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 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'.
Power corrupts, absolute power is kind of neat.
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.
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
Just kidding. i am playing devils advocate here and I agree with you 100%. Tons of our rights have been stripped away in the USA. However, we have to suck it up because the Dems and Repubs have a monopoly on the voting system and prevent 3rd party candidates.
Our law makers pretty much just give in to whoever has the most cash and let the courts (our tax dollars) pick the winner in disputes. However, most of our judges are corrupted as well. Some supreme judges ruled that corporations have "freedom of speech" and are allowed to give bribes (campaign contributions), to the law makers. It is really sad that a non-human (corporation) is given _MORE_ rights in the USA then a US citizen. As a US Marine, I say it is time for a revolution to take back what is ours.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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....
"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?
He's not a dumbass at all. He's just greedy and corrupt. There is a slight difference.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
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/
Feel free to message me with any additional information.
Regards,
Tom
Speaking about power corrupting...
Having just read much of the transcript from the session, I am appalled at how out of touch our lawmakers are with their constituents!
At no time did they reflect on how distorted the current laws are! At no time did any representative ask if this would help the public good! At no time did they consider if this would help promote the creative arts!
They did reflect that it would increase H$$llyw$$d revenue. And artists themselves get 8 cents each.
Do they ONLY represent the mega-corporation producers?
How did they get *so* out of touch?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
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.
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?
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?
Erm, you don't get it do you. So what if I sent out a billion copies of the next Britaney Shears Song? It does not even REMOTELY come close to the effect of my killing a person.
So you are saying that your life is merely worth the same as an arbitary number of digital copies of some media?
If that's the case it is really very sad to be you.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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?
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.
So how much crime does there have to be, before the punishment does fit the crime, and why is the line drawn so arbitrarily?
I don't know how much there has to be, but it has to be a LOT more than this. They can already sue for damages up to $150,000 per SONG. That's before I even get into potential prison sentences.
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. 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.
A CD stolen from a store, on the other hand, IS lost revenue, plain and simple. Not to mention it's probably 10-15 songs that are stolen. The CD also has the same potential to be illegally distributed as the audio files do, since it's a simple matter to create the files once you have the CD.
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?
I'm watching the US from a distance, it's slowly going to hell. A real hell where real people live right now, not the imaginary one that doesn't exist.
I think the topic of this discussion is a side-effect. I think, the question this all starts with is: how can you stop American politicians from being legally bribed?
It's really obvious looking from the outside in that America is rotting, it's more difficult to see from the inside because the ones that are trying to control the government, and succeeding in my opinion, are the ones that feed you information through TV.
You guys and girls have to do something because it's going to influence the rest of the world when America, with it's giant military/industrial complex is going to hell. You either vote for Republicans so they speed up the nastyness and it's obvious to everyone. Or you have to slowly take back control. We've already had a Hitler and it gets pounded into us at school, the events that lead up to his rise to power. You want to have a live example before you realize? Or take our word for it that it's not such a good idea.
It's so obvious to outsiders that republicans are lyars, and we're like, "why can't Americans see the truth?".
- -- Truth addict for life.
The site does no such thing, i just went there and everything works fine.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Alright, so it won't actually stop a politician from being bribed, but it can make you feel real good aftwards.
It's so obvious to outsiders that republicans are lyars (sic), and we're like, "why can't Americans see the truth?".
It's obvious to many of us on the inside also. You have to remind yourself that like it or not, America was founded by Puritans for Puritans. The fact that others came and flourished was almost an after thought. We do have separation of church and state, but it's pretty much laughed at since day one. Seriously, we have "under God" in our pledge (though introduced in the 1950's) and have had "in God we trust" on all of our currency since long before I was born.
However, the Republicans still appeal to these people. The religious folks say, "I'm glad he took out those damn Arabs... I'm glad he's against Roe v. Wade... I'm glad he believes in supporting 'faith baised' organizations." Thus, they are able to completely ignore all other facts. Keep in mind, many of these people are the same folks who believe that the Earth was created in under 7 days.
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
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?
...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.
You bash the Republicans, but how are the democrats any better?
Classic retort. I love how whenever anyone questions the Republicans that someone always has to say something like the Democrats are just as bad.
But the sad thing is that even as little as 20 years ago this was more true than it is now. The neo-cons have turned the republican party into a farce of what it's values were supposed to represent. Smaller government, more freedom (ie liberty), national independence (ie a self-sustaining nation).
It's easy to point at the Democrats and say they have done bad things because all politicians have but the simple fact of the matter is that the Republicans have done more damage to the liberty, safety, and overall strength of the USA than anyone else has in recent history. And all for the glory, power, and wealth of the few. Stick that in your pipe and smoke on it for a while.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
*I* never suggested you were a kook :)
Here is what happens to your data on publicknowledge.org:
None of your information is stored beyond that point. For more information you can read the Public Knowledge Privacy Policy linked at the foot of every page on the site.
The whole system is currently referred to as the Public Action Manager but will be properly released under the name Athens. All the code is Open Source (GPL) and can be found Subversion repository.
All that being said, I have no clue what problem you are experiencing but I have filed it as a bug regardless. I'm sorry that you think it is intentional and not a bug in the page or Mozilla itself.
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.
You have to remember over 50% of the voters, voted against BUSH, and more voted for GORE than BUSH. Yet due to the screwed-up Electorial College (which may have served a purpose long ago but is useless now), we unfortunately got BUSH.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Maybe you can give us some help here. How exactly do you keep the politicians honest and concerned with public welfare in this place where you 'watch the US from a distance'?
/. poster comes to mind in this respect. Something like: Being a patriot is supporting your country always and your government sometimes. The current U.S. government is almost saying you're a traitor if you're critical of the government.
This isn't a flamebait. It just a question; what do people do in the place you are to keep the political process working and balanced?
I'm writing to you from the Netherlands. Hi.
The best way to answer your question is to point out the differences between our countries:
- We don't allow anyone to give money to our politicians. In the US there are ways for someone to give money to politicians. This is the "legally bribed" part I mentioned earlier. Giving someone money is a good way to make them do your bidding so the most important part of your answer is already in your question.
- We have a culture of being very critical of everything in the Netherlands. We always have an opinion on everything and we need to know the ins and outs of a certain subject before we're satisfied that we've been told the truth. Handy for keeping our government honest, not so good in emergency situations (is that siren really indicating an emergency, i'm not so sure, investigation time).
- We have complete seperation of church and state, and as another poster noted, the US doesn't. When you think about it, religion isn't very democratic. The bible is full of kings and there's the ultimate king who's always right and who's word is always law. It's also a bit totalitarian (god is always watching and sees everything you do). 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.
- Ofcourse we have corrupt politicians or people who want to be. The best way for them to keep their illegal income is to hide the fact that they're on the take. Like I said, we're critical in the Netherlands and it shows in the way we treat politicians. When you think about it, they're just human beings like you and me. Most of the time they're not even smarter than us, just more educated or better connected. In my country they have a certain level of fame, ofcourse, but mostly we have the attitude of: "do your job of managing the country, if you don't do it well or you lie about it, we fire you and you can find another job". In contrast, what I can see from the U.S. mindset, everyone's like: "OMG OMG, it's the president of the United States, a demi-god right here among us, WOW, I just saw the emperor of earth on TV". As far as I know, not enough people have been fired for lying or not doing their job (Irak, September 11). U.S. politicians are still lying and getting away with it. A sig from another
- The average education level of the population here is higher than the average level in the U.S. This, together with the religion thing, the non-firing of lyars and the uncritical thinking of the population. It leads to the bamboozling/spinning of the voters. If voters can be made to believe in this political disneyworld where everything is fine and the president is always right, then why would they need to be honest? They can just spin some more and everyone will still vote for them. As I said in my original post, most Dutch just can't believe so many people are voting for Republicans, I guess we're not in their "reality distortion field".
- Corporations have less influence on politics in the Netherlands, corporations are very organized and better connected than citizens. They can make a bigger lobbying fist than us.
My advice, Stop trying to fix symptoms like the Induce Act, you're spending precious political energy on the wrong thing. Use obvious wrongs like the induce act as examples of why the core issues should be tackled.
The core issues, in my opinion
- -- Truth addict for life.
As someone who was (and to an extent, still is) an American-ophile (is that a word?) the whole situation is really distressing me. The parent is right IMO about the problem beginning with the legal bribing of politicians.
I think the problems would almost entirely stop if the US banned political donations from corporations. The INDUCEs, the DMCAs, the targeted top end tax cuts, even the Iraq War.
I know many Americans are going to be saying that "why the hell should we listen to him? He's a foreigner, he should have no say". Well, fair enough, except you're exporting both your Corporation-centric laws and, quite obviously, your foreign policy. There's also your environmental policy. When the US sneezes, the rest of us get covered in slobber.
And the rot stems from the politicians trying to keep the big donators happy - the big business end of town. That's the goal for politicians now in the US. But it's not making Americans happy; it is, as the parent said, rotting the US from the inside. If making your corporations the centre-piece of your country at the expense of everything else had a benefit for the country, then great. But it doesn't. It makes people unhappy. Dead kids coming back in body bags from Iraq. Assault weapons legally available for sale on the streets. No international environmental laws (like Kyoto), even though your country is getting pounded by hurricanes. Even little things, like being unable to copy your CDs to your iPod. It all stems from too much money corrupting the democratic process.
I never thought I'd say this, but I am looking forward to the day when China provides a counter-balance to the US's might. The Chinese goal of doing what's best for the state, as opposed to the new US goal since the end of the Cold War of doing what's best for the corporation, is probably going to be more world friendly than the present US position.
