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."
Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president. I know /. is full of nerds, but speaking as a nerd I don't vote like a nerd.
if he does defang the DCMA, maybe he can work on the patriot act as well.
For those who forgot their high school civics our live outside the USA...
The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
Therefore, even if Kerry wins the presidential race, he still will have no direct impact on laws. He'll only be able to sign a DMCA repeal or softening amendment if Congress sends him one to consider.
As always happens in the even-numbered years, all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election. Right now, it's a "Republican steamroller" because Republicans control both houses and and the White house. However, the Republicans hold on to a very thin margin to make their majority in both cases, so this could completely flip or end up in a mixed state after the elections. The Congress has much more say over the laws than the President gets.
That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I voted for Kodos
I didn't realize the president could simply wipe existing laws out of existance.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage...
That's because neither of the candidates support it. Bush doesn't support it and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Kerry doesn't support it but is against any such legislation.
Strangely enough, both candidates are nearly mirroring their stances on the issue of IP theft:
Said Bush: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected...We must vigorously enforce intellectual-property protections and prosecute the violators, not the technology." He noted that his administration launched an initiative to enforce such laws and has worked closely with China to support penalties associated with violating American intellectual-property rights.
Kerry, meanwhile, has a slightly different stance. "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."
Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who would be president.
I just pointed out a major difference... Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.
Using John Kerry's Senate voting history to say that he supported or opposed any given thing is like trying to upconvert a low-bitrate signal... you end up guessing to make data you don't really have.
For example, there never was a true vote "on the war". Congress has not ever even voted on an official decloration of war during recent years. What was actually voted on was permission to use the armed forces if things couldn't be resolved any other way. Kerry claims that Bush forgot about that if-clause and went to war too quickly.
This is a problem anybody who tries to advance from the legislative branch into the executive branch always faces. Legislators are always asked to vote on hundreds of things on the record, while the President and governors only have to consider the final versions that have cleared their legislature. It may seem like a flip-flop to vote yes "on" version A, but "no" on version B of the same bill, but versions A and B by definition cannot be the same thing. What such a voting record indicates is not that the person was opposed to the main concept of the whole bill and then changed their mind. It instead indcates that there was some flaw in version A that was fixed by the time version B came around so they could now support the bill.
Well, he's a Senator now. Since the Senate's one of two houses of Congress, and Congress makes the laws, it might be good to ask what Kerry's done -- if anything -- in Congress to change or even "examine" the DMCA.
Amazing the right wing bull that gets injected into this... and yet we forget that CONGRESS PASSES THE LAWS.
Hello. Talk to your congressman. Preznits blow up countries. They don't pass laws.
Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to survive even if he wins.
--- Mercutio was right.
First of all, I agree with the guy who said that there are bigger issues this time around than geek issues.
But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't know -- it's always been a small thing that's puzzled me.
1) "Open to examining whether to change" does not imply "will advocate change".
2) "Changing" the DMCA doesn't necessarily mean "changing it in the way that geeks would like".
3) "Examining whether to change" can lead to the conclusion "no, it needs no changing" just as easily as its opposite.
4) "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" could be the first paragraph of the INDUCE act. After all, the INDUCE act was spun as going after P2Pers, not those who were "lawfully making backups for archival purposes".
5) Finally, "lawfully obtains or [lawfully] receives transmission" -- leaves a lot of wiggle room. What if "Lawfully" means "in accordance with every term of the EULA under which it was sold?"
Conclusion: Kerry's got no intention of asking Congress to weaken the DMCA; he's pandering for every vote he can get in the home stretch of a tightly-contested Presidential race.
That's not a partisan slur -- both parties are bought and paid for by Hollywood, and you can bet your eighth bit that no matter who wins in November, any "changes" to the DMCA in the next four years will be to Hollywood's benefit, not yours.
> Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.
As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.
> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety
Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.
Democrat delenda est
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.
Bush might be an idiot on a lot of issues, but on that one issue he 'gets it' and more importantly has the right ideas about how to win.
Really? Like start a war with a nation that doesn't have radical Islamics running the nation, so it can be replaced by a group of radical Islamics?
He voted for it, of course.
So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats.
If Bush is re-elected and the time comes to put new Justices on the Supreme Court what is he going to do? He's going to put judges on their that are sympathetic to his (not his party's) own personal goal of bringing religious morality back into this country.
