Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Law Mashup Moving Through Congress
The Importance of writes "The INDUCE Act may be dead (for now), but that doesn't mean that Congress won't pass any copyright laws this year. Right now, HR 4077, the "Piracy Deterrence in Education" bill pulls together a number of different initiatives to not only get the government involved in civil copyright enforcement, but change fundamental definitions in copyright, and make certain types of home video viewing illegal. The Senate version (brought to you by Sen. Hatch and Leahy) adds even more copyright law changes. According to Public Knowledge, 'The recording industry and Hollywood are making headway! Threatening bills are positioned to move possibly today or tomorrow (yes, even Saturday!) in the Senate and we need your help, now. Not only do they want to rewrite copyright law (again) to lower the standard required for criminal enforcement of copyright infringement; but now they're changing how you watch TV or DVDs in your own home! The bills (H.R. 4077 and H.R. 2391) also are written to make the way you use iTunes and WiFi a crime. '"
$20 says INDUCE gets tagged onto this one before it's voted on... any takers?
-lk
I, for one, welcome our mashup copyright owners. Oh and by the way... nothing for you to see here, move along. (Or a 503 error)
I am getting tired of the government trying to take away our rights. Then again, nothing has changed; it has always been this way. I hate using tired clichés but; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But it does happen
I can stand that they try to make hardware developers criminals (Induce Act vs. PS2-chip makers)... I can stand that they want to ban Kazaa (piracying is illegal)...
but MAKING something that we already do ILLEGAL? Who do they think they are, The Sheriff of Nottingham?
They're bringing doom upon themselves. Soon many (WAY MANY) Robin Hoods from outside the US will crush them and take from them whatever they love the most: Money.
In the discussion about the INDUCE Act stalling, several people predicted that the plan was to have the consumer (copyright) rights proponents expend all their energy and finances on opposing the INDUCE Act and that the real draconian act would sneak by the victory parade. Looks like they were right.
Since when is not waching an advertisement illegal? That seems a constitutional violation - No one has a right to FORCE me to watch/listen to anything.
If the people living in the states of the politicians sponsoring this mess would vote them out, maybe the fascist/socialist elements in our government will finally be 'mashed'.
You know, before this discussion starts taking on a life of its own. How many of you are actually going to read and understand those bills?
RTFA I understand, but RTFB isn't something one can easilly get away with.
"The bill establishes "offering for distribution" as the basis for a criminal copyright violation, and "making available" as the basis for a civil violation-regardless of whether there is any distribution or copying, let alone infringement."
A direct response to p2p file sharing. It doesn't matter whether anyone actually downloads your illegal offering. That's like saying fencing stolen goods isn't illegal until someone actually catches you selling it to someone. If you sell it to an undercover cop, you're guilty. If an undercover cop downloads your infringing material, your guilty. Quit whining about it.
Why doesn't someone sue Disney, Universal, or the other Major DVD producers? After all their TV ads almost all say OWN on DVD today.
It really isn't yours if you can't skip parts, is it?
"Yet another erosion of traditional copyright law's formal requirements of registration. Registration is an important component of copyright because it puts the public on notice of an author's work. Currently, to have the government enforce a copyright criminally, the copyright must be registered, which is by most artists register their copyright so they can have full force of the law. Under 4077, this incentive to register will disappear."
Actually, copyright is automatic, but you need a way to prove it. If I seal up a copy of my book and mail it to myself, the postmark is good enough to verify copyright in court, once the package is unsealed and verified by the court.
They'll manage to make singing in the shower illegal. But they won't catch me. I'll have a sound-tight bathroom built that can't be detected by federal agents on the outside. It will have special radar and active noise cancelling, along with speakeras projecting white noise (generated live using custom technology to avoid violating anyone's copyrights on white noise) outside. The whole thing will be surrounded in a tin foil shell with a small iris-activated door.
Oh yeah, and I'll move my house to a remote island. Underground. Not in missile silo--they know about all those. It will be my own hole, with recycled air, long-term water and food storage, and thermal power generation.
In your future days of mandatory digital compliance, on some rare night, you may have sweet dreams of someone on a remote island whose voice still echoes through the sprinkling mist.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Seriously, you could argue that the advertising reduces the cost of the product, and therefore users must view them. But where does it end? Would you force people to spend 15 seconds looking at the ad on the side of a bus before they get on?
Bottom line: advertisers should NEVER have the power to force people to look at their ads, lest our lives become a living hell.
If they keep this up it'll be illegal to watch movies or listen to music anywhere other than the theatre!
wifi = re-emitting as electromagnetic radiation,
light = electromagnetic radiation,
therefore your television = broadcast station, same as an AP.
Now if we can just fool them into legislating that you can't watch movies at the theatre, or listen to a home stereo either, we'll have em.
Somebody want to invent / commercialize an ultrasonic WiFi or bluetooth protocol compatable network? That should trigger legislation to kill all audio systems
It seems that government has run out of things worthwhile to legislate, and is pandering to corporate needs and greed needs.
This usually happens before a civil war of some sort.
If I buy music, I should be able to do any damn thing I want with it, short of copying it for friends. I should get an automatic right to use it within my house, on my person or in my car however I want. I should be able to turn one purchase into several different formats for my use, at my own cost. The same goes for videos and DVDs that I've paid for. If I have subscription TV, I should be able to record for keeping the programs that are broadcast normally (not PPV rental-like options though), it has been paid for by me and by the advertisers.
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. Assert your rights, and make your feelings known.
If the vast majority of clueless people who either use TiVo, or know someone who does, are told that their toy is illegal, hell will be raised, and the pendulum will start swinging the other way...
It'll still suck for the next ten years, I admit.
mitch
I just read the Corante article, with particular attention to the home viewing part. Since this seems to be about copyright in general, the question of printed material comes to mind. Will it be illegal to read a book and skip over the boring parts, like I might with a movie? What about reading a textbook out of order from the authors original intent? This could present a problem with school reading assignments.
I have a hard time imagining that things could become that preposterous with printed material, but media is media, right?
I'd like to think I'm just being silly.
Credo sim. - I think I am.
The fact that such a clause should even be necessary points to the warped mindset of the **AAs, of course.
It could be useful to paint the bill as the "It will make it illegal to fast-forward through commercials!!" to get the word out.
IANAL, so I could very well be wrong.
Worsens Penalties: Requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to modify its guidelines to significantly increase the criminal infringement sentences
Right. Because there's still a FEW crimes out there that actually have bigger penalties than copyright infringement! I know - I'm as shocked as the rest of you.
In all seriousness, WHY do you suppose copying a copyrighted music file illegally is already a felony in most cases (along with things like murder, kidnapping, and rape), whereas running into a store and swiping the actual CD is just a simple misdemeanor?
For those few who will no doubt comment on this article and say "blah blah, good - people swapping files are criminals and should be punished" I ask you this - does the punishment even come CLOSE to fitting the crime?
