Slashdot Mirror
20 Lawmakers Want to Kill Your Television
Macki writes "As previously mentioned, the Broadcast Flag is back before congress. There are 20 law makers currently supporting the bill. The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding. Danny O'Brien at the EFF has done a spectacular job deconstructingthe MPAA/RIAA's efforts to ramrod this through, and more importantly, the motivations of the members of congress who are helping them."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
How can I as a single poor person help stop this? I already called my damn politic person last time...I'm afraid he's gonna think I'm stalking him.
... 20 lawmakers were not enough to pass anything in either house of Congress. Why the worry?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Of the people who are supporting this so we can bury them in correspondence?
The RIAA has something to do with this? I wansn't aware of that.
Does it even look like the lawmakers in favor of this will be able to influence the others? Seems like it would be a difficult thing to do (if you don't consider bribes and such).
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
20 Lawmakers Want to Kill Your Television
--
Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Picaday!!! Strange & sexy pictures (Some NSFW!).
already slashdotted. i cant see the article even. try the cache.
It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding
Okay, now with this issue there might be an exception here, but there is a reason we don't have a true democracy in the United States: people are stupid. That's why we pick representatives to do the voting for us. It's not because it would be inconvenient to have a popular vote on every issue, it's because the framers were smart enough not to trust the public with such power.
Think of all the things that the majority of people in the U.S. hold as being a "good thing" for the country that would probably end up being disasterous. If slavery and civil rights were held to a popular vote, there's a good chance the laws never would have passed.
So please, before you trash Congress for against "the will of the people," bear in mind that is exactly why Congress exists; so that when the time is appropriate, Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.
I make no claim as to the application of my statements to this particular article. Just a general remark about the issue raised by the article summary.
What?
...
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
Ah, the new "Linux vs. Windows" SlashBot. Guaranteed to be on-topic 90% of the time... but there's an occasional miss.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
For me, like for many people here, TV is already dead.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
If you'll excuse me, I have to go renew my library card...
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Since I'd really like to know who the CongressCritters are who are supporting this, I found a link off the webpage to a letter of support: pdf here.In case that's slashdotted moementarily, heres the list of representatives
;)
Charles Pickering
Edolphus Towns
John Shimkus
George Radnovich
Mike Ferguson
Marsha Blackburn
Mary Bono
Bart Gordon
Joe Terry
Ed Whitfield
Bobby Rush
Vito Fossella
Elliot L. Engel
John B. Shadegg
Albert Russell Wynn
Michael F. Doyle
Charles A. Gonzalez
Charles F. Bass
John Sullivan
Frank Pallone, Jr.
You can look up what disctricts they're from at www.house.gov, and contact them any way you see fit. Let 'em have it!
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?
Subverting our democracy? Free network television is not in the bill of rights. And there is always short wave radio for us to enjoy!
Cogito Ergo Sum
OK, now do the RIAA/MPAA/whatever-AA really lose that much money due to fileswapping, piracy, video-taping, etc., that it is even financially worth all this bad PR? Or are they just run by a bunch of outright bastards who like being thought of as professional killjoys?
I don't expect a bunch of slashdot liberals to understand this, but the current administration and majority party in Congress are all about SMALLER gov't. They stand for smaller, less intrusive gov't getting OUT OF THE WAY of the free market. Things like a broadcast flag do not need to be legislated...
You know, if you guys would put down the Mother Jones, Village Voice, and Covert Action Quarterly you MIGHT learn a little something about conservatism.
Let me guess... Mr. Sweaty Armpits is backing these guys?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
so they want to f***ck the democratic process ? No problem, let ALL congress members take as much money from entertainment companies as possible, and then NOT pass the bill. When entertainment companies run out of money, the world will be a better, more entertaining place.
This won't contribute a thing to this discussion.
In fact, it's a knee jerk response on my part. I admit it.
But, I gotta say it.
What a bunch of Jerks!
Thank you!
Star Pirates
They're allowed to tack on whatever restrictions they want. We should be able to ignore them if we're not breaching the law by doing so. The GPL offers this right. The broadcast flag will not.
We have the right to record the episode according to a decision the supreme court made in the 1970's regarding the legality of video recorders.
Haven't had a TV for the past 10 years, and I'm still alive. Who'd care to watch this bullshit anyway. TV is insulting to any sane person's intelligence.
The number of people who support a piece of legislation is irrelivant in terms of whether a law is right or wrong. At some point in our nation's history it was only a handful of people who wanted to:
There are plenty of reasons not to vote for this law, but that line of reasoning isn't one of them.
(fyi, do not mistake this comment as support for the law)
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"Never get between an American and his TV set." If Congress passes this bill, there will be hell to pay.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
We may be a motivated army of geeks, but we're no match for American apathy.
It won't be until Bubba goes out and buys one of those nice new Sony DVD writing PVR's and he tries to save his lastest [Nascar race | Jerry Springer | Reality TV show] to DVD that the broadcast flag will hit him in the face.
Then suddenly the shit will hit the fan and it'll be too late.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
The broadcast flag won't do a thing to break your TV. Your TV shouldn't have to care one way or the other about the thing.
What this breaks is your PVR, by making it unlawful for Best Buy (or whoever) to sell you one that will record something they don't want you to. That doesn't stop you watching TV.
