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)
> 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.
I really like it. I like what it stands for, and I like the theory of it. I liked it and believed in it so much I joined the Army. I don't like being in the Army, but its not all that bad.
I just think that this legislation process has gotten all out of whack. No corporation should be able to "buy" senators and bills/laws, but thats what happens every day. Its getting way out of control.
hrrm.
..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.
----
Freedom. It really does feel more free. I now have lived in the Netherlands long enough that I have grown used to the society and love it. But what became clear is that the Netherlands is, in many ways, a very controlled society (self control, government control, etc.). In that sense I feel more free in America. This goes hand in hand with the common belief that anything is possible (i.e. "I want to be an Astronaut!", response: "Great! go for it!"). You can argue that this is overly optimistic, but in the end this attitude often leads to life satisfaction. I honestly believe that the quality of life is good when living in America; yes, better than many places. Switzerland also seems quite nice, if you're Swiss.
Now America's actions on the international scene are simply awful, no question.
If you believe your choice of media (often) protraying the difficulties of living in America (e.g. everyone's mother was a crack whore, crime is terrible), then you're simply missing part of the picture.
The same bias is applied to the Netherlands: many people seem to think that the Netherlands is very liberal, supporting prostitution, soft drugs, etc. when, in fact, the society is quite conservative. The laws governing the "liberal" things are really just (good) ways of dealing with problems. Leagalizing hash and a war-on-drugs are simply different ways of dealing with an unavoidable market.
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.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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!?
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
>Freedom. It really does feel more free. I now
> have lived in the Netherlands long enough that I
> have grown used to the society and love it. But
> what became clear is that the Netherlands is, in
> many ways, a very controlled society (self
> control, government control, etc.). In that
> sense > I feel more free in America. This goes
> hand in hand with the common belief that
> anything is possible (i.e. "I want to be an
> Astronaut!", response: "Great! go for it!").
> You can argue that this is overly optimistic,
> but in the end this attitude often leads to
> life satisfaction.
> I honestly believe that the quality of life is
> good when living in America; yes, better than
> many places. Switzerland also seems quite nice,
> if you're Swiss.
You, like so many, are very confused.
You confuse freedom of action with freedom of mind. As long as the USA has a society that spits on differently thinking people, and accuss them of all kinds of bad things for the mere reason they think differently, the USA is a long way from freedom.
Both freedoms are important, but freedm of action is a farce without freedom of mind.
Interestingly, I lived in both the USA and th eNetherlands, and I know a whole lot of Americans living in the Netherlands..they turn out to agree without exception that the USA offers a lot less freedom of mind then north-western europe, and esp. the Netherlands..
Ah well, good for you you movd to the USA, but I'd rather suggest you open your eyes for the mental oppression that is very common in the society you live in now before calling it free.
If you believe your choice of media (often) protraying the difficulties of living in America (e.g. everyone's mother was a crack whore, crime is terrible), then you're simply missing part of the picture.
I'm pretty familiar with both the USA and the Netherlands, and have spent some time in both countries every year for the last ten years or so.
The thing about the USA is that it appears more free if you're an orthodox sort of person that fits in with everyone else around you and doesn't actually want to make any choices that the rest of your culture think are somehow immoral or improper.
What the USA doesn't do very well, in my opinion, is brook difference or dissent -- and to me, a culture that is able to tolerate or embrace those those things is one that meets my idea of a free.
There's no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan in the Netherlands, spewing hate across the airwaves. And if you want to smoke pot or have some kind of unorthodox sex, the state doesn't feel it has any role in policing those areas of private morality.
So while I think your main point is essentially correct -- the Netherlands is a conservative country, and the culture and many of its institutions are also somewhat conservative, but its profound and deep-rooted tolerance for me makes it a much freer environment than the USA could ever be.
That said, what you do have in the USA is a much greater degree of economic freedom -- be that the freedom to make a million, or the freedom to sleep under a bridge because minimum wage jobs don't pay enough to both feed and accomodate you.
I live just outside of Chattanooga. When this whole mess came to my attention I emailed my state representative, Bobby Wood, and my state senator David Fowler. They both wrote back in person (and quite prompty I may add). While they admitted this topic was a bit over their heads they were still knowledgable about the bill and its repercussions. They both said they were against the bill and would not vote for it if it came to them. I was impressed to say the least.
More Tennesseans need to do exactly this. They may be suprised on just how easy it is to contact them.
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)
"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
What do you mean by "too much classism in England"?
If by that you mean we have a royal family (which we share with Canada and a whole lot of other countries too, by the way), then you're right.