And now they want to make the punishment even more harsh?
This is not justice. It's a joke.
Dishonorable Senator Orrin Hatch,
With all due respect, sir, you are a dumbass. Not just your everyday run-of-the-mill dumbass, but instead the kind of dumbass that takes years of shaping and polishing and refinement. If this were something to strive for I would congratulate you. You are the archetypal tunnelvisioned champion of nothing. I believe you have started chasing windmills in your old age. Open your damned eyes for once! When all is said and done, who has gained and who has lost? Dumbass.
Sincerely,
An American AC
Copyright 2004, by An American AC, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Do not memorize, recite, reiterate, distribute, give a public performance of, give a private performance of, do not copy, paraphrase, duplicate, replicate, or taunt this intellectual work! You will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, dumbass!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm oh-so-glad there's no DMCA in Canada.
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Until I discovered that the so called Public Knowledge site had taken over Mozilla, and disabled my menu's for normal browser operations completely. What I was going to do was print the page so that I could make the calls during normal office hours tomorrow.
Then I discovered that even backing out to slashdots main page did not restore them and I had to quite Mozilla and restart it to restore the menus.
When a page does that, then my confidence in what else they might do becomes highly suspect.
I'm with Lawrance Lessig, who states in his new book that its time to redo the law when the literal interpretation of the law by the courts redefines 50 million+ otherwise law abiding citizens as felons. Felons who lose their voting rights and everything else that goes along with that label once it has been applied by a judge or jury.
For those who object to the fact that the likes of our Senators are all on Jack Valanti's payroll in the form of huge campaign contributions to those who vote for the RIAA/MPAA's extremely one sided view of copyright, the real cure is to work to elect senators and representatives who will govern as the people who elected him/her want them to govern. That is, after all is said and done, the premise of this 230 year old experiment in "Democracy" is it not?
OTOH, I agree with a fellow named Ed Howdershelt, whose message is in my sig. Right about now the emphasis is on the ballot box (if we can keep the Diebolds from stuffing it), next is the jury box, hopefully a little harder to stuff, the difficulty there is in secureing the indictment in the first place. And finally, failing that, the ammo box...
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
First I would like to say, everyone comparing fastforwarding through a boring part of a movie or skipping past a boring part of a book as being illegal by this law are just dumb (not trying to flame). Advertising pays for your free television channels or keeps the prices down if you have a pay for service.
With that said, yes, they can not force you to watch these ads and I do not believe there should be laws created to guarantee you can't bypass these commercials. I for one did NOT sign any agreement with any television broadcasting company saying that in exchange for free entertainment I would inturn watch their brain washing commercials.
What happened to our representatives representing the PEOPLE. Though corporations might have some of the same rights as a person (though not being held to their crimes like a person) they do not qualify as a person and should not be represented as one by our politicians.
This government was created by and for the people and I for one do not feel that these types of laws represent the best interest of 99.99% of the population of the United States. Tax payers money should not be spent on educating children on copyright laws. 1) It's ineffective, we've all been to school.... 2) Why not start spending tax payers money of educating kids at school on why product A is better than product B?? Or better yet they can teach us about Jesus!!!
Maybe there should be some laws seperating corporations from state as we do with religion and state. And for the same reasons too....
I'm not sure the parent poster is a complete troll. What's happening is that companies who are used to profiting may no longer be profiting so much, so they get laws passed that in effect say "you WILL watch my advertising." The free market be damned except when it fits their needs. If everything is about privatization and free enterprise don't be surprised when the people with the money do everything they can to get more of it. And no, this isn't some kind of defense of Socialism.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
"In all seriousness, WHY do you suppose copying a copyrighted music file illegally is already a felony in most cases (along with things like murder, kidnapping, and rape), whereas running into a store and swiping the actual CD is just a simple misdemeanor?"
Here's the primary difference. How many CD's can you walk out of the store with? How many digital copies can you distribute over the internet?
"For those few who will no doubt comment on this article and say "blah blah, good - people swapping files are criminals and should be punished" I ask you this - does the punishment even come CLOSE to fitting the crime?"
So how much crime does there have to be, before the punishment does fit the crime, and why is the line drawn so arbitrarily?
"And now they want to make the punishment even more harsh?"
As I've said elsewere piracy (not just now, but piracy in general) has turned this into a war situation. Wars do one thing and one thing only. They escalate, and people get hurt. Ego unfortunately is invested on both sides, and neither side will back down.
"the heavy fire of artillery to saturate an area rather than hit a specific target" [dict.org]
Isn't the frequency of restrictive copyright-related law proposed in US a bit too high?
$20 says INDUCE gets tagged onto this one before it's voted on
Dan Glickman gave some Congressmen $19.50 each to vote for these bills. We can turn the stinginess that makes him such an effective MPAA head ("I don't give a fuck how poor the orphanage is! Full price!" -> more profit) against him! We'll buy each Congressmen back with $20 each! Hell, combined with that vote-thingy we have, that might even be worth $20.05!
According to someone further down the thread, here are the names of the $19.50 richer MPAA chums:
Rep Berman, Howard L.
Rep Bono, Mary
Rep Coble, Howard
Rep Conyers, John, Jr.
Rep Hoyer, Steny H.
Rep Meehan, Martin T.
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch)
If this gets passed, I propose a new grass-roots effort I want to call the anti-ad.
Since this is an attempt to keep ad revenues on a failing delivery system, why not make the proposed 'enforced wathing' irrelevant by boycotting EVERY product advertised on these media.
Of course this means everyone will have to switch to sodas like 'Big Red' or buy cars like Suzuki or Kia, if the advertisers realize their ads actually have a negative revenue generation they will stop placing ads on these media.
Use this page to find your senators, then click your way to their homepage and fill out an "email" form with your thoughts about these bills. It's easy. It took me about three or four minutes to email both of my senators.
http://www.busyweather.com/
"They're bringing doom upon themselves. Soon many (WAY MANY) Robin Hoods from outside the US will crush them and take from them whatever they love the most: Money."
*rolls eyes*
Says the crowd that hides behind anonymous P2P programs.
When actions start matching the bravado of your words then I'll be impressed. But not a second before.
Took me 1 minute to load!
Choose either Coral or Freecache
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
I am a software industry veteran, and I consider myself an activist for copyright reform. And I can't even keep track of these bills, get up to speed on the issues and be on top of things fast enough before they roll out another one. This is attrition tactics by the media industry - they know that eventually, they'll slip one through right before a big holiday weekend when nobody's paying attention, or when some news story in their favor came out the week before. If they just keep getting their shills to propose these bills, like feces thrown at a wall, eventually something will stick.
I want to find candidates to vote for and promote who have reasonable IP policies that promote a balance between a business' right to make money on its investment and the interest of the commons and the citizenry, but it's pretty hard to find these candidates. I know a lot of us here give money to the EFF, but where is this money going? Besides Rep. Boucher of VA, what friends do we have on Capitol Hill, and how do we make more?