I'm sorry but they are both worthless assholes. Bush has a political+relgious agenda while Kerry doesn't have much of anything.
Personally I believe that seperation of church and state is important. He calls them morals and I call it religion. Symantics... DO NOT SHOVE YOUR RELGIOUS VALUES DOWN MY FUCKING THROAT.
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.
The Supreme Court didn't "legalize abortion", it ruled that the states can't criminalize it. And the federal government has made no laws to criminalize it. The Republican Party these days attracts lots of people who aren't down with Constitutional Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". They think that "the government grants you rights", not that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". For all the Republican talk about deference to the "Creator", they insist on a government middleman to unalienate them from their rights.
Drop the "activist judges" and "legislate from the bench" buzzwords. Bush represents the "starve the beast" neocons who are discrediting (literally and figuratively) the US government, so corporations will resume the feudal predation on the people formerly pursued by hereditary dynasties (like the Bush family). Why you apologize for them is your own business, but don't expect the rest of us committed to freedom to buy it.
--
make install -not war
It is precisely this "them and us" mentality that causes problems. There is no battle for world supremacy going on. What is going on is that there are some radical Islamics out there (but not as many as most people would have us believe) who hate the West, and particularly the USA. In recent times the USA has not endeared itself to the Muslim parts of the world, but this will only be solved by diplomacy and constructive actions, not war and war-like "them and us" sentiments.
Congress' intent when creating the DMCA was two-fold:
They envisioned making it easier for legitimate, white-hat-wearing businesses to stop the violation of their copyrights. What they actually provided, of course, was "takedown", a sledgehammer a lawyer can use to swat a fly.
The "copyright managment information" Congress was most concerned about were things like holograms on jewel cases, but the wording of the law also include the text of copyright notices in programs, EULA wrappers, and so on.
Courts are becoming increasing sophisticated in how they interpret the DMCA in cases where it's invoked. I think as more and more people, including judges, get their information online instead of from the mainscam media, attitudes will change about what is "fair use" allowed by the DMCA and what falls under (what you'd think is the capital crime of) "piracy".
There is real tension that cuts across the lines between the Left and Right. On the left you have Hollywood wanting protection ("for the artists"), while civil libertarians want anarchy. On the right there is the limited government crowd, but also the capitalists. Probably it would be overstating it to say the tension within the two sides is greater than that between them, but I can't decide.
At any rate, I don't think either Bush or Kerry would do anything about it, but the courts probably will settle on good rules to curb the abuses of the takedown mess.
sigs, as if you care.
Isn't amazing that you can state these 'facts' without any resources and get modded up, and lucky you, you get to slide your opinion in there without anyone noticing!
If you want to know where they stand, go their websites, don't assume the parent is correct.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
DISCLAIMER: yes, I prefer Bush to Kerry. No, Bush doesn't quite live up to my ideals either. No, I don't live up to my ideals either. Oh, and I'm not American.
This is sorta like some of my wife's "rules". She calls them "changing her mind." All I ask is not that she remains 100% consistant (that would be also known as "inflexible") but that she warns me about those changes.
If she, or Kerry, were to prefix all changes in opinion with, "I have come to a new understanding of this," I think I'd have a lot less problem with it. For example, if Kerry had said, "I have had conversations with Americans from all over our glorious land. I think I can see, now, how certain aspects of <insert "flip-flop" subject here> can be abused. I will take my first opportunity to fix this oversight by a) repealing the law, b) amending the law, c) ???," I think I would have a lot more respect for him than I do now.
Bush is so consistant that he is seen as inflexible by his detractors. I can understand their perspective. Some times, such as announcing to Saddam that he had to allow unfettered nuclear inspector access by a certain date or face military action, you have to follow through, even if you change your mind (which I doubt Bush did), just so people know you mean business. Other times, such as USAPA or DMCA, I would love to see education change his mind.
What authority does he have to do that?
It's not like he's going to send troops into Russia without Putin's permission. Russia needs help securing it's nuclear weapons, and it's in the best interests of both Russia and the United States to cooperate in this regard. Remember, the Russians are quite frightened about terrorism too, given the recent events with Chechnya. It's a cooperative venture that's long overdue, and very important.
