Slashdot Mirror
EFF: 48 Hours to Stop the Broadcast Flag
The Importance of writes "Think the Broadcast Flag is dead? EFF is warning that Hollywood is trying to sneak the broadcast flag into law as an amendment to a massive appropriations bill. 'If what we hear is true, the provision will be introduced before a subcommittee tomorrow and before the full appropriations committee on Thursday. That gives us 48 hours to stop it.' Action Alert here. List of Senator's phone numbers here."
i'd write my senators, but i can't find my checkbook.
With the new CRIA law in Canada, and now the broadcast flag in America, it looks like the recording industry 'winning'. It's looks pretty bad for those fighting for digital rights.
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Dont know if my news tip will get picked up. These things should not be sneaked in.
Is playing dirty somehow beneath the good guys? Oh, that's what makes them the good guys...
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
As soon as it's a rider on an appropriations bill like this, the broadcast flag is a foregone conclusion. The committee probably won't even know what they're doing.
The broadcast flag is here to stay, regardless of the EFF's "48 hours" claim.
Why don't all the "special interests" who hate special interests sneaking arbitrary laws into bills get together to outlaw them?
Every bill must have a scope. It must apply to a single budget, or a single government organization, or their subsidiaries. Or it must be a "metabill", which specifies only a collection of bills related in an explicit policy, the exact relationship stated in the metabill.
Of course, Congressmembers should be voting against these big bills, with arbitrary attachments, on the principle of government manageability. But they obviously don't - they're all codependent on letting each other's attachments pass, often regardless of consequences, in exchange for the same favor later on. So we need to force them to stop doing it. Because the mass of laws, their inner complexity and scale, is killing the ability of anyone to participate in our democracy beyond any significant confrontation with the law. When only the lawyers win, we all lose.
--
make install -not war
I didn't think you could legislate on an appropriation bill? Is this for real? Its against the rules of the Senate (rule XVI) http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule16.htm
Only residents of Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin can sign this.
I'm gonna post this over on the various MythTV communities as well... try to get more support drummed up.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
List of Senator's phone numbers here.
Nope, slashdotted to hell. But you can get them from the source.
Is Congress susceptible to the Slashdot effect?
So I'm not worried about it. I don't have any plans to get a Tivo so it doesn't really bother me. Besides, I think you can get around these by making your own Tivo. Maybe we could route just the video signal from the Tivo/device over to out TV capture card? I'd like to say "the people" will stand up for their rights when they want to, but "the people" are just too plain stupid. Kinda like the proles, they could get it done if they'd all rise up together, but they're all lazy, stupid, and shallow.
I'm an Australian so when I first heard about rider bills I honestly didn't beleive it. Then I discovered that Australia also had the problem of rider bills at some stage. We recognised them as a problem and we fixed them. We no longer have rider bills. Does any other democracy on earth still have them? Is it impossible for americans to recognise a problem and fix it without ballsing it up? It just seems you have all these parasites gaming your political process and you do nothing about it. You know how everyone knows that US congressmen take bribes? Well, here in Australia, it's illegal for politicians to take bribes. It's like that in the rest of the world too right? So why can't americans recognise something that's so straight forward and simple (politicans should not be permitted to take bribes) and do something about it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
You can fax and email appropriation committee members for free at the EFF's action center.
That your system of goverment is one of the most corrupt in the world?
How about spreading some democracy in your own back-yard before trying to take over the world.
Instead of a petition, what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power. With that power, the President could happily strike out stupid attachments like these without being accused of holding back "important legislation".
:-(
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that line-item veto power required an amendment (probably correct), so Clinton's strikeout were reversed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
By the time this story is an accepted submission, it will be 36+ hours past the deadline. All slashdotters should therefore direct their attention to criticizing the outcome pre-emptively in order to maintain an effective schedule.
The rider isn't there yet. We've got a strong rumour that it's going to be proposed, but if you kick up enough of a stink at this stage, it can be quietly withdrawn with no-one having to take a stand.
Tell you what, why don't you call your Senator anyway, even if you think this is true? What have you got to lose? If the law goes through, you can tell everyone that you were right. And if it doesn't, you get to say you helped stop the flag against all the odds.
Believe me, I love cynicism as much as the next person, but when it stops you from taking the one tiny step, the single principled stand that might have prevented disaster, you're not a cynic. You're a statistic. And a predictable one at that.
