Slashdot Mirror
Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA?
dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law 'to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."
No differnces between these two candidates? Ok, I don't expect deep political analysis from a tech columnist anymore than I expect a clear understanding of tech from a political one, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.
Although I do give credit for his well researched analysis of the tech policies of each candidate. Even though Kerry hasn't done squat on the issues in his two decades in the Senate, by vigorously enforcing DMCA and working to exoort it, Bush is causeing harm. If Kerry could have passed the smell test I might have voted for him on the least harm principle.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
Democrat delenda est
this is one of those issues where the factions don't line up neatly with the party lines
1 .h tml,
See Ed Felten's blog from about 10 days ago:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/00070
where he asks, rhetorically, "Do the Democrats really want to be known as the party that would ban fast-forwarding?"
(P.S., Leahy is up for election this year in VT.)
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
Why not? Ever since Truman, it seems, laws and the Constitution certainly don't matter. Every war since WWII has been undeclared. Executive Priviledge and the Executive Order rule what actually happens, not law. All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.
He has not. What does that tell you?
It tells me that he's busy on the campaign trail and not wasting his time trying to write bills he knows wouldn't pass given the current Senate configuration.
Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.
If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.
See what I've been reading.
Why is it that every post on Slashdot these days that mentions Bush or Kerry winds up with partisan nonsense? This article is about the DCMA and how Kerry has indicated that he would be open to re-eximining it. However, half the posts are about Iraq and the possibilty of the American Union crumbling if one or the other is elected.
I for one, feel that Kerry indicating that the DCMA may be opened for examination is a positive point. This discussion may raise the issue to the fore such that it becomes a issue for debate (or relentless repition of partisan talking points as the American media is wont to do). Lets hope that the tech folks out there continue to voice their concern over the stupid DCMA and that Senators and possibly presidents are open to understanding just how sweeping that law is. The may lead to change and rewriting of the law.
Let's hope so at least.
Kerry was a senator when the DMCA was passed. How did he vote?
Both of the candidates will say whatever they have to to win, so it's better to look at their actions rather than their words. There has been one case so far where Senator Kerry had to decide about security vs. freedom, and he came out on the right side: when offered by the secret service, he refused temporary flight restrictions around his campaign stops, so that private aviation is not disrupted or shut down the way it is when the president or vice-president visit a town.
Since he's not likely to win any votes that way (I mean, how many of you really care?), the choice suggests a real personal preference for freedom over security. Perhaps that preference will carry through to the DMCA, though that may depend more on the cabinet than the president.
Indeed, it's no coincidence that the words "liberal" and "liberty" both start with "liber", Latin for "free". I'm personally against many things that I would nevertheless oppose passing laws against. It's not the government's job to tell people how to believe when it isn't hurting anyone else. Unless you have some solid proof that more people are harmed by gay marraige than a lack of it, or by abortion than by abortion bans, or any such proof on any such issue, any true liberal is going to oppose any government regulation on the subject. Allow, unless you have proof that it really is harmful. Allow, allow, allow.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
That tells me nothing. He's been busy running for President while the issue became heated, so now he's reacting because it's reached a high point in the election year, but seems silly to work on a law that when you might have a job change coming up. Specially when that law isn't remotely as important as other issues of late.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
So why not vote independent then and let the responsibility of screwing up the country fall on someone who didn't vote their conscience? At least you will have voted responsibly.
Especially if both of them are the same (I think so!). Vote Libertarian or Green or whatever you think would do a better job as president. Keep in mind any president would be moderated by a cabinet, a House and Senate, and a judiciary, and as such there's only so much damage a president can do, and only so much change he can affect.
GPL Deconstructed
I was unaware that anyone had forced you into a gay marriage. Good thing, or they might have forced you to have an abortion too, if you were in a traditional marriage.
I don't particularly like gay marriage or abortion either. But I think that there are far worse things in the world, and in these particulars, I'm not going to force my beliefs on others, and I ask them not to force theirs on me. Gay marriage is, in particular, a victimless 'crime,' and perhaps it is more a statement of property rights. In that light, perhaps Vermont's Civil Unions were a good idea, because marriage *is* a religious institution, and the state shouldn't be messing there. (Current ammendment proposals tend to outlaw Civil Union rights, too.) As for abortion, it leaves me queasy, the later the queasier, but there are *worse* things. If the "religious" forces expressed half the love for babies that they do for foetuses, maybe I'd feel differently about this.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
His job is to be a senator and he has a staff to do most of the work for him so it should not be that difficult to introduce a bill. He will not do shit to change the DMCA, look at the major backers of the DMCA are then look at his major campaign donors.