He talks about how we don't have our allies for the war, when in reality, we do have allies, althoguh we are missing some nations
He's right. We don't have *our* allies. We have some allies, but they're not *our* allies. Our allies are the NATO countries, not semi-dictatorships like Pakistan. Our "alliance" is stupid from a military standpoint alone. Why spend billions of dollars to ally yourselves with countries that cannot field the manpower of a single US state? At *best*, it's a strategic mistake, and at worst it's a misleading PR stunt.
I know I wouldnt be all to happy to help Kerry if I was a US ally and he kept saying I did not exist.
You probably wouldn't be happy to be an ally, like the Prime Minister of Poland, who now thinks Bush mislead us into the war.
Kerry talks about creating laws as president, although in reality this is his job as a senator
Kerry nevers talks about creating laws. I don't know where you got that idea. He *does* talk about pushing through legislation, which is perfectly within his powers as president. The President has a lot of influence to encourage (or discourage) certain legislation in Congress. He also talks a lot about allocation of government spending, which is also in his power, given that the OMB (part of the Whitehouse) drafts the budget.
and he STICKS with the decision that he makes.
Sticking with bad decisions is a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength. The information about Iraq has changed drastically since we went in. Bush thought Iraq had WMD, they didn't. Bush thought they were cooperating with terrorists, they weren't. Iraq, as far as two-bit dictatorships go, was less of an immediate danger to us than any of a number of countries. The only excuse Bush has left is that "we freed the people of Iraq." Well, guess what? That's not our job! The only reason Bush still says he wouldn't have done anything different is because he isn't man enough to admit he was wrong.
"While you may not agree with Bush's decision, but you must agree that he has the ability to make a decision"
Yes, I agree that Bush has the ability to make decisions. Of course, so does everyone else. That's nothing special. It takes a real man to know when to change his mind. To quote Santayana: "a fanatic is one who, having lost sight of his aim, redoubles his effort". The world is complicated --- you get no credit for trying hard!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
That goes double for the lefties amongst you who are going to vote for Nader. Kerry isn't going to turn your country into the leftie paradise you dream of, sure. But at least the bloke isn't a messianic, militaristic moron who sends thousands of soldiers off to die to settle a family vendetta...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Do you ever get the feeling that our country has been through this kind of thing before?
Civil rights was rammed down America's throat, too. It wasn't the executive or legislative branch paving the way--it was the judicial branch. Without those "activist judges" going against the mainstream American values of the day, there's a very real chance that you'd see a "whites only" sign hanging in the window of your local Starbucks. Which was right--the judgement of the activist courts, or the will of the American mainstream?
This kind of thing is exactly why we have a judicial branch. Fundamental human rights aren't open to debate on the grounds of "what the majority is comfortable with". The founders were keenly aware of the "tyrrany of the majority", and they went to great lengths to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. One of these safeguards is the judicial branch of the federal government.
Over the years, the American mainstream has maintained that blacks are worth 3/5 of a human being, that women are property, that the Irish are a race of sub-humans, that it is perfectly appropriate to sell and purchase human beings, that marrying an individual of the wrong race was a capital offense, and that Indians either needed to move out of our way or be killed. Today, the American mainstream believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry those they love--or even enter into civil unions, for that matter. Occasionally, the Legislature or the Executive will take it upon themselves to right these wrongs. In most cases, though, it's the Judicial branch that steps in and upholds the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Be thankful that our highest court is not subject to the whim and fancy of American mainstream thought.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
" Saddam was a mass murderer. Look at how many graves they have uncovered. That right there is enough for me to condone what we did. That kind of stuff is just not something the 21st century should put up with."
Where were you when those graves were being dug up? Where was bush? Where was runsfeld, perle, cheney and the rest of the war mongers? When amnesty international was publishing it's list of atrocities in Iraq did you join them, did you give them money? Or did you mock them for being liberal faggots.
I am touched by your newfound love of the iraqi people, I really am. If only with people like you cared about the iraqis before 9/11. Like maybe in the 1980s when Saddam was gassing the kurds or when saddam was putting doen the Shia. Maybe even when the UN sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of people. Too bad back then you didn't give a fuck about the iraqis back then. Back then they were just another set of ragheads.
Now that you love the iraqis so much maybe you can learn to love other people was well. People in Uganda, sudan, haiti, iran, north korea, china, russia, chechnia, and palestine all need your love. Please love these people as much as you love the iraqis. They too need help from brutal dictators, widespread disease, famine, starvation and genocide.