Email is routinely ignored by congressional staffers. Signing a paper petition is a little more useful. A phone call is better still. A written letter is far superiour. Saying what you think in person is better still. The reason for these classifications is that elected officials are getting spammed and information overloaded like everyone else. If you spend more effort getting your particular issue heard, they also feel you will be more likely to remember them on election day. It's fairly valid.
I am highly critical of these online petitions, because people believe that they have done something, and therefore will not follow up their web form tick-off with something more substantive like the communications mentioned above.
I know it's a bit too late to dash of a handwritten letter to your rep in this occasion. But a phone call may be appropriate.
I mean, 12 hours from now it won't be true. Even right now it's not true anymore. Oh my god...time is slipping away from me...help...Calgon! *brrzzt-thud*
BytesTemplar.com
See the senators flee in terror as hundreds of thousands of /.'ers email "In Soviet Russia the bill rides you".
(Note... many are confused as they believe this may be a reference to the previous administration.)
...on one topic: permitting piggy-backing legislation on unrelated legislation. There were Congress Critters who actually added material to 9/11 bills because they knew it would be passed. If contenders for their offices don't point this stuff out, they deserve to lose and take a job working on a honey wagon: fringe benefit - all you can eat.
The fact the Broadcast Flag has been inserted to another bill is an example of where someone needs to make a phone call to Guido and have him wait on a door step, ring the doorbell, and kneecap someone.
Some are more adept at doing it than others. One good example is a former KKK member. That should provide enough information to forego the necessity of naming them. Some of the network reporters are good at presenting some of the larger garbage ammendments but they never say who actually added the material to the bill.
When writing to your senators, please use soft paper. Best of all, use bathroom tissue. This way you will make it comfortable for senators to "work" through your mails.
Ok, so here we have the FCC mandating that we have to all convert our "old analog" television sets to digital television sets by 2007 or something...
Then we have the "Broadcast Flag" being driven through on a rider, shh... nobody will notice.
And now they can basically control what you can record via your "Dish DVR" or "TiVo" or TV tuner card or whatever other device you want to use, because of Hollywood pressure.
We already see DVDs where you can't bypass the intro commercials to get to the navigational menus, even for DVDs which we bought, which should have paid for the removal of those commercials.
Next, we'll see television sets being sent a signal that ignores the remote control's "channel" buttons during commercials. You just won't be able to switch away during commercials... you'll be forced to watch them (or power off your TV).
How far are we from a Telescreen here, really? I mean... all they need is a way to peer back in, and a way to stop you from turning off the TV or the volume...
Orwell would be proud.
Software:
- Companies make proprietary software
- Then charge a lot
- Have copyright law to prevent copying
- People gripe
- People makes free software.
Movies/Music:- Artists make movies/music
- Companies package and market it
- Then charge a lot
- Have copyright/DMCA law to prevent copying
- People gripe
Why not the next step: People make free movies/music?Yap yap revolution yap yap. How about running for Congress, on a legitimate reform platform, or backing someone who will? Most of the Constitution has articles, and a "bill" of rights, to institutionalize "revolution", without opening the door to anarchy, mob rule, or - most likely today - corporate fascism without its mediagenic face. The entire House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate are up for grabs in only 18 months. Unless you're willing to throw constitutional representative democracy itself on the line, why don't you just use the revolutionary institutions we've got, to throw out the tyrants? It
s because you sound so much cooler talking about revolution than talking about campaigning for election, right? Actually putting liberty, to say nothing of your life, on the line, has nothing to do with your tough talk.
--
make install -not war
I'll just turn the damn thing off. 64 channels of pure bullshit, the movies suck. Even the cooking shows are turning stupid.
;) and this just pushes me closer to doing so.
Indeed. I've been thinking of canceling my cable TV service (although not my cable modem, Broadband is Life
I have no interest in downloading or sharing TV shows, so if they are going to try and treat me like a criminal, I see no reason to watch their crap.
Take a look at average donor amounts for the two political parties. You may be surprised.
You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
In a major media blunder the US Government and major media corporations are denying the resuscitation of the broadcast flag. Despite wide reports, Doug Herzog, President of SpikeTV (the First Network for Men) has confirmed that he along with other media executives have decided to abandon all attempts to push the broadcast flag through congress. In a press release Herzong noted,
"After looking at our summer lineup of movies, and previewing 48 Hours, starring Eddie Murphey and Nick Nolte, it was pretty clear that we wouldn't need a broadcast flag to keep people from recording our programming. I and a few others, hoping to promote our July 4th weekend of 48 Hours of 48 Hours, only on Spike TV also watched Another 48 Hours. After we finished the film, we were confident that we had done the right thing to abandon the broadcast flag and honestly were considering abandoning television altogether."
especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
s/pen/crayon/g
Trolling is a art,
The so-called Broadcast Flag is an abomination and needs to be rejected by the Senate. It will do nothing to stop large-scale piracy, and will only serve to limit the fair-use rights of American citizens to time shift television programs, save them for later viewing or view tv program's at a family members house. Authorizing the broadcast flag will force innovative consumer electronics companies to ask for Hollywood permission before introducing new products.