But I hardly see how that's relevant. In the UK, our head of state is the Queen, who in many ways has fewer rights than the average citizen (for one thing, she can't vote), and has only a minor consitutional role - she has no say in how the country is governed, in deciding the law, etc.
In fact, for all practical purposes, the Queen is just a glorified ambassador, which is all I want from my head of state. The real power lies with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, all elected officials.
There's arguably more of a class system in America than in Britain. In the US, if you're poor and need expensive medical treatment then you're probably shit out of luck. But in Britain, or almost anywhere else in Europe, you'll get it (perhaps not straight away, but you will get it).
Also, further education is more attainable in Britain than it is in the US. It might not be as free as it once was, but British students don't need six figure bank balances to get there degrees. If you're from a poor background but smart, where would you rather be? A country that wants to see your green before it lets you realise your potential or one that is happy to help you attain it?
Want to attain office? Well, better hope that daddy and his friends have deep pockets. The fathers of our last three Prime Ministers were a shopkeeper, a circus performer and a university lecturer. A humble start in life doesn't stop you from running the country over here but can you say the same in the US? Heck, if you don't have millions of dollars to your name you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of even running for Congress, let alone be elected!
There are other examples but I'll only bore you further. Suffice to say class (or, to give it it's proper name, wealth) is more of a barrier in the US as it is in UK or elsewhere.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
My point is while there is certainly nice tolerance it is a facade to some degree. Ask immigrants how they feel, the warm welcome that the Turkish and Marocans receive in Dutch society.
Well, my African-American friends say much the same things about the USA, only they aren't recent immigrants but have been there for several generations.
Turks and Marocans aren't very likely to be gunned down in their homes, or have a broomstick jammed up their arses by arresting police officers in the Netherlands either. Are these typical? Of course not, but such incidents do happen with a disturbing regularity in the USA and I can't recall ever hearing of such events in the Netherlands.
Tolerance just to ideas is also lacking. Try critizing the Dutch government in front of them, they'll either 1) tell you how broken American government is in response or 2) tell you you're clueless because you don't know how brilliant the Dutch system is.
Yeah, I think that's right. However, in my experience, they're far less strident than the United States in their defence of 'my country right or wrong', and I can perfectly understand their unwillingness to be lectured on how they should run their government from an American. I certainly don't have the sense that the only way to achieve high political office in the Netherlands is by being in thrall to vested interests. In reference to Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan, did you not hear about Pim Fortuin? He wasn't as hateful as good ole Rush or Pat, but he was pretty radical in views
I don't think Fortuin was comparable for a moment -- and if anything, Fortuin is a pretty good counter-example to the things that you're saying.
Firstly, he was gay. Can you even begin to contemplate a gay Jesse Helms?
Secondly, he was critical of the existing Dutch system -- and gained an immense amount of support from the population for expressing what were effectively heretical views that broke with the longstanding liberal consensus.
Finally, Fortuin wasn't opposed to immigrants simply because they were different -- inferior mongrel races -- but rather, was concerned about the impact that immigrants from certain other cultures were having on the Dutch way of life -- and most particularly, those enlightenment values of tolerance, equality, etc. that the Netherlands has worked so hard to enshrine.
This isn't an issue that's ever likely to arise in the USA because you insist that every immigrant pledge allegiance to the flag, motherhood and apple pie before they ever get citizenship, and the moment you begin to even start perceiving them as a potential threat you start locking them up or expelling them, regardless of the evidence against them.
Don't get me wrong. The USA has many great qualities and I love the place as much -- perhaps even more -- than I love the Netherlands. But freedom and tolerance just aren't the first things that spring to mind when I think about the place and I often have to struggle to reconcile the good things I like about the political system there (such as the very spirited defence of freedoms of speech and expression, the constitution, etc.) with the reality of how that system actually operates.
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!
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.
Small mistake. USA has approx 12% of its population living below the poverty line. That is absolutely unheard of in western europe for example.
Ah, I see - the world consists of Western Europe and North America, and the rest of the world doesn't count. My bad.
But I didn't mention poverty level, did I? I mentioned death by starvation. According to the World Health Organization, Protein-Energy Malnutrition (PEM), the most lethal form of malnutrition, affects 1 out of every 4 children worldwide. "...more than 70% of PEM children live in Asia, 26% in Africa and 4% in Latin America and the Caribbean." The United States isn't mentioned. Neither is Europe. If I were a child, I'd rather live in the US or Europe than, say, Asia or Africa - nevermind the climate, I'd like to eat on a regular basis!