Maybe we need to be approaching people earlier on in their political careers, and running broader grass roots campaigns to bring public attention to copyright issues with issues of broad interest like the attempts to kill your right to tape shows in your own house, or the death of our heritage of freely available songs and characters in the form of a cultural commons, which have fueled the imaginations of artists throughout this century, only to be killed by the businesses built on those artists' work.
I accept that copyright law is never going to be of as immediate concern as health insurance, skyrocketing medical costs, nuclear proliferation, rising unemployment and thousands of people dying in war. But we need to make people realize that this is an issue of interest to all of us and that while we are worrying about those immediate problems facing us, certain industries are cynically trying to slip through legislation against the public interest in the hopes that we are too distracted to take action against them.
You must be kidding.. tell me how you intend to get rid of them by voting.
Don't vote for democrats, vote for republicans. Don't vote for republicans, vote for democrats.
What if they are both stuffed? Duh.....
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped.
With product placement becoming more common in movies, does that mean that if we start running a movie we're required to watch the entire thing? That would be a problem for me because sometimes I'll pop a DVD in and skip to my favorite parts.
That's right, this is actually part of the "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act". Declaring the national tree. How can you even try to enact any reasonable legislation if you can't have a bill be about one single thing?
Well as long as I am the one with Absolute Power-the things that Vodka makes you do. We need to get the nursing home out of Congress.
Dilbert: If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain.
Dogbert: Why not?
Dilbert: Well, um, well, because that's how I was raised.
Dogbert: You were raised by bumper stickers?
I'm glad Canada hasn't started down this road yet.
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
The site does no such thing, i just went there and everything works fine.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What is it doing in this article?
I see no implications for WiFi or iTunes in there. It may very well represent some bad patent law, but, it has nothing to do with anything in this article.
--Len
...just kill them. Then you'll qualify for a lesser sentance.
(paraphrased from someone else's comment in a diff thread)
Everything the Congress does is without copyright , but everything we want to do is buried in more copyright law than the rest of the world combined.
If it's illegal to share copyrighted material, wouldn't any Linux ISO file be illegal to share at sites like LinuxISO.org? If so, MS has won a major battle. If not, let's put Linux ISOs on Kazaa, etc and label them as Windows Longhorn Final and see how many converts we get.
(a) Offense- Whoever, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture theater to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, in a motion picture theater shall--
`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
`(c) Authorized Activities- This section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or by a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
Essentially, ANY presentation given by ANY entity (because "copyright is automatic") in the "theater" of a public meeting place that could arguably be called a "motion picture theater" would be protected. That would encompass a great many civic auditoriums, school auditoriums, gymnasiums, and town halls - and it means no political activists allowed! You cannot record this (open company meeting, presentation, play, debate or political party meeting) without our consent or we will send you to jail.
Have you met Mr. Orwell?
"But that's not really the issue here - because even if I could walk out with 100 CDs, and then went and distributed just ONE song to just ONE person... well, the penalty for the latter is still significantly more severe, and that's not right."
Well one person recieves a copy, and that person sends to two people, and they each send to two people. Now compare that to the one on one transfer that the physical medium imposes.
"Not only that, but there is not even a direct correlation between a shared song and lost revenue. Some songs shared influence people to buy a CD - and so that shared song actually earned revenue."
So far the evidence presented for this argument is as circumstantial as your claim that there's no one to one relationship between song and revenue.
"Then there are others who do replace the purchase of the music, and cause lost revenue. The majoriy make no difference, as they would not have been purchased anyway. Now in that last case, I'm not saying it's still "right" to go ahead and do it. I'm just trying to put this into the proper perspective."
Copyright has always been pretty clear about what was, and wasn't OK. People have been ignoring the law for several decades. The main difference is that technology makes it easier to break the law.
Couple that with all the other social changes and here we are.
"But back to my original analogy - do you really think copyright infringement is a crime on par with murder and rape? How can any SANE person think that?"
If your analogy was what you think it was, then you'll acknowledge that all the other things listed as felonies are also equal to murder and rape.
""potential" be damned, you can't attach penalties for "potential""
You sir are a flight risk. You'll have to post bail.
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004
ART Act
Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004
[I like how they are playing the "artist's rights" card again. Problem is, this bill benefits the Copyright Cartel 95% of the time, not the artists.]
SUMMARY AS OF:
3/31/2004--Introduced.
Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004 - Requires the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to: (1) develop a program (including suitable warnings) to deter the public from committing acts of copyright infringement through the Internet; and (2) facilitate the sharing among law enforcement agencies, Internet service providers, and copyright owners of information concerning copyright infringement activities.
[More FBI Warnings before movies! How fun. However, (2) is a bit more scary. It makes me wonder if this "sharing" will become compulsory and secret (AKA PATRIOT Act Style).]
Directs the Attorney General to ensure that any unit in the Department of Justice responsible for investigating computer hacking or intellectual property crimes is assigned at least one support agent who has received training in the investigation and enforcement of such crimes.
[Forget terrorism, we have pirates to bust! Great use of resources there. However, the increased emphasis on computer hacking would be welcome.]
Establishes within the Office of the Associate Attorney General an Internet Use Education Program for educating the public about the value of copyrighted works and the effects of their theft.
[More FBI Warnings! However, the only "value of copyrighted work" is given by the government by creating a monopoly on the work. Article I Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution states that copyright's function is: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" In this case, the monopoly granted is supposed to help advance the arts and sciences by giving a financial incentive to do so. However, as the current copyright law inhibits the advancement of arts and sciences by allowing copyright holders to continue to reuse and sell old material to the public instead of actually creating something new. Also, if we are going to educate people on how to "use" the Internet, maybe we could include some virus/spyware prevention training.]
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 or ART Act - Amends Federal criminal law to provide criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture theater in order to transmit or make a copy of such motion picture or other copyrighted work.
[Now we can have FBI agents with night vision in the local theatre checking everyone just "in case" they might be making an illegal camcorder recording. This personally makes me want to go to the theatre less than I did before.]
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) responsible software developers should be commended for their efforts to protect consumers; (2) illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful; and (3) all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children and prevent such illegal activity should be considered.
[This might as well read: "Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) DRM is good; (2) public peer-to-peer copyright infringement is bad; and (3) all appropriate DRM measures should be considered".]
Amends Federal copyright law to provide criminal penalties, as well as civil remedies in damages, for the willful infringement of copyrighted works, including illegal distribution to the public by electronic means.
[Again, we can now have the FBI busting people for copyright infringement rather than hunting down real criminals (like terrorists). Welcome to the Second Drug War.]
Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend its s
-Valen
This motion picture has been altered from the performance intended by the director and producers of the motion picture. The studio caved to focus tests and removed the sad, emotionally gripping ending. The ending now includes bunnies. Furthermore thanks to pressure from financial investors the prison warden no longer arbitrarily kills prisoners and blames it on the main character, but removes them to a humanely managed rehabilitation facility owned and operated by Haliburton(TM). The main character has been altered from a potentially offensive trash talking chicano gangster to a more palatable richeously indignant black man with a heart of gold who now eats M&M's instead of Reeses Pieces. Because she lent her name to the project, Drew Barrymore now has a cameo.
Furthermore, you fast forwarded through the violent parts and destroyed the purity of our art. You evil bastard.
The ______ Agenda
We need to keep repeating this to everyone we can. Its a truth that needs 100 million repetitions.
-I.V.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Then there's the DMCA, also known as the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act". Well hell, it's got digital and millenium in it, so it must be good, right? INDUCE - oh well that one actually sounds a bit scary, but I guess that's because those dangerous VCR manufacturers just won't stop "inducing" us all to violate copyright.
This this winner has something called the CREATE Act (what do you bet this doesn't have anything to do with reforming copyright legislation to encourage actual creativity, and rather protects the vested interests of large media conglomerates). And the PDEA, aka "Pirace Deterrence and Education Act (Pirates bad, Education good, must be a good bill), and the PIRATE Act (Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act) - well, it's pretty clear that anybody who opposes this must be a pirate, since the bill tells you so right there.
Notice how it was the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" (well, it must be for the benefit of nice artists if it's got Sonny Bono's name on it), not the "Eliminate the Commons Constitutional Vandalism Act". It's sad that this stuff gets packaged and marketed this way.
Then when something actually in the public interest comes around, like getting rid of spyware, it's just the "Internet Spyware Prevention Act", no slick marketing labels, no crazy acronyms, there's really not much to say because it actually speaks for itself, and deals with one specific issue that is actually in our interest to deal with.
Add 1 line to the bill that is completely nonrelated:
n al .tree.ap/
Title III designates the national tree as the oak tree.
Instruct our "free" media to tell everyone about the bill:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/natio
It's good to know we can trust the media in this free country, eh?
Michael has none regarding governmental or political issues after last week. All articles will be filtered hence.
...they live in washington DC, which if you think on it, is THE most "welfare" run city in the world. Virtually every penny that gets spent and respent there has been forceably TAKEN from someone else originally. And I say "welfare" because they don't produce anything, the politicians and bureaucrats just take it! So of course they think weirdly about things. It's artifically an expensive city to live in, but, the people making the decision don't have to sweat a roof or meals or a limo ride, it's all free stuff, and when they aren't getting it by the bucket load from the public trough, bigco,inc. is lining up to give them more! Thou$ands just to go speak at some luncheon? Huh? That's employment, but I wouldn't call it "work". They lose touch with what things cost, what it really means to be joe average. To them, 20 buck CDs are chump change, they wouldn't stoop to grab a jackson if it fell out of their wallets and was blowing away in the wind. A ten dollar movie? eh, less than what they tip for a few drinks. And the big hollywood and music guys are the same way, they just don't get it on predatory pricing and how much they are charging for in essence a dimes worth of copy. Or, maybe they do and just want to keep it that way.
THEY want everything that modern advanced technology can bring THEM, they just don't want you or me to have the same deal. That's the real bottom line in this thing, monopolization of technology,the good stuff only for the "elites", none or very limited for the proles and serfs.
Why sit and bitch about it? "Oh, duh! This is /.!"/ senators_cfm.cfm
Promptly pick up the phone and call your Senator. I did. Took all of 2 minutes and I footed the bill for the call, elapsed time 1:11. Seriously, If your Senator read Slash, we'd never have these problems, but they more than likely do not do so, so exercise something other than your modems and make the effort, the same time it takes to type a reply to my message is more then enough for 99% of you to Google, your Senator http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information
and making the needed call. It may do some good, and it may not but the one thing you will be able to say is that you made the call. If ya don't then STFU, and bitch to someone else. I do not listen to Non Participants. If your not old enough, then make your voice heard to your parents, participation comes in many forms, but bitching is just a waste of time, and has led us to the point we are at now.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
I think it is amazing how the smallest section of the bill got the greatest amount of publicity. However, you can tell they are avoiding mentioning the copyright act by using language such as "The oak bill was passed as part of another bill that was approved by voice vote." I am thinking that the politicians are afraid of the outcry caused by such a bill. If that is true and this activity does hit mass media, it could gain enough mass to make a difference.
-Valen
"In all seriousness, WHY do you suppose copying a copyrighted music file illegally is already a felony in most cases (along with things like murder, kidnapping, and rape), whereas running into a store and swiping the actual CD is just a simple misdemeanor?"
d e17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html/
For those who will not actually read what the law says, and accept slashdot as gospel.
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
HA! I knew this was their plan! "Let's pretend our new copyright bill is really about the oak tree."
Misleading others to promote your opinion is not useful. It is actually quite damaging. Most people don't appreciate being lied to. If you lie about one part, all other parts of your argument will loose force when the lie is discovered. You're right though... It doesn't appear to make skipping commercials illegal, as long as you don't save a copy with the commercials clipped. If you do, well reading this...
- (B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible that is authorized under subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor
- ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture.
Great, so we have to rewrite QuickTime and Windows Media frameworks for the movie industry? Oh, and we have a whole 180 days to 'make it so'? Well isn't that generous of them? Where are the tech industry tax breaks to pay for this crap? Not only that, but this sounds like a really REALLY hard programming problem. So, umm, yeah, how? I suppose you have designed some kind of open, industry standard, fast and accurate a/v fingerprinting technology that thousands of brilliant programmers have been unable to produce in several decades time? I further suppose you boys in the Senate already have audio/video fingerprints for every copyrighted work on planet Earth on file and served up on a webserver, right? Oh you don't? Then how the fsck is my multimedia framework supposed to just know if this particular piece of media is copyrighted by XYZ corp or just a video of Joe Public's birthday party? This is the same kind of vague impossible task that courts handed Napster, except this time, it will be the whole industry having their ass handed to them. You can kiss iLife goodbye. Adios filmGIMP. What the hell are these people thinking? Good job boys, you just criminalized all home audio/visual editing software. If this should pass, I hope the tech industry discontinues ALL a/v products in retaliation. Kick Hollywood back into the a/v stone age for biting the hand that feeds it.i was just a lil pudknocker when cable teevee came out in the early 1970's. the big seeling point was "$7.00 a month and NO ADS!" naturally my dad was all over that shit.
it's like $50 now, full of ads, and now this law forces you to watch all the commercials!
when the village people sang YMCA i thought the USA was turning gay, now i know it is...not gay as in happy, not gay as in homosexual, but gay as in FUCKING STUPID!
"dude, who stole my country?"
*sigh*
a e5b6638e4fc6ab8469b519810b75/
The above is why no one takes this forum seriously.
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm?PHPSESSID=853
You can actually read what happens.
All your senator are belong to us.
Iam tired of all this raids against our fundamental rights by single-digit IQ politicians.
Iam migrating to a country like New Zealand or even Vanuatu...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
You are a domesticated animal and you have been trained to obey your masters voice.
This is what it all means.
"This attitude that the MPAA and the RIAA are just protecting their motion pictures and music is bullshit. They want to make sure that they are the one and only source for music and film."
You know what? I'll challenge ANYONE to show me specific wording in any of the laws present that prevent you, me, ANYONE from producing their own movie, music, or book. I can even distribute it.
That eliminated, leaves only "protecting our assets" which within scope is permissable.
Congress is ruled by the right-wing. Socialists
are left-wing. Also, socialists are, well, social.
It seems increasingly clear that Congress is
anti-social.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is why any talk of John Kerry flip-flopping is nonsense. Regardless of which candidate you support, you should be aware that voting for or against a bill on a certain subject, say taxes, does not mean what it would seem.
A senator or congressman may vote to raise taxes because the tax raise is minor and one of the riders is really important. He may vote against gun control because the bill has a loathesome rider.
Any representative who was honestly and intelligently representing his consituents *would* flip-flop, rather than voting on the hot button name of the bill. The result is a voting record that's speckled and looks inconsistent.
Legislation doesn't tabulate that way.
does this mean that they could put some sort of chip in my remote that will tell these companies when i fast forward thru the advertisements when i tape something? What about the Mute?!
Did you actually read the fucking bill? It sure didn't say "it must actually BE a movie theatre" under the section labeled "definitions." I'm amazed you would spend all that time writing something so easily disproven and so utterly wrong. You don't, perhaps, work for the whitehouse?
Go fuck yourself, Leahy.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There is a push to have government automatically prosecute perceived and presumed
copyright violations without the copyrights holder's request and perhaps even without his knowledge.
This seems to take away control of a copyrighted work from it's holder.
How bad is this going to get?
I think you may have misunderstood me. In fact, I'm on board with everything you wrote. In my own inept way I was trying to point out that your post was not really a troll at all. Great post, by the way. Welcome to my friends list.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Pulled the plug on the cable box today, back to the airwaves. Too much ($700 pa) for too little interesting. Save a fortune with PBS, Fox, CBS, NBC,ABC local broadcasters or cable modem. It was mostly drivel on the other channels too. I'll miss Discovery. We can talk when the price model and customer service become more reasonable or I move some place less extortionate. F*** the monopolists, politicos, etc, vote with your feet! I have already left the building.
If they're passing laws to support it then there's nothing about free enterprise involved... it's just Monopoly Socialism at its best.
There's no rule that says everything a company or rich individual does is the result of "free enterprise". Free enterprise, laissez-faire capitalism, has nothing to do with this corporate welfare, and rich people are just as complex, contradictory, and confused as anyone else.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"; said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
If however you so much as dared to skip the ads in magazines, you would be in trouble. Embedded chips in the pages would detect your violation of the publisher's intentions. They would signal your internet enabled fridge, which would contact the cops to come beat your sorry ass (because God knows, internet enabled fridges have got to do something right?).
To avoid this coming to pass, be sure to look at paper ads for at least 15 seconds before turning the page (and focus! we track the movement of your iris and your pupil dilation)
Also along more physically probable lines, if I were to accelerate myself to relativistic speeds in order to "fast-foward" (from my perspective) ads, would I be guilty of infringing on the mighty will of the broadcaster, or will this be treated similarly to getting a beer from the fridge (making the sentence merely a public flogging as opposed to death)?
The temporal prime directive is here, and it's labelled HR 4077.
always nice to see a group of people who are among those who know the least about technology writing the laws that will dictate how it will progress.
All the torrents you could want.
Wish I had mod points. All the more impressive considering the rather snarky comment it was replying to.
A few random observations:
- I don't think the "treatment of fame" issue is unique to politicians in the US; it seems to apply to business and media celebrities as well. I suspect it's a side-effect of the "Land of Opportunity" myth that's so pervasive in the US; if success is achieved (only) through talent and hard work, anybody with wealth/influence must automatically deserve it. (And, conversely, anybody without wealth or influence is either stupid or lazy and hence not worth bothering about.)
- I *do* worry that the problems seen in the US are at least partly a result of the concentration of power there relative to the size of the economy. Assuming for the sake of argument that all politicians everywhere are equally corrupt, a dollar spent bribing a US Congressman to pass a pro-corporate law will have a far greater payoff than the same dollar spent bribing a Dutch representative, so it stands to reason that corporations would invest a lot more time and money on manipulating the US. I'm generally in favour of European integration, but this issue does bother me. The EC's combined economy is bigger than the USA's; if policymaking becomes similarly concentrated, we can expect to see similar levels of lobbying. Look at the recent pressure on software patents, for example.
- I think you could have made more of the freedom of the press. The Reporters Without Borders 2003 report makes for interesting reading. The Netherlands are joint first for press freedom; the USA is at 31.
Incidentally, I live in the United Kingdom. Politically and socially we're somewhere in between the US and the Netherlands, but from here the Dutch extreme looks vastly more appealing.
There I was thinking that the government was supposed to pass laws on our behalf. It's pretty fucking clear that people don't want such draconian copyright laws. So a non-corrupt government would make copyright laws less draconian. Instead, the government is brainwashing the next generation into agreeing with the current draconian laws. Sounds like the "war on drugs" has been joined by the "war on the public domain". Remember - Just Say No[tm].
So we have massive industry representation by the RIAA and MPAA (who might as well be the same thing) and they are represented in congress by a number of senators. So where the fuck are the people represented? Wheres the massive public backed union who says "fuck that, you stay out of my house"? the EFF? the ACLU? somehow I don't think the balance is very fair considering how senators work - money = influence. Its either time for a big public group or time to change the way politics works and move towards some sort of democratic system. (remember folks, democracy = '1 person 1 vote', not '1 dollar 1 vote')
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I am from outside the US.
Are you sure you have seperation of church and state? Are you sure you have no taxation without representation?
Can you give the relevant quotes from your constitution?
A Nony Mouse
'"Land of Opportunity" myth that's so pervasive in the US; if success is achieved (only) through talent and hard work, anybody with wealth/influence must automatically deserve it. (And, conversely, anybody without wealth or influence is either stupid or lazy and hence not worth bothering about.)'
I think one of the biggest problems messing up the US today is the hijacking of these concepts.
Seems to me the Land of Opportunity and The American Dream used to refer to the dream that if you worked hard, you could live a decent life and no one, including the government would take it from you. Somehow that has been transformed to "get filthy rich quick with almost no work."
Also seemed to have something to do with no nobility.
A Nony Mouse
They have the money, the power, and the paitence..
Its just a matter of time before they have total control over all content, and get copyright laws moved into the criminal arena..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Put an audio tap on a phone line and record the modem squeeks as you transfer audio works between two computers.
Bend, chop, tweak, echo, etc, the recorded sounds.
Question: Would this recording qualify as a derivative work?
A Nony Mouse
A few comments regarding our Dutch friend's post:
-We have complete seperation of church and state, and as another poster noted, the US doesn't.
Curious how you come to this conclusion - from a legal or operational framework? Constitutionally there is a prohibition of the state recognizing and/or establishing a religion. If you study US history, you will see that the constitution did not occur in a vacuum, nor did it occur in 1848 (as did the Netherlands) with the benefit of hindsight and reference to the United States' own efforts.
It's also a bit totalitarian (god is always watching and sees everything you do).
One of the greatest errors in argumentation is avoiding the evaluation of the alternatives. Consider the alternatives to ethics and a belief in a higher order in government, and apply it to the most predominant faith-free governmental system of the 20th Century: socialism. This system accounted for more than 60 million humans being exterminated (China, USSR, Germany, Cambodia, etc.). Totalitarianism thrives in a system of no faith. Study the history of the Catholic church and how Christianity was permitted by the Romans in the first place - it was a peaceful religion which was well received by the order of the day. Only when it has been co-opted and corrupted by totalitarian orders (not the faith itself) has it been responsible for any tyranny.
Another reason religion has no place in government is because reality is always changing, the bible has only been updated once and that was a long time ago.
Aha... spoken like a true athiest. Why didn't you say so? You clearly don't understand what it is about (Note: I didn't for 30+ years either). Read Don't Know Much about the Bible written by a recognized lawschool scholar and long-time skeptic who like me thought the Bible was an amusing but irrelevant book.
Look at it this way: religion provides a low-level "formatting" that establishes an ethical framework for thinking. It is unpopular with relativists and collectivists as it inhibits nihlistic thought and tends to anchor people in truth fundamentals, rather than allowing redefinition and total bending of perception. Societies weak on a religious foundation readily kill, redefine Jews as rats, engage in mass paranoia, etc. Look at how many times Europe has readily descended into bloodthirsty acts, only to be rescued by the "primative religous nuts" of the US. Please, don't even begin to lecture us on totalitarianism.
Most Dutch just can't believe so many people are voting for Republicans, I guess we're not in their "reality distortion field".
It truly is sad when someone can be misled to such a point that they believe everyone else is fooled but them. This is the mark of the perfect sheep, readied for slaughter. Dachau, here we come again.
I'm hestitant to get into the details and facts as I know they'll do no good for you (e.g. Oil for Food paying off the EU, Germans and French giving WMD tech to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc., Blix being a useful fool, European approval for genocide in Africa, with the Kurds, etc.). You still have blood on your hands and haven't changed your ways of your genocidal past, whether it was Dutch institution and profit from the slave trade, Dutch/French/English/German/Portugese colonialization and tyranny over other peoples, extermination of Jews, etc.
And yet you blame stupid US conservatives (who are the people wise to your ways)? You need to wake up and start accounting for three-hundred-plus years of delusion and abuse, my friend.
What would happen if...
only people could own shares in corporations?
Would it help the situation? Would it cause problems? Explain.
A Nony Mouse
BTW we should either not tax corporations or not tax dividens. I think I prefer the former if we take away their personhood.
...that sounds like tin foil talk to me. Nut.
The problem with DRM When I was reading 1984 I always wondered how they could instantly change all the newspapers and constantly rewrite history and make it up to date. Since all the newspapers would have already been distributed. There would be traces left. A combined Hardware and software DRM seems to allow this. Since you are giving material to people without actually giving it to them, you can always change it. And distribution systems will definitely favor DRM instead of physical media because it is so much more 'convenient'. If a license to temporarily view something with various restrictions becomes the dominant form of ownership, freedom is definitely going down the tubes. It wouldnt be so much a dictatorship but the replacement of personal artifacts and memory by a culturally/centrally owned artifacts and memories. We wouldnt have a license to remember what we forgot. Pretty isn't it? "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever." 1984
We have these giant bills that cover many unrelated topic and then in the campaign adds you here "My goodness, candidate X wouldn't even support the Oak Trees".
I am not sure how any bill can ever get passed.
the whole situation is really distressing me. The parent is right IMO about the problem beginning with the legal bribing of politicians.
Don't be distressed. Understand that it is the nature of a good amount of people to grease skids, take bribes, etc. - in fact, try doing business in the third world without doing so. You'll be shut out. Corruption, payoff, etc. is the standard in most of the world.
Why is it more visible in the US? Ask yourself why it isn't visible in Europe and you'll have a clue. The US system has more opportunity to expose corruption. In Europe, it is accepted by the established social-political order.
Ask yourself as well which you would prefer:
1. a United States where there never was any controversy regarding corruption and bribery, or
2. a United States where it is exposed when it occurs?
If you understand human nature, you'll demand the latter. You'll understand that in darkness and when held unaccountable, man tends to steal, cheat, sell out his fellow man, rape his neighbor's wife, and sell his neighbor's children into slavery.
Which raises the question: Why are Europeans on the wrong side of this issue? Why do they point the finger at Americans (who expose fraud when it is found) and pretend their own leaders and their political system is incapable of these crimes?
The answer is painful to persons of reason. Europe has never truly been "free". The same social classes that controlled it 200 years ago still do today. Ask yourself why this social order permitted mass emigration to occur, letting millions of people necessary for the workforce to leave for the United States?
The answer is that they needed to cull the herd, removing it of the independent thinkers. Entrepreneurs, men of reason, challengers to authority, future "cowboys" were all encouraged/forced to leave (and a nasty side effect being the sudden emergence of the United States as a superpower, due to the product of these hard working people's efforts). The social order desired a herd that did not question its directives. Many experts attribute the 1900s emergence of high-order tyranny, the embracing of leftist fascism and the extermination of populations, is directly attributed to the emigration policy of the 1800s. Throughout Russia, France, Germany, Italy, etc., the resident population consisted of unquestioning sheep. Today they are no better - the very few critical thinkers are so much the minority that they dare not stand out.
What the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and other remaining free-thinking nations must be wary of is that the old world nations not only are incapable of policing themselves, but there are new wolves that know how to manipulate these sheep. We have a greater threat than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined. Look at how Iran, for instance, has totally fooled the old Europe order. They've rendered them useless fools, through payoffs in the spirit of Iraq's Oil for Food program, and understand that a decade of manipulation and trickery with the useless, impotent Europeans will allow them to rise as a world nuclear power. Then the Europeans will no longer be necessary.
Let them fret over Kyoto treaties, anger at false Hitlers (e.g. Bush) and confuse themselves. Reward their leaders with bribes (e.g. Chirac). Stall their pathetic United Nations with false promises while racing to develop WMDs. Instill distrust of the truth, causing them to directly challenge the United States (the only roadblock to nuclear supremecy over the Europeans). Use the political philosophies their great writers established 600 years ago that they have forgotten to drive them to the ground.
In ten years, Europe will pay. Islam will rise. A new order will emerge. This is your future, Europe.