Media oligarchies, led by the RIAA & MPAA, tried to sue the VCR out of existence. They sued the first makers of MP3 players. They sued ReplayTV into bankruptcy because they dared to introduce an innovative product without the MPAA's permission. If the broadcast flag and similar legislative tools had been around for the last 25 years, we wouldn't have the VCR, iPods, TiVos or computer DVD recorders. These tools have helped democratize content creation, distribution & consumption by putting citizens/customers in charge of their home-made movies, music, and photographs.
Vote against the Broadcast Flag. It is simply a power grab by media oligopolies intended to criminalize the fair-use of media of Americans of all stripes.
No one thinks independently of one another. You live in a society in which events and decisions that affect you and others happen far beyond your ability to personally witness. At some point, you must trust someone. Therefore, everyone is capable of being manipulated, and everyone is manipulated to some degree.
Now, would you rather be manipulated by corporations who suck you dry, or Slashdot which, for whatever reason, is manipulating you to seek something that will benefit you (the stopping the Broadcast Flag)?
Would you rather be a Slashbot, or a corporate whore? Hey, it's your pick.
Wouldn't it be really great if compromises reached by representitives of different people could be undermined by the president. I was always hoping that the checks and balances could be removed from our system.
As much as they are abused there is a reason many things can be put in a bill. It is so a consecion can be made to the other side and things can keep moving along.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Why that won't solve anything:
"I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." - John Kerry
Bush used that quote to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on issues, but Kerry didn't actually change his mind - the version of the bill he voted for, Bush threatened to veto because Bush wasn't happy with where the money was going to come from. The bill was changed so the money would come from somewhere else, and Kerry voted against it, not because he opposed the whole bill, but because he opposed one part of it.
Most bills that go through Congress have so much unrelated crap tacked onto them that no matter which way you vote, you're almost guaranteed to be voting for or against something people like and something people dislike at the same time, and whichever part of that was unpopular, your opponent will use against you during your reelection campaign. Of course, since you're the incumbent and they're not, you can't use the same trick against them, because they weren't in office at the time!
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The line-item veto gives the President an insane amount of power that he, as chief executive, has no right to. Anyway, do you really think George Bush or Bill Clinton gives a crap about the broadcast flag? Hardly.
A more realistic (and Constitutional!) solution could be reached if the House and/or Senate would amend their rules to disallow unrelated riders.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
If any one american attempted to educate themselves on EVERYTHING that goes on in a given day within the government, it would be a full-time job... at best. And between you and me I doubt they'd be able to do it even as a full-time job unless they're some kind of sick freak who can envelope terabytes of data to their brains and retain it all daily. (doubtful).
The point of these "damn websites" telling us "what to do" is that you take a GROUP of people, all doing their part to police a little bit at a time. Then someone cries wolf, points out the reasoning behind it, and then we all can jump on the problem.
I am open to suggestions on how you think that an average person should stay "educated" on every bill, and every last word in those bills without a "FUCKING WEBSITE" instructing them on it's contents though. Please do enlighten us.
line-item veto has very real risks
1. Party X proposes legislation, concerns raised by party Y.
2. Safeguards added to legislation to satisfy party Y
3. Congress passes legislation
4. Party X president snips out safeguards and passes the rest
5. ???
6. Police state!!!!
I don't disagree with what you said, but you seem to have missed my point. If you can pick and choose which parts of a bill to accept, then you have the power to effectively rewrite it. That power is reserved for the congress. The potential for abuse is immense.
Congress is so in the pocket of the big companies, it doesn't seem like we voters even matter any more. I voted Republican and generally support them, and they won. But it still feels like "we" lost the election. That's because "we" don't matter. "They" will always win, but "they" have the money. Party is irrelevant. The courts run the country, the state legislatures are irrelevant and Congress is just the public relations arm of the big corporations.
Isn't that a cheerful comment on the state of our nation?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
There's a reason Tivo's and VCRs are so popular. It's to time shift. People have other things to do with their lives than sit around and watch TV. The networks are just shooting themselves in the foot. Network evening news broadcasts are getting creamed because of cable news (which is essentially timeshifted news). The same will occur to their precious copyrighted content. Less people will watch, and advertising revnues/rates will go down.
I understand that for many the only hope of having a naked person in your bedroom, or any person outside of your immediate family, is the television, but that is no reason to waste time on this issue. It will not go away, and you will continue to loop the latest teen idol as they take off their clothes.
What we are seeing here is a result of televisions main purpose, to deliver viewers to advertisers. With the VCR, and Tivo, and the net, fewer people are watching the ads. This makes TV increasingly irrelevant. To make matters worse, the increase image quality really has nothing to do with bringing viewers to the advertisers, yet cost money. Furthermore, as advertising wanes, DVD sales are becoming more important. The increased picture quality might reduce DVD sales.
But given the general illiteracy and obesity of the American public, there is no better way to reach viewers than TV. Even the net requires to much interaction, and broadcast over the net is not yet practical. So TV cannot go away. So what we are going to see is what we are seeing now. People actively not buying the more expensive sets. People not buying the conversion unit because the useless extra hardware makes it too expensive. And ultimately no conversion happening because there are not enough eyeballs to make it worthwhile.
In the end, the free market may very well save us. In this case the consumer has the ultimate power because without the consumer, the advertisers have no reason to pay for the TV. And how few viewers are going to be worthwhile.
Or we could just chuck the whole TV thing and go read a book, or, if we want to watch sports, go to the local college.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I have been subscribing to ten-dollar minimum cable for some time. After deprogamming the Jesus channels and Home Shopping Network channels from the remote, I have ten channels left. I can surf my dial in under one minute and then shut the box off!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Or better yet, buy 1 share of stock in the company that's doing something you feel is bad, attend the shareholder's meeting, and during the shareholder Q&A with the CEO, ask why your company (you are an owner as a shareholder) is pressuring this bad legislation.
CEO's hate answering questions like that, especially with Wall Street listening. It might get something done, it might not, but you might find other shareholders (possibly with bigger clout) who share you view, and *are* in a position to do something.
what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power
Score:3, Insightful
This should be Score:5, Funny! I absolutely burst out laughing when I read it. It took me a full minute before I could manage focus enough to read beyond that first sentence.
Bush veto the broadcast flag? Woohoo! I guess that would be right between vetoing a Defense of Marriage item and trimming troubling new police powers out of Patriot Act II Revenge of the Sith.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I was disturbed by Kerry's total failure to explain how he opposed that version of the war appropriation bill, after it was changed from a version he supported. I understood that he opposed the version with the unaccountable $15B (or so) in "Iraq reconstruction" funds, which still had not been spent when Kerry was campaigning, as he claimed he had feared when he voted against it. I disliked Kerry's irresponsible support for the war from the beginning: unconstitutionally handing the switch to declare war to a president, "when he thinks it's necessary to defend the national interest in Iraq" was a total copout. But it was even worse to hear a guy who'd have to spend at least the next 4 years explaining his policies to America say something in front of the campaign media so obviously doomed to be used against him, thereby deepening us into war. And into reeelction of that dangerous fool Bush. Who's much stupider, but at least has his sleazy act together.
Which is all the more reason to change the packaging of these bills to the format that I described. With my way, Kerry could have said "I voted for the rest of the bill, but not the unaccountable $15B, which they still have mismanaged, though it's extremely necessary, so the whole bill didn't pass", or even "so I voted for a better bill the next month, which the Republicans voted down, because it lacked that bad section".
This kind of bundling is exactly the reason we need scope rules on bills. Scoping makes it harder for Congress to shove pet projects down each others throats, and thereby ours, because it makes them address the bundling explicitly, and gives a public voting mechanism to reject tangential bundles. And it makes their positions on bundles much easier to explain to the public, especially considering the kind of atomicity required of soundbites from nonincumbents, when the corporate media is the filter.
--
make install -not war
That's where your mom comes in: she's a different generation and (on average) a different gender. This surprises the staffer, and they'll add a +2 to whatever your mom says.
She can use one of the standard talking points, or mention how she wants her techie child to continue being employed. And, if she has grandkids, then variations of "Nothing, but nothing gets in the way of my showing off hi-def videos of my grandkids to my friends" could be useful. Plus, sad to say, the staffers are more likely to believe her when she says that she votes (or contributes to campaigns) because (on average) its true.
If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Feel free to change the existing copy - it's all editable. At this point, making a phone call in the morning is your best bet. There's a sample script on Boing Boing's entry.
We don't know who will be introducing it. Possibly Senator Ted Stevens, co-sponsor of the Hollings Bill which would have also enforced mandatory DRM.
Uhhh, there's these people called accountants who do these things called audits that ensure that donations and such are not in fact bribes. Whereas in the US campaign contributions often go straight into the pocket of the representative. Lemme give you some information that just might make your head spin. In Australia, you might give money to a political party to help them lobby so people vote for them and they might decide that there is no good way for them to spend that money to win the election. In that situation it is common for them to give the money back. Now tell me, does this ever happen in the US?
How we know is more important than what we know.
>The final nail in the coffin.
Let it die. It might lead to people creating their own entertainment media. Which, of course, turns the equation on its head, as individuals who are content creators acquire whatever magic rights the entertainment industry chiefs presume are their exclusive domain.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I thought everybody should know that you may have just slashdotted the United States Senate Appropriations Committee.
As of 10PM PST, six hours after news first leaked out, we've reached over 4550 messages sent to the 26 senators on the appropriations committee. The median number of emails and faxes per senator is 64; the average is 150.
Patty Murray (D-WA) received over 300 from her constituents on the Broadcast Flag. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) has received over 500 mails warning her of the controversial rider. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has over a thousand faxes sitting in her inbox telling her not to accept any Broadcast Flag amendment.
And that's not including the telephone calls, which are still continuing.
Hollywood's first chance to slip in an amendment will be at 2PM EST Tuesday, in the Commerce, Justice and Science. Their next opportunity will be the full committeee mark-up at 2PM EST Thursday.
We need to keep the pressure up, but I think it's fair to say that so far this rider is not slipping by unnoticed through the halls of Congress.
If you're in the states below, please call your senator.
COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND SCIENCE SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653
FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (202) 224-5054
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
MONTANA Conrad Burns (202) 224-2644
UTAH Robert F. Bennett (202) 224-5444
IDAHO Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
OHIO Mike DeWine (202) 224-2315
COLORADO Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Byrd (202) 224-3954
NEVADA Harry Reid (202) 224-3542
CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841
ILLINOIS Richard J. Durbin (202) 224-2152
SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
LOUISIANA Mary L. Landrieu (202) 224-5824
A TYPICAL CALL
"Hello, Senator _________'s office"
"Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm registering my opposition to
the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the
Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations
subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on
Thursday."
(*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag
here. Here's a sample: ***)
"The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of
receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts. It give
Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members
of the American public use our televisions. It forces
American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before
adding new features to TV. "
"This is an important issue which will affect all
Americans, and should not be inserted at the last moment,
with almost no debate."
"Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and
address are ___________________."
"Thank you for your time."
When writing of calling the senators, rather than just saying how much you dislike the thought of turning over more power to the FCC there's another point you can make that should pull at the heart-strings.
Remind them of a world of working people working wierd hours - late nights at the mall, night shifts, and the like. These are the forgotten people that all make our lives a little asier that are going to be most screwed by this evil broadcast flag. Not the people of Slashdot who can collectivley hack around most laws, but the bread and butter of each senators voting district who just do thier jobs and don't need the government coming in to tell them what can and cannot be recorded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and it said residential calls are not accepted on this voicemail system
Does this mean that U.S. Senators don't need to take calls from US residents ?
Could someone explain how this works ? Is this normal in the states ?
I think I would be a bit concerned if our politicians wouldn't even pretend to listen.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
The way to do it is to start a centrist party. A party which believes in liberalism but with a dash of social justice thrown in, after all for every right there is a corresponding responsibility[1]. It'll take support from both the left and the right.
[1] Something the founding fathers seem to have forgotten, where's the bill of responsibilities?
Deleted
73.46% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Extra medication for all!
The system _is_ truly stable. It has adapted to every method for changing it by making those methods ineffective. After 220+ years, it has settled down to stasis; there is no longer any usable mechanism for change for the better.
Voting doesn't help; you're voting for one member of the existing system, or another of the same, or you're voting for someone who can't win.
Worse, if you DO manage to vote out the incumbent, the rules of the House and Senate assure he has no real influence until he's been around for a while and therefore has fully aligned his interests with those of the system.
Letter-writing doesn't work -- such campaigns are often ignored, and those who prefer the status quo can and do mobilize their own campaigns.
Demonstrations don't work. If they're peaceful, they're ignored. If they're violent, the side opposing the status quo gets blamed. If they're peaceful and too big to be ignored, agents provocateur ensure they become violent, thus discrediting them.
