant the federal government enough power to be recognized as a nation by the rest of the world (which meant the European powers.)
Under the Articles:
1. Each State was sovereign.
2. The States would join for the common defense, but the federal government had no military power of its own.
3. States could demand the return of criminals from other States.
4. Treaties and declarations of war BY THE STATES required the consent of the feds. 9 States had to agree before war could be declared.
5. The feds could print money, but there was nothing to back it. No federal taxes.
The federal government had no power. Period.
Under the Constitution:
1. Congress makes the laws, including money, taxes, trade agreements, limited patents and copyrights, war, treason, army and navy. States cannot do any of this.
2. The President runs the armed forces, and appoints all ambassadors to other countries.
3. The supreme court can judge all the laws of the land. (It was lowercase in the Constitution.) There was a provision for lower courts to be appointed.
4. Citizens belong to the nation, not the States.
The big changes were:
1. Money is now controlled only by the feds.
2. Military power is now controlled only by the feds.
3. All international agreements are now controlled only by the feds.
The first two make the last possible, since the European countries would not negotiate with a "nation" that did not have its own money or military force.
Is that enough "evidence"? The rest of it you got correct. It was basically the same group of aristocrats that created both documents, and they did both without any real authority. The difference was what was acceptable because of how the people thought of themselves.
The Articles were written in 1781, about the time we started winning the Revolutionary War (1776 to 1783). During the war, the populace was about evenly divided into thirds: The Rebels who wanted independence, the Tories who wanted to stay under English rule, and those who did not care. But almost everybody thought of themselves as being from a State, not as an American. The Articles served to create a federal government, and although it was almost powerless, it was able to negotiate peace with England.
After the War, people's loyalties were still to the States. The question of independence from England had been resolved. Attempting to negotiate with France and Spain was difficult. The advantages of free trade within the national borders helped win the business sector, but international trade was suffering. Written 4 years after the War, the Constitution gave the feds enough power to handle the situation.
Much of this power was only on paper. Check out the history of the Civil War. The regiments were still known by their State. Lincoln asks for "the militia of the several States of the Union" (which were outlawed by the Constitution) and the southern armies had names like the "Army of Tennessee". But the Constitution was enough to let us deal with European countries as equals.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
1. "I know we have a poverty problem here, and I believe that there should be help available to the poor."
2. "In short, yes, there are plenty of countries out there with lower poverty rates. There are countries out there where the poor have better access to health care. There are countries out there with just as much freedom as we have. Relatively speaking, though, few have any of these things, and it's a rare country indeed that has all of those things. I count myself lucky to live in a place where a person of good character and a strong work ethic can pretty well be assured of a happy, healthy life. I count myself lucky that I won't wake up at 3am with a squad of soldiers smashing down my door and dragging me away for a week of torture and an execution because I criticized my government. If you live in one of them also, you should count yourself lucky as well."
3. "The average United States citizen's real purchasing power as of 1991 was $22,204, the highest of any nation on earth. Germany came in 2nd at a mean real purchasing power (MRPP) of $19,500. Canada was 3rd with $19,178. Japan's MRPP was $19,107. Denmark's MRPP was $17,621. Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Finland rounded out the top 9 for 1991 in MRPP."
4. "Perhaps your comprehension was clouded by your apparent hatred of all things American. It's exactly that kind of myopic anti-US rhetoric that makes me sometimes wonder if the European reputation for tolerance of others might be just as groundless as the myth of American superiority."
First of all, let me start by saying what I've said countless times. I love the ideal of America, the principles on which it was founded. What I don't love is the current implementation, which has become a distortion of that vision. Having said that, there are few things about the US that I would change and many things that I would hope would stay the same.
In many ways, I'm an Americophile, someone with a love of all things truly American - freedom of expression, baseball, American football, hot dogs, and apple pie, tailgating and its beautiful geography to name a few. However, I'm not blinded by that love and I see and recognise its shortcomings, just like many Americans do. It's ironic that you label me anti-American, because that's the very label that those Americans get tarred with by people who'd rather not respect the freedom of expression of those who question the status quo.
Now, if you can't see that you can both love something and yet find room for improvement in it at the same time then perhaps you should stop reading my post right now. Unblinding, unquestioning love isn't truly American - how can it be when, by definition, it implies the surrender of those hard fought for freedoms? You're only truly free when you take your own course, whether that be with the herd or without it, rather than follow it blindly regardless of where the herd wants to take you.
America has shortcomings. It isn't ideal. As someone once said on The West Wing, "The seal [on the dollar bill] is meant to be unfinished because this country is meant to be unfinished. We are meant to keep doing better, we're meant to keep discussing and debating...". Now I realise that even mentioning TWW is enough to set off alarm bells in the minds of people that consider "liberal" to be a swear word, but I can think of no better quote to convey my position. And if you don't believe that the quotation is true, if you truly believe that America is perfect and has no room for further improvement then I have to question whether you're as myopic as you accuse me of being.
Now I've finished defending my right to say something (which, frankly, I find ironic seeing as one of the things we both love is freedom of expression), I'll repeat my original point, which is that comparing how well off America's poor are than Ethiopia's or Somalia's poor is ridiculous.
These are countries routinely hit by famine, where the land is so barren that they can't
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg