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."
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.
Probably, hell...Clinton got in office because he said he smoked pot, but didn't inhale!
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
I voted for Kodos
Of course he's for it. He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it.
Like the Patriot Act,Kerry also voted for the DMCA.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
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.
Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to survive even if he wins.
--- Mercutio was right.
I'd rather people voted like nerds rather than voting like sheep...
What's so wrong about voting like a nerd? Doesn't "Nerd" stand for "Noteworthy Engineer/Researcher/Developer" ?
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
Yeah, and after he got into office what exactly did he do to promote legal marijuana?
A good lesson there for potential Kerry voters...
That does not matter, they should've taken the time to read it, and if they had NOT been afforded the time to read it, voted No.
Amendment X speaks loud and clear still, Congress can't pull this crap, and it's time we showed them who the hell is boss.
The People.
$
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.
And what did Clinton say about legalizing marijuana? Nothing. If Kerry just said "I burn copies of my CDs for my office and car, but I always buy the originals and never loan the copies", you might have a point. But instead Kerry has made a clear statement of his receptiveness to a revisions in a central issue of a specific law. Bush would splutter something about "sovereignty is... er... sovereignty". Which one is serious? Which one is going to even understand, let alone care about, this issue? Kerry.
--
make install -not war
Hmm, not sure if that was it.. I voted against him just for that, how can you be pro-environment when you waste green like that??
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.
Fellowship 9/11
He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it.
Here's my translation of what he said: "Right now, I'm devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem. And I intend to issue a position paper on that. A position that is at once simple, yet complex; firm, yet flexible; and above all, fair to every American."
Or maybe: "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."
Or perhaps: "Abortions for all. [crowd boos] Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos] Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others. [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]"
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.
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.
It sounds so...Bush. Start an underfunded agency with no real power to make it look like your doing something, then blame it all on China.
Here is the problem. It seems to me he wants to "vigorously enforce intellectual property protections and prosecute the violation".
Does this mean that the authors of Bnetd would go to jail, or people who make replacement toner cartidges, or people who make competing garage door openers all sued under the DMCA?
He mentions the technology is not the problem, but he doesn't mention that we are not the problem either, which is true. The problem is that the world changes, strategies hat once made money will at some point, fail. You don't see Standard Oil selling kerosine do you? You dont' see blacksmiths hauling in large sums of cash or whatever. I'm sure they were against cars back in the day.
The problem is not goint to be solved by some dumb ass task force that arrests people because the problem is not organized piracy. The problem is that laws in the US are bought and sold by big business and the DCMA is simple wrong. I know that and I'm just one guy, not even a task force.
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
They think presidents make laws
This is a particularly interesting statement. The story is about a law that Kerry would work on if he became president. Yet, as a member of the Senate, now is the time that he can introduce legislation and help fix bad laws. As president, he can only veto stuff he doesn't like.
Oh, the irony....
Do you have ESP?
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
You can tell Bush didn't write that. It didn't sound like him at all. That isn't the kind of stategery he...uh...it isn't comiserate with...uh...what he would write wouldn't have the same kick to it...
My Administration has launched the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) initiative to do just that.
Great, so disorganized pirates have nothing to fear.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.