Well, those other issues you speak off? He hasn't introduced any bills to fix them either. He says they are so important but he refuses to say what he will do to fix them. That shows he doesn't plan on fixing them.
Wait. So they voted for it, before they were against it? I'm glad Russ Feingold is my senator, the only smart guy in the Senate that day...
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Fahrenheit 9/11 had a whole section on the USAP at Riot Act. The gist: The actual final text was not made available to Congress before it was voted on! It was a huge document, written (probably well before 9/11) by Ashcroft and company, and submitted under the heat of the moment to Congress, with a strong push to DO SOMETHING FAST. Stuff got stuck in at the last minute.
So sure, Kerry voted for it, but he has repeastedly said that he wants to make some changes in it too, in places where it infringes upon civil liberties. Bush wants to "strengthen" it. Quite different.
Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.
and
Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix...
Buying into the propaganda, aren't you? You see, he voted for it because it was a popular thing to do at the time. After a while, people started to feel more secure again, and the patriot act became much less popular. Then Kerry's opinion changed. He's just following whatever is popular at the moment, that's all. The rest is just a propaganda to explain his actions.
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
In other news, here's a rollcall for the PATRIOT Act. It's a dead horse, but I just noticed that Sen. Sensenbrenner ( R-WI ) sponsored this beast and Sen. Feingold ( D-WI ) cast the only dissenting vote. It's amazing to me that no one voted against the DMCA.
I know this has been a bit offtopic, but it was interesting news to me being an ignorant Wisconsonite.
*shrug*
I guess I'll go back to my chronic Googling now...
A-Day
He could have spent the last eight years in the Senate introducting DMCA-defanding bills, but he didn't. That's right, he did not. Not once did he lift a finger to castrate the DMCA.
I think there's far too many people out there living in a Pollyanna world who think Kerry will magically change if he becomes President. But guess what? He's going to be the exact same person as President as he was as Senator. Surprise! Some of you Democrats are like girlfriends, thinking they can change their boyfriend if they got married. "Oh, I know he leaves the toilet seat up now, but after Kerry and I get married I can change him! And I'll also get him to stop scratching his nuts in public and stop supporting the DMCA!"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Bush and Kerry are really pretty close on all the things you mentioned.
So why not vote for the candidate you like most on the issues of digital rights? Those are the kinds of things that have more far-reaching consiquences beyond the concerns of the moment. Do you really think either one is going to affect the economy to a degree very significantly differet from the other?
Personally I prefer not to vote for Democrats at a national level because they have too many ties to big media (local candidates are fine, I vote for whoever seems best while tending towards Libertarians). Perhaps the Republicans have more ties to big business (not really sure if that's true, but that's another discussion) but I feel most of the most egregious assaults on digital rights have come from the media industry and I'd prefer to keep them an arms length away from power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your example just proves the parent's point. He said that we turned a non fundementalist country into a fundementalist country - and you give a post-invasion example of fundementalist terrorism to support your case?
What I read into his statement is that Kerry knows how to govern a giant, rich country of highly polarized competing constituencies. When he's president, he'll actually get into negotiations over revising laws. While Bush will protect even invented "property" rights, like monopoly access to markets, regardless of the cost. That's a big difference. As a human without a big corporation, I prefer the president who can balance those conflicts to one who ignores them until they explode. That's mis-/management.
--
make install -not war
Speaking of voting, exactly how much voting has Kerry done for any of his supporters (and his constituents, of which I am one) in the past year?
I think that speaks for itself and doesn't get nearly enough press. We can all talk big. Kerry doesn't even vote.
Regarding that point, I noticed a peculiar coincidence on the CNN.com poll the other day.
I read CNN every day, and I vote in all the polls, and I have come to notice that the poll results tend to end up in a 65/35 split, with the majority vote going to the liberal or Democratic option. (e.g., "Do you approve of the job President Bush is doing?" will get 65% no, 35% yes.)