Civil disobedience doesn't work; the penalties are too high, and once you've been convicted of a felony you've forfeited your political viability within the system -- as well as your chances of even making a decent living. Nobody cares if you're rotting in jail for violating an unjust law; you're just a criminal.
Even bribery (legalized or otherwise) won't work. Those supporting the status quo have more money. And the campaign finance laws are set up (not coincidentally) to help out the incumbents; those who have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo.
Here is what I sent - including a nice sound bite that anyone could use to attack the root of the MPAAs arguments, very simply. As a constituent and a proponent of innovation, I'm registering my opposition to any Broadcast Flag amendment introduced in the Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, or in full committee on Thursday.
If you read nothing else, I can summarize this letter with one sentence:
"Real American Companies Innovate, not Legislate."
The so-called Broadcast Flag is an abomination and needs to be rejected by the Senate. It will do nothing to stop large-scale piracy, and will only serve to limit the fair-use rights of American citizens to time shift television programs, save them for later viewing or view tv programs at a family member's home. Authorizing the broadcast flag will force innovative consumer electronics companies to ask for Hollywood permission before introducing new products. (Note how quickly the cable industry has approved "Cable Cards" for receiving digital cable, to enable digital-cable-ready TVs - After two years, there is exactly one approved.)
The history here is clear. Large sheet music companies tried to sue the nascent recording industry out of existence. Radio tried to stop TV. Large media companies tried to sue the VCR out of existence. Only after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of fair use did they realize the revenue stream available to them. They sued the first makers of MP3 players. They sued ReplayTV into bankruptcy because they dared to introduce an innovative product without the MPAA's permission. If the broadcast flag and similar legislative tools had been around for the last 100 years, we wouldn't have the record players, tape decks, television, VCR, iPods, TiVos or computer DVD recorders. These tools have helped democratize content creation, distribution & consumption by putting citizens/customers in charge of their home-made movies, music, and photographs. The media revolution IS the story of American Capitalism at it's best.
In addition, if recording off-the-air was forbidden, innovative teachers would have had substantially less material for thier class. Many routinely use clips from broadcast documentaries to enliven thier classes. All this would have to bow to the MPAA's desire to protect their old revenue stream.
Please vote against the Broadcast Flag. It is simply a power grab by the large media companies, intended to protect their current revenue stream, without having to innovate, like every other sucessful American company has to. Send them a message - "Real American Companies Innovate, not Legislate."
1. The broadcast flag is intended for broadcasted content, e.g.: over an antenna. So it really affects only 15% of the market.
2. The broadcast flag will NOT stop you from recording a show. Your VCR, TIVO, PVR, etc will still work. The uproar of not being able to time shift would be too great for them to kill it. (Obviously)
3. The broadcast flag WILL stop you from being able to publish a broadcasted show over the Internet.
4. The TV/Movie industry has methods to stop/track recordings from cable/satellite and their Internet transmissions. In some cases they are not using them, in others they are being developed.
5. The broadcast flag already exists in the content, the legislation is intended to force the hardware to recognize it. Manufacturers can voluntarily act on it now if they choose. But why would you add a feature (raise cost) if you don't have to. Thus the legislation is needed to get the hardware to do what the TV/Movie industry wants.
I don't care if it is implemented or not. Yes, I time shift continuously as my kids are not allowed to watch any night time TV. No, I don't get any TV or Movie content from the Internet. If I missed the show I missed it. I'll pick it up in reruns if it is important to me, which generally it is not.
As for commercial skipping, studies have showed that people that fast forward through commercials have the same retention rate as people that watch them all. Now is this saying that people intelligent enough to program a recording device are smarter than those that can not? I don't know. It's all open to interpretation.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
You're right, Duverger's Law (spoiler effect) is a feature (bug!) of the system itself, not any inherent flaw in the platforms of the minor parties. If we used Condorcet voting (not the same as IRV), every party could stand on its own merit. There would be no advantage inherent in being an incumbent party, or having the perception of being one of the most popular.
Of course, if everybody voted honestly instead of strategically there wouldn't be a problem either. But since that's awfully hard to do when the system encourages strategic thinking, we ought to change the system so that it encourages honesty. I don't know how we can have truly representative government if the people don't vote how they really think.
Politics isn't one-dimensional, so why do we think two parties can accurately reflect all political views? Politics is n-dimensional, for the n different issues that have become political. A strong multi-party system where everybody has a representative voice would be a big help.
Constitutionally Correct