Ask yourself - since Bush has come to power, what positive or great thing has been achieved in the world? There's a mess in Iraq, a mess in Afghanistan, no Kyoto while the Florida Quays sinks under hurricanes, trade wars with Europe... he's leading your country, and with it the world, into disaster.
-- james
"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
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
Hi, Here's another answer from the Netherlands
Do you put reporters in jail when they write about political payoffs in the newspapers?
Of course not! It is even extremely rare that a reporter gets threatened by court to reveal his sources, and I can't offhand recall an instance where the reporter was actually forced to do that.
Do you have no corrupt politicians?
Of course we do - they're human, after all. But the other reply to your post makes clear what we do about them. Last cabinet formation it turned out that one potential sub-secretary of state had 'forgotten' to tell about her stint in the Surinam 'army' of Bouterse (check google - there's a lot of backstory). She now holds the record for shortest amount of time "in office".
-John
Unfortunately, the Dutch online political discourse is almost entirely monopolised by neo-cons who do their utmost best to shout down any dissenting viewpoint.
Just try even being moderately left-wing on an online forum these days. The funny bit is that by acting like this, the neo-cons set up an online media that is as biased in favour of the power elite as is the traditional media. I have seen Fortuyn supporters shout down dissent by effectively stating that ordinary citizens shouldn't have a say in politics, exactly the opposite of what he was preaching (and despite my own left leanings, I agree with Fortuyn's assessment of Dutch politics).
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Ok, last post for me in this thread, if you want to continue the discussion I suggest we take it to e-mail (the address is valid).
What worries me most is this: Fortuyn was an attack on the power elite coming from the right. He was fair in his attacks, both right-wing and left-wing politicians got rightly condemned for being more concerned about their own positions than about the state of the country (IOW acting like a typical power elite). Yet after his death, his successors and supporters have used the broad popularity of Mr. Fortuyn, not to destroy the power elite, but to become part of it themselves.
What saddens me most is to see the common people still blindly supporting these politicians, thinking that they are still standing up to the system, while the people are still being screwed.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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.
Seriously, we have "under God" in our pledge (though introduced in the 1950's) and have had "in God we trust" on all of our currency since long before I was born.
This is something I see all the time. You are confused. Separation of church and state, does not mean that state can not make reference to, or imply that others worship in a church. The sole intent of this is to prevent a) a national religion, b) ensure that government does not trample on the rights of other religions, c) ensure that government is not unduly influenced by church authority (eg, the Pope/Vatican), and d) ensure that those that do, or do not, practice a religion, are not persecruted by members of government.
Specifically, as it relates to your pledge reference, it does not qualify, any more than references to god on a coin means anything, from a government perspective. This is a historically accurate statement and seeingly, recently (and historically) re-enforced by the SC.
Those that seem to take your wacky, hardline position, to me, see as far out in left field as the wacky religious zealots are in right. Simple fact is, those trying to take "god" references off of money and out of the pledge are attempting to serve their own corrupt agenda and hide behind ignornance of "seporation of church and state".
As someone who was (and to an extent, still is) an American-ophile (is that a word?) the whole situation is really distressing me. The parent is right IMO about the problem beginning with the legal bribing of politicians.
I think the problems would almost entirely stop if the US banned political donations from corporations. The INDUCEs, the DMCAs, the targeted top end tax cuts, even the Iraq War.
I think you'll find that there are three categories of people on this matter. One, those that are informed, will completely agree with you. Sadly, most Americans are ignorant, uneducated, and wish to remain as such (which, to me, suggest the right to vote bar should be raised, because our current system is NOT what our forefathers intended. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Period.). Which is the second category. That is, the ignorant slobs, which happily ignore this, inspite of efforts to educate, because they simply don't care. And third, is the people that benefit from this corrupt system.
Long story short, there are two minorities that are involved here. One minority is the group that wants to stop this horrible form of "legal" corruption. The second minority are those in government which benefit from it. Sadly, it's the second group with all the power. This leaves the "unwashed masses" as our only hope. Needless to say, these are the people most easily swayed by the power of the corrupt beneficiaries.
And so, it's leaves us (Americans) in a horrible position. By allowing everyone in the US to vote, a lot of power was removed form the hands of the people that were purposely put in power to prevent this type of abuse. Originally land owners were the only ones with the right to vote. While I can't say that I think such a qualification is just, today, I can say that I believe there should be some such qualification required for the right to vote. In fact, I think it should be an earned privelege to the responsible rather than a given right. Liberty is something we must all work to ensure. It is not given. It is not free. Likewise, the right to vote should be entrusted to those that earn it. Exactly what earning the right should be, I can't say, but our current system is horribly corrupt and broken. No doubt about that. And the majority of our ignorant masses ensures that it stays that way.
In a day when companies have more rights than people and a select few wield more power than the "voting population", whereby, power has already been removed form the hands of the very people (the voting populas) that are supposed to balance the government and corrupt leaders, I can't see that my ideas are any worse. Heck, they actually are more inline with the principals our whole government was originally built on, than what we currently have today.
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