The question the other day was something like "Are you satisfied with the choices for President?" Lo and behold, the results were 65% no, 35% yes. While this may be just a coincidence, it reinforced the feeling that I had that Republicans/conservatives like Bush and think that Kerry is a poor choice, and, while Democrats/liberals don't disagree that Kerry is a poor choce, they think Bush is a poor choice as well.
I don't know what significance this has, but I just found it interesting and thought I would share.
As a Senator, Kerry voted for the DMCA. And in the six years since the DMCA was passed, Kerry has done nothing to fix the DMCA. Nor has he even suggested changing it. Now while he has state he is "open to examining", he has done little as a member of the legislative branch (where the DMCA would have to be fixed) to do anything that might suggest anything might be done about it.
If we get a President Kerry, or even a President Bush, I doubt that any change to the DMCA is going to be brought about by the executive branch. It's goign to come from the Judical branch saying this ain't constitutional, or the legislative branch saying "boy we screwed the pooch on this one" or better "Damn we gotta figure out how to get the RIAA to pursue terrorist, they have a lot more leeway on what they can do."
You know what? It really is possible for a some of a person's beliefs to clash with one another. It's not a black-and-white world - sometimes one really does have to value some things that one believes in over other things that one believes in. That's too complicated for some people, so they pretend that it is a weakness for somebody to have nuanced beliefs. Some people pretend that compromise is for the weak....
It is possible to believe in property rights and be an environmentalist. Each person just has to decide how to balance one against the other.
Bush is at least being honest about the situation when he says that he doesn't know if there will be an end to terrorist acts. Kerry just throws out a blanket statement that he's going to end terrorism.
You're giving your best shot, long hours, all your brainpower, to win a war that we're going to win. President Bush - Speech to CIA
We will win this war. President Bush - State of the Union Address
Today at the Legion I said, "We're winning the war on terror, and we will win the war on terror." There's no doubt in my mind, so long as this country stays resolved and strong and determined. President Bush - Interview with Rush Limbaugh
This is the guy who said, during campaign number one, "maybe it needs to be a little less free" in response to a reporter reminding him the negative hype he was getting at the time was a result of free speech in america and on the internet. The campaign finance "reforms" of 2002 didn't help much with this, either - funny thing is it's (ironically) come back to bite him in the butt.
Meanwhile, you can't even give enough to the little guys to make a difference, and they have no giant PACs to fund them under the table (like those other two guys have).
That's actually a good point - massive piracy for money (as in China, Tiawan with the $2 VCDs) is very bad, as is massive piracy online for free (Napster). But localized disorganized piracy (I burn you a copy of a CD I have) doesn't really hurt anything, as the VCR and audio tapes have proved.
Fellowship 9/11
That's funny, because I always associated "freedom from choice" as what the leftist socialists in the democratic party have been pushing on the american public...
Who doesn't want school choice?
Who wants a government mandated healthcare system?
Who doesn't want you to plan your own retirement?
And while Bush has never met a bill he didn't like (a.k.a. he doesn't know what that funny stampy-thing with the leters V E T and O is for), Clinton was not shy about using it - and those bills passed unanimously, anyway - truly bipartisan screwing of the american public.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Can you give me one reason gay marrige or even polygamy is bad? Other than it is ucky or against your religion?
Are not the guilty children of the same heavenly father? He gave up His life not just for those who do right at every turn, but for those who make mistakes as well. Life, as we have through Jesus, is a gift given, not a lure dangled in front of those who are perfect as an incentive to stay that way. Capital punishment is one thing, but what do we have reserved for those who throw the switch on the lives we deem not worth keeping?
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us."
FLIP...
... 'I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,' Kerry said." (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
r ee_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm
Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."
FLOP...
February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.
Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.
FLIP...
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. "Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China
FLOP...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Pas
I guess one could say the same for yourself. I would suggest reading as well about the issues and what he has voted for. He does after all have a senate record for how many years? Senate records: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_th
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
Are you not aware, for example, that Bush completely blew Clinton's surplus and his balanced budget, the first time the budget was balanced for thirty years, and your supposedly conservative president just threw it away for a cheap political stunt, that tax cut you're so enamored of?