I suppose one could argue that these people probably deserved freedom before the iraqis even but I am not going to nitpick. I don't want to diminish your newfound love of the opressed peoples of the world. I want to celepbrate it with you.
You are right, these kinds of things are just not something the 21st century should put up with. Only if we had a president that was comitted to ending opression everywhere in the world.
evil is as evil does
Funny to say, Hussein was oppressing the country's religious right: The type of Islamic Fundamentalists that are more interested in killing Americans.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
This is a matter of opinion. People with a Pro-Life position aren't necessarily concerned with what women do with their bodies. They are concerned about what they do to the body of the person they are carrying.
It's an easy issue to spin to fit your own beliefs.
Some times, such as announcing to Saddam that he had to allow unfettered nuclear inspector access by a certain date or face military action, you have to follow through, even if you change your mind (which I doubt Bush did), just so people know you mean business.
I agree with you that Bush didn't want to change his mind on this subject, but this is a dishonest description of what his decision was according to every account I've read by both Republicans and Democrats in the know. He made the decision when he came into office to take Saddam out. I'm not going to give you any of this left wing baloney about invading Iraq for oil - this has always been a pretty silly argument, and just look at the price of oil now. His motivators were probably something like A) Saddam is bad - this point I can agree with him on B) Saddam tried to kill his father C) Saddam is the thorn in the legacy of his father's Presidency, D) his advisors support a strongly neoconservative agenda and told him this was an opportunity to create a "domino effect" and restructure the Middle East in a more democratic fashion (again, this motivator I think is an admirable one, but it's a bit of exitus acta probat, or the ends justify the means).
September 11th provided a convenient way to make this invasion plan actually happen. And the nuclear inspection stuff, well, that was the icing on the cake. But we were effectively mobilizing for war behind the scenes before the whole nuclear inspection access issue was was even there.
Saddam had to know an invasion was coming. I will admit that I am as mystified as the next guy as to why he didn't just let the inspectors back in at that point, so he'd have the rest of the world on his side when it did. I think in part it was radical overconfidence in his military that years of purging anybody who wasn't a yes-man from his upper echelons had given him. But this was never about inspections - how many inspectors are in Iran and North Korea, and how unfettered is their access again? And are we even discussing invasion over that?
I too wish that our candididates would be more straightforward about things they change their minds on. Unfortunately, there is an election going on, and the two leading candidates are playing to win, and thus neither can be fully honest about their mistakes or changes of heart in the past. Sure, the Naders and Badnariks of the campaign can speak their mind till the cows come home, because it doesn't matter, they are running to make a statement, not to win.
The substantive "flip-flop" that people keep bringing up is the Iraq war issue. You can see what Kerry said on the Senate floor before the vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. He seemed to strongly back the idea of forcing UN inspections back, and if that failed, to use force together with the international community. He emphasized throughout that speech how important it was to act with the support of other countries in the Middle East and throughout the world, because if we went to war, it would be a long and hard process to rebuild Iraq.
This isn't really that different from what he has said recently. The only issue he has changed his mind on was that he thought at the time, based on the intelligence reports he had been given, that the thread of Saddam developing WMDs was much more imminent than it was. But I think everybody, including Bush, admits this mistake now.
I don't think Kerry has "flip-flopped" in the sense of saying that knowing what we knew then, going to war was a fundamentally bad idea, though perhaps he might not make the same vote knowing what he knows now (I'm not sure if he ever answered that hypothetical question explicitly). He has said that we rushed to war by failing to obtain the backing of a real coalition including strong commitments of troops and pledges for reconstruction aid from neighbors in the Middle East and the rest of the world (not a "Don't forget Poland" coalition). I think this is pretty consistent with his position from 2 years ago as expressed in the above speech.
is not that he's flip flopping, but that if you're sufficiently nuanced in your argument, the American people tune you out. Have you actually read his speech in the Senate on the Iraq war vote? Or on the funding? His position was very clear then, and it has not changed. He said very clearly that he was voting to give the President war powers only if inspections broke down and only with the help of our allies. Now, perhaps he should not have voted for it at all, but that is not the issue here. He did not "flip flop" or change positions; today he says the same thing about Iraq. It's just a little more nuanced than "for" or "against," so you have to actually use your brain a little to figure out his position. A lot of us (Americans) don't like to have to do that.