A good summary of research into the plight of continental Europeans, combined with the spread of anti-semitism associated with their philosophy, can be found in this United Press International report. Some notable quotes:
The collapse of globalization and consequent rise of totalitarianism set the stage for the end of the great Judaeo-German hybrid civilization of Europe and its French counterpart. Those European Jews who were left alive at the end of the war overwhelmingly desired to leave, and they left to two destinations: Israel, and the Anglosphere.
With this emigration, on top of the previous great Jewish emigration to London and New York in the late 19th century, much of the energy, creativity and contributions of European Jews were given to the Anglosphere rather than the Continent. The cost to the Continent, and the benefits to the Anglosphere has never, to my knowledge, been calculated. The cost might never be calculable, but it is real.
Continental Europeans, helped by the Marshall Plan and American investment, rebuilt their countries with vigor after 1945. Led by the last generations to mature in the environment of the hybrid Jewish-European civilization, Europe seemed to pick up where it left off in 1933.
Gradually, however, Europe seemed to run out of creativity, in everything from arts, to academia, to demographic vigor, to the will to political reform. Endless rehashing of elsewhere-discredited Marxism replaced creative political thought. Overt fascism and national chauvinism were banned, but a new Euro-chauvinism took its place, loudly proclaiming the superiority of European ways over crude American ones -- a new chauvinism on a wider scale, based like the old national chauvinism primarily on resentment.
The widespread anti-Americanism in the world, of which Continental Europe is the ultimate source, has almost nothing to do with the character of President George W. Bush or the current administration, or other such cosmetic issues.
Definite must read if you want to understand why Sen. Kerry so desparately desires to be liked by the French and Germans (he is a classic continentalist, funded by true continentialists such as Soros - amusingly a self-loathing Jew who is bankrolling the next genocide of his people), why the continentialists are incapable of using reason to support any of their arguments, and why they readily accept the bribes and orders of anti-industrial society Islamic extremists.
Well I would like to thank the AC (*chuckle*) for saying what he did. Now we have the answer to the question "what will you do to get free movies, music, and books". Keep up the good work. I'm certain history will remember you fondly.
Seriously talking about extreme measures when you haven't even made the effort to go through channels, nor even did your civic duties before all this, makes you look bad. It's your job to watch the watchers, no one elses. Were was you when the Sonny Bono Act was winding it's way through congress? What about all the rest? Maybe that's one of the reasons the rest of the world feels uneasy around the US. Our tendency to gravitate towards force in order to solve problems. Makes us seem more like a third-world nation than anything else. "Hey! We were not paying attention at all, but we'll make up for lost time by shooting anyone who stands in our way."
What do you mean "Christian or Catholic"? Catholics are a Christian sect.
That's actually something Kerry was doing at the beginning. Didn't work so well... the explanations were far too long and complex to work on TV. Many of them simply couldn't be explained to an ordinary voter at all.
:)
I'm no supporter of the "philosopher king" model of protecting "stupid" voters, but many voters do not want to wade through the intricacies of federal legislation. They want someone they can trust to do that for them. Bush seems like such a man to many... he won't bother you with the details. He'll take care of it. Don't worry.
The problem is that they are basing that trust on a flawed metric of voting consistency. Far better to see what the candidate has himself done... has he stolen or put others lives at risk through his partying? Has he put corporate interests above those of the common good when not a politician? Did he turn on his comrades when let out of the army by denouncing them as rapists and murderers? (A little against both sides.
The mud-slinging everyone denounces isn't really that bad. It may be a cheap and vicious way to get at a candidate, but it's at least arguing about the merits of a man that an ordinary person can understand.
Quotes from house discussions of bills are also pretty good. They may be out of context, but are not so hideously malformed as a voting record.
An awful lot of house vote trading is done after everyone is sure which way a bill's going to go anyway... if your representative sees that a very good bill is going to pass no matter what, it may be worth voting against that bill as a favour to some group so you can get a quid pro quo on something else that's important.
Only a stupid representative would vote entirely on the merits of the main point of any bill everytime. The smarter the representative is, the more effective he is, the more likely his record is to be speckled. It's the representatives who've sold out you can rely on... there's no higher bidder competing with the tobacco lobby, there'll be no switching horses in midstream on something like that.
These subtleties are hard to explain to someone who isn't an avid political amateur, but this part is easy: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." You have to be willing to adjust to circumstances.
I understood the part about skipping objectionable content while not skipping commercials to make products like Cleanflicks legal.
You do realize, of course, that nothing whatsoever precludes him from being, greedy, corrupt, and a dumbass ...
I live in mexico and the situation is just worse, most of our politicians ARE CORPORATE CEOS, or relatives of, or employed by... it just plain sucks!
:(
Its a well known fact that politicians bribe the lowest class -the most numerous group- so they vote for them. I case you wonder, they bribe them with food
But... the future refused to change.
:)
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Heck, I'm even planning on giving him some money so my opinion has some validity.
Wow, America is fucked.
A new political action committee called IPac ("defending the public interest where culture and technology meet") has just compiled a list of six congressional candidates whom they believe to have good records on IP issues. If you're looking for a quick list of people to throw your support behind, here it is:
http://ipaction.org/candidates.html
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
The problem I see with the Pledge, the "In God We Trust" etc on our currency is that it endorses a specific set of religions-- Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (and other derivatives of Judaism) at the expense of most others as if they are not valid religions.
Yeah, we are a Christian Nation..... That is why our Capitol building has a statue of a Greek Goddess (Liberty) on it, and why it is indeed named after the Roman Temple of Jupiter....
The Founding Fathers may have been Christian but they greatly valued the contributions of our Greek, Anglo-Saxon, and Roman forbearers, all of which contributed values which are more in line with Hinduism than with Christianity (or rather those which are in line were borrowed from the Greeks later...)
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion. This assumption leads inescapably to the notion that religion and religious leaders must be deeply involved in government and law. This is why theocracy has always been deeply entrenched in the Islamic world, and this is less contradictory than the idea that we have a separation of church and state and that we are a Christian nation.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation. If we were, we would be a theocracy not unlike Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and others. Or at least a state like Israel where religious observances are written into the laws. Indeed we are primarily a nation which draws on ancient pre-christian ideas (Greek philosophers, who as Georges Dumezil points out in many cases were expressing cultural values also expressed in Indo-European myth). It is from this Indo-European base that the separation of church (priest) and state (king) comes from. This separation is echoed in the Vedic Hymns to Mitra and Varuna, and appear in many other Indo-European traditions as well. As a basic primer, I would recommend "Gods of the Ancient Northmen" by Georges Dumezil...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The technology will outpace the current copyright law soon. There is no reason to have physical original copies of music or movies when any entertainment that can be digitized can be offered from satellites in space. Howard Stern is so far out in front of people on this, he's probably very dangerous. People with bizarre tastes in movies or music can be presented with anything they want to see or hear. The key is to understand that the price for this can be laughably small. Obscure artists who make NO money presently can be offered for their fan's enjoyment. Sadly, this model offers very little recompense for the RIAA enforcers. Too bad. Get out of the road if you want to grow old!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Just that small correction. Catholics are Christian. You may have meant Christians (including catholics)
What if you are a Hindu? Or some other polytheist (like, say, a practitioner of Santaria?