Or that No Child Left Behind is mind-boggingly underfunded and ineffective?
Or that Bush lies? Like, never tells the truth? Ever? Like, not once?
Do you choose not to believe this information, or have you just not heard about it?
And I'm just touching on a few of the more minor issues with Bush and his administration. Let's not even mention the total fuckup in Iraq, which surely you can't be as ignorant about as you claim. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you're not voting for Bush. You have no idea why you shouldn't vote for Bush. You're either not interested enough to educate yourself properly on the issues, or you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican pretending to be independent to convince others that Dubya is truly god, as he himself believes. If you're the former, get a clue and turn off CNN (the Convservative News Network) and Faux News. If you're the latter, then just fuck off.
The problem is that laws in the US are bought and sold by big business and the DCMA is simple wrong.
So vote for a multi-billionaire who voted for the DMCA and never spoke out against it until he was running for President!
Since the person behind most of these laws like the DMCA and buddy buddy laws for the likes of the RIAA is no other than Hollywood liberal democrat Howard Berman and since the people who benefit from Bermans laws are the ones out there stumping for Kerry now, he will make sure he does nothing to stomp on their toes if they help get him elected.
I love these whiners calling you "mean spirited".
I voted for Bush last time. But its clear that he's too dumb to be president. I mean, I wouldn't give the guy a job to be a low level manager. He's really really dumb. Its like the emperor's new clothes. I watch these debates and I realize the guy is just plain dumb beyond measure.
Is kerry perfect? Who cares? Anything is better than Bush.
And I've voted for a republican for president ever since Nixon. But this guy is beyond dumb. Its time to think about the country and get this guy out. He's the worst thing to happen to us since Lyndon Johnson.
Bush really is the hero of the stupid.
The Patriot act is a big law with many parts. Kerry wants to fix the Patriot act disaster. Bush sees no problem with the current Patriot act (despite the fact that at least one provision has already been ruled unconstitutional). Bush wants to pass Patriot act II.
Kerry can't just make a blanket attack on the Patriot act because Bush will cite some obscure non-evil provision and cite a case where it helped, and then he'll bash Kerry as leaving us open to terrorist attack. Sadly presidential debates are a battle of sound bites. There's no way to get into a rational analysis of what parts of the Patriot act are bad and why.
Kerry has stated he sees a problem with the Patriot act. Bush has stated the Patriot act does not go far enough. I'd say that's a huge difference.
I would like to see Kerry seriously dedicated to not only balancing the budget, but paying down the debt as well. Kerry says he wants to balance the budget, but honestly his math may be a bit optomistic. However Bush went from trillions in surplus to the fastest growing deficit in history. I can't imagine Kerry being any worse on the debt than Bush, and maybe Kerry really will fight to balance the budget.
Perhaps most important is that whoever becomes president will likely get to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, in addition to hundreds of district judges. This will have an indirect but massive impact on the course of our legal system and civil liberties and other constitutional issues. Bush has been appointing wildly off-center radical social conservative judges in the district courts. Bush will appoint wildly off-center radical social conservative judges to the Supremes Court. In the debates Bush dodged a DIRECT question about appointing judges to the Supreme Court with a lie that he has no "litmus test" - it was a direct lie because he then went on a bizzare tangent about the Dred Scott ruling. However it was only bizzare if you aren't aware that Dred Scott is a standard pro-life refference to Roe v Wade. So Bush was lying to the general public majority that he had no "litmus test" for judges on the abortion issue while secretly telling the pro-life minority that he would indeed apply a litmus test and refuse any judge that would uphold Roe v Wade. Well, if you want to overturn Roe v Wade then Bush is your candidate, but Bush is still an ass for being intentionally deceptive about it.
Any judges that Kerry gets to appoint will have to be moderate judges with impeccible credentials because they have to be approved by the Republican controlled senate. So if you want centrist judges then Kerry is your candidate.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
It's not the number of countries or even what countries so much as the distribution of teh burden. We are pretty much doing everything as we are spending 90% of the money and human capital in Iraq.
Hmmm... Pie...
"He voted for the Iraq war"
But W said that that wasn't a vote for war, but a vote for peace. Was W lying?