Now let's take a look at that 12% figure. If you'll reread my previous post, you'll notice that I said that even the poor of America might be considered wealthy by the standards of many other nations. According to the US Census Bureau, 12.6% of all Americans over the age of 15 earn less than or equal to the dollar amount which it says defines the "poverty level" income of an individual. This excludes government aid payments, and every person is counted - including non-working teens aged 15-18 who live with their parents (even if those parents are wealthy), people who need not work because their spouses make money by the bushel, retired people who live on pensions, savings, and Social Security retirement benefits, permanently and temporarily disabled people who live on Social Security disability benefits and private disability insurance, and those whose wages are paid "under the table" and do not report or pay taxes on their income.
"Poverty level" is defined by the US Census Bureau strictly by individual income per year, and doesn't take into account the income of other family members, government aid income, or "allowances" such as the $5,000/month Little Rich Johnny gets from his parents every month while he attends college out of town.
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.
Now, let's take a look at someone who is part of that 12.6% who's under the poverty level - me. My income put me below the "poverty level" last year, as well as 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994, and every year from 1988-1993. I will probably just barely clear the poverty level this year, but only if the Dow Jones doesn't close out for the year any lower than its level as of last Friday (capital losses due to drops in stock prices deduct from your Adjusted Gross Income dollar-per-dollar). I own a modest but nice 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house with a mixture of new hardwood floors and new carpet, on a 1/2-acre level lot, in a good neighborhood. I own it outright - no mortgage. I own a 1996 Ford full-sized pickup truck outright, no payments. I have 4 computers, a cellular phone, thousands of dollars worth of books, cable television with 300 or so channels, high-bandwidth internet access, a refrigerator full of food, a Ridgeway grandfather clock/curio cabinet made from cherry wood, and about $9500 in savings. But according to the US Census Bureau, I've been hovering right around the poverty level since I became old enough to be included in the statistics, with the exception of 2 years when I lucked out and made a "middle-class" income. According to the rhetoric spewed forth by the liberals, I've been screwed over by the rich, and should be getting big fat checks every month, financed by the "wealthiest 10%" - which, BTW, means those making about $65,000 a year or more.
Don't be so ready to accept statistics blindly. Sir Benjamin Disreali was right - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
If you were kidding, I missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
... there is a never-ending supply of this stuff. Nobody quotes him because his best stuff is ridiculous, wrong, racists/sexist, or just goofy opinion. There is no leftist conspiracy to ignore him. The man is a joke.
Um, what hate does Rush Limbaugh spew, exactly?
Not sure if "hate" speech is the right word for it, but he frequently makes bizarre, unflattering, and factually malleable comments regarding women's rights supporters, homosexuals, environmentalists... Pretty much anyone who he fails to agree with. He is a big mindless right wing mouthpiece ( kind of like a less evil Ann Coulter ) and deserves absolutely no respect as a journalist. Please note I am not defending big mindless left wing mouthpieces here, so feel free to skip the reply about how Al Franken sucks or whatever.
Since "no liberals quote him", I would like to hold up just a few of his gems here. Its a mish-mash of paranoia, opinion, and questionable facts... Just like you get from tin-foil hat liberals.
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
--Rush Limbaugh
"Militant feminists are pro-choice because it's their ultimate avenue of power over men.... It is their attempt to impose their will on the rest of society, particularly on men."
(Ought to Be, p.53)
Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ. (TV show, 5/13/94)
* This study is not findable via Nexis search and the president of Tufts in '72 ) is on record as having never heard of it.
"Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along"
* Well... they couldn't vote among other things.
The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.
--Rush Limbaugh
* This is funny because he called the gay population of LA fruits!! HA HA
"When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation."
(Quoted in FRQ, Summer/94)
* This is funny because he called gay people mindless screw drones!
Mega-dittos!
(B) sounds an awful lot like it would be illegal for me to spoof an email header, browse the web through a proxy server, or perhaps even use Freenet.
Note that the language of this bill specifies a "device," but does not require that the device must be hardware. "Device" is defined later in the bill as "any type of electronic mechanism, transmission lines or connections and appurtenances thereto, instrument, drive, machine, equipment, technology, or software." Freenet is, by its very nature, a "device" which attempts to "conceal the place of origin or destination of [a] communication."
The major problem with this bill is that the language is too broad - apparently by design: The bill allows for felony charges for violations, and allows for $1,500 - $10,000 fines per device. The bill stipulates that counts and fines shall be imposed per day, that is, if you use 2 unauthorized "communications devices" for a week, you're guilty of 14 violations of this bill (well beyond the qualification for a felony charge) and you're liable for anywhere from $21,000 to $140,000 in fines.
This bill needs to die, or to have its language strictly clarified. If neither of these things happen, don't be surprised when you see "TN Resident Gets 15 Year Sentence for Open WAP" in the YRO section.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
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