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
The very idea of separation of church and state is at odds with the fundamental assumption of "definite monotheism" where one believes that one can describe a supreme being and hence there is a singular true religion.
Well, yes and not. Logically, I think you stand on solid ground, but, philosophically, which is what we're talking about in the end, I think your position is greatly weakened. Philosophically, I don't think it matters if it says, "god" or "gods", from a monotheistic or polytheistic position. A majority says it's "god", while a minority says it's "gods". Beyond that, we're talking about such a minor (numerically) portion of what was 40% of the US population, I'm forced to say, who cares. After all, majority is what is SUPPOSED to rule here.
The truth is that we are *not* a Christian nation.
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
So what. Out government is supposed to be based on the MAJORITY, not the minority. Historically, our government has become more and more hosed by catering to the minority rather than majority. I'm not saying that minority positions should be swept under the rug, but let's face it, you will NEVER make EVERYONE happy. Period.
Of course not. Therefore we have a set of rules which exist to allow the majority to have reasonable governing power while protecting the rights of the minority. This is one of the functions of the constitutional protections. For exxample, freedom of expression is far more protective of the minority than of the majority. Hence flag burning is protected speech.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
When I said that we were not a Christian nation, you replied:
Statistically, you would be incorrect. Ideaologically, the US is. Now then, that does not mean that our government is run as a theocracy. Which supports that we have successful seporation of church and state.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties). Our government is supposed to be completely removed from endorsing or banning specific religious groups.
As to our ideology-- often I think that the writings of Plato and Aristotle have had more of an impact on our cultural identity than the Bible. They certainly have had a greater impact on our concept of the role of law and of the government, but in these areas, their views were fundamentally pagan.
For example, if you look at the Middle East-- a region which gave birth not only to Christianity, but to its closest sibling religion and its mother (Judaism), you see a place where religion is institutionalized in law in a way in which it is not in the US. This is true whether you look at Israel or Iran, Lebanon or Egypt. The weakest of these cases is to be made for Turkey but they were Indo-European-speaking for the most part up until the Turkic invasions.
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature? We have a giant statue of a Graco-Roman goddess (our national patron?) in New York Harbor and on the top of our Capitol building (and the Capitol was historically the Roman temple to Jupiter). Even the Washington Monument is nothing more than a giant Egyptian obilisk....
Or are you suggesting that these are all Christian symbols?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If we are a Christian country as opposed to merely a country of Christians, perhaps you can explain why our national monuments are primarily of a pagan nature?
I think you're pedantically playing semantics here. While you appear to be making such a distinction of Christian country versus a country of Christians, I was using the two synonymously. Meaning, I think of the US as being a country of Christians (~60%), whereby, I can refer to it as a Christian country, by majority.
I'm a little rushed right now, but I'll read and think more about your posts sometime in the near future.
By your logic, the first ammendment should not prevent the majority from outlawing, say Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism.
What? I think you misread what I typed or you replied to the wrong person? I never said anything which could come to mean anything of the nature. According to "my logic", the constitution PREVENTS the majority from outlawing Islam, Judaism, or Catholicism. According to "my logic", you're out in left field.
The very fact that we are not a theocracy means that our nation is not associated with one religious ideology or even a group of them (note that Iran's parliament contains representatives of religious groups rather than of political parties).
The US is not a theocracy. This, we seem to agree. Just the same, clearly the US IS heavily influenced by our Christian heritage. And since the majority is still Christian, you will find laws following the majority's ideology. No bones about it. So, while most religions are well tolorated in the US, that does not mean there is zero sociological impact. Having said, the impact and influence is indirect, which is why we are not a theocracy. Having said that, it's still fair to say, the US is mostly a country of Christians.
As for the rest of your comments, you're all over the map. You seem to be commenting on things which I never stated.
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
When I say we are not a Christian nation, I do not mean that we are not a nation of Christians or that Christianity has not has a substantial impact. Instead I am saying that our nation is neither organized on nor operated in accordance with principles which can be derived even through substantial leaps of logic from the bible. This represents at least a substantial distance between our national structure (and perhaps soul) and the predominant religion of the country.
Also, have thought about the question about what exactly is a Christian culture. I think that there used to be a strong Christian culture in this country, but that at the moment, this has actually waned substantially.
At the same time, our cultural and governmental foundations seem to be more in line with those of our classical forebearers than that of any Christian church. Indeed our government has a long history of building our government on what can only be called pagan symbolism. The building in which Congress meets is built to be a great Cathederal to Lady Liberty (a Greco-Roman goddess whose statue stands in New York Harbour).
This is one of the great contradictions in our culture-- that we are a nation of Christians but still our nation's structure and monuments have deeply (and predominantly) pagan roots. That many things which might be immoral from a Christian perspective are our protected rights (abortion, blasphemy, etc), yet we are a nation predominantly populated by Christians....
I have said elsewhere that the *only* form of government philosophically in line with the idea of a single true religion (which most Christians think that Christianity is) is a theocracy. This is why theocracy is so common in Middle Eastern cultures.
Instead we have opted to go an older set of values. This includes a separation of sovereignty between the priests and heads of state, a concept that the structure of society is more important than the idea that the structure and/or legal tradition is somehow in line with the will of a singular supreme being. This set of ideals has derived from the cultural systems which arose with the Indo-European culturo-linguistic group approx. 4000 years ago, and it is not in line with the Afroasiatic ideals (those of ancient Egypt, Ethiopia, Arabia, and Israel).
While one can argue that Christianity arose from the fusion of the Jewish (Afroasiatic) and Greek (Indo-European) ways of thinking, the Bible itself does not support Indo-European social and cultural ideals-- these are nearly completely taken from the Afroasiatic world.
So it seems interesting that we have such phrases as "In God We trust" yet what are perhaps our greatest monuments (Statue of Liberty, Capitol Building) are seemingly dedicated to a pagan goddess.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I think perhaps we have different definitions of Christian ideology and what is a Christian nation. So perhaps we don't disagree with eachother as much as we think...
:)
:)
That's what I said. LOL.
For the most part, I didn't have a problem with your commentary. Rather, the pushback came from misinterpreations of my statements.
I think you make some excellent points! Especially about the sociological duality of our nation, as it relates to religios ethos, in light of the fact that the US, statistically, is a "Christian nation." (Hmmm...wonder if I could make a sentence that sounds even more like mumbo-jumbo-BS...hehe).
When I have more time, I'll have to come back and re-read your post. I think you're got some interesting and insightful tidbits hidden with.
Thanks. Cheers.