So they're not killing your home entertainment centre per se, just transporting it back to those lovely 1970s, where video recorders don't exist and the only way to watch something is to do so when they want to broadcast it. Which is pretty rubbish, admittedly.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
to me tv is crap anyway - I only use it to watch news and sports anything else is crap -
Aaaah, let me warm myself by the fire of this humourous and righteous flamebait. It brings me great joy
Cogito Ergo Sum
More power to them.
Today's TV is just a nuisance. It makes people dumb, fearful and lethargic.
20% of US-Americans are functional illiterates - it wouldn't hurt if they switched off the TV-set and took a book in their hand.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
If you're a do-it-yourselfer like me, those days are quickly coming to an end in the US. They don't want a producer society, they want a consumer society. It's good for their pockets. But they are not going to be able to stop people with the intelligence to be able to do this stuff on their own. The GNU Radio Project is a perfect example. It might eventually be "illegal" but for no good reason other than the supposed protection of intellectual property which is also a crock. I plan to be experimenting with this stuff myself since... science is not a crime.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Could anyone recommend a good unbiased site that tracks politicians and their impetus anywhere?
I'd like to make sure I'm voting for the lesser evils in the world, and not these 20.
NEWSFLASH: The broadcast flag was pushed through Congress and is now law.
It's as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, then were suddenly silenced.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You're so cute when you think there is such a thing as democracy. For the rich, by the rich. Always has been, always will be.
Oh, and read a book, TV isn't that important.
I don't care if Linux *is* more difficult to get going at the moment, its built with dedication and a desire for openness..
It is ironic that with it's pervasive
openness Linux is too painful for the average user to understand yet with all it's closedness (if that's a word) so many (advanced users) claim to hate Windows and so many commoners love it.
Cogito Ergo Sum
TV makes you fat, lazy and stupid, so maybe it's a blessing in disguise if they want to kill it.
On a personal note, I probably watched about 10 hours of TV last year. Have more time for gym and books, though.
I have a class soon so I can't put this together right now, but here are details for the first guy on the list so as to inspire other slashdotters to complete it:
Charles Pickering
WashingtonOffice:
229 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202.225.5031 Tel
202.225.5797 Fax
Rankin Office:
110-D Airport Rd
Pearl, MS 39208
601.932.2410 Tel
601.965.4598 Fax
Meridian Office:
823 22nd Ave
Meridian, MS 39301
601.693.6681 Tel
601.693.1801 Fax
Starkville Office:
1 Research Blvd Ste 206
Starkville, MS 39759
662.324.0007 Tel
662.324.0033 Fax
Natchez Office:
308 Franklin Street
Natchez, MS 39120
601. 442.2515 Tel
601.442.2311 Fax
Brookhaven Office:
230 Whitworth Street
Brookhaven, MS 39601
601.823.3400 Tel
601.823.5512 Fax
URL for form to email him:
http://www.house.gov/pickering/Form.htm
Sure, well there is.. umm.. oh but there is.. well um.. no. I cannot think of anyone on the planet who does not have some agenda. Including me. (see my sig line!)
Cogito Ergo Sum
My television has very little to do with the RIAA and Hollywood. A fact that would terrify them. Dare I say this will be read one day to someone 'over there' - over that line between fairness and decency. How the mighty have fallen. The love for Hollywood used to be absolute. Enough fjord based pining. To my point.
I am an amature satellite enthusiast, and I also enjoy watching international programming to enrich my life, see alternate viewpoints, dabble in foreign languages. I have a collection of the choicest materials in a pile of different formats going back to reel to reel, a good amount of which is far outside anything the RIAA presides over.
Even the RIAA members are beginning to admit that numbers are down on theatre goers because what they produce is, in their own terms, crap. Why people fund horror movies at this point is beyond me. When horror movies became a year-round release date, a constant barrage tucked between truck commercials and station-based self promotion v-spam, I began to rarely watch anything produced in this country. If you could escape, you would too - if you haven't already...
Looks like the boycott has already started. Nevermind. =)
kulakovich
You write letters, as in black print on white paper, in a real envelope, with a real stamp, to your Congresscritters, explaining that you oppose this, you think it is a really bad idea, and you want them to vote AGAINST it.
You send three letters, at a minimum: one to each Senator from your state, and one to the Congressman who represents you.
You get all your friends to do the same thing.
E-mail WON'T CUT IT. They KNOW that e-mail takes no effort, compared to sending an actual physical letter.
If any of the Congresscritters sponsoring this travesty are from your state, whether they represent you or not, you also send them letters.
The letters should be short, polite, to-the-point. They should not use profanity, they should not use 1337-speak, they should not make any kind of threat, not even the threat to vote against them in the next election if they support this. (That last threat is implicit in the fact that you sent the letter.)
The vast majority of Congresscritters *NEVER* hear from "The Folks Back Home". The corollary is that every actual physical letter they receive indicates at least 100 voters who feel the same way, but didn't bother to write a letter. (Every phone call is assumed to indicate 10 voters.)
You almost certainly will receive a reply to your letter. It may or may not indicate that anyone actually read it. If you do not receive a reply, you send more letters, to the State party headquarters, complaining about that clown in Washington who can't be bothered to answer mail from constituents. Those letters also get read, and said clown will hear about it from the guys who made his election happen.
And anyone who thinks that these things can't be fixed should re-read the results of the 1994 mid-term elections.
I had read the title as 20 Online Lawnmowers Want To Kill Your Television
Obviously I need a shot of coffee...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
except that the current administration is NOT (fiscally) CONSERVATIVE!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
is how short-sighted can these industries be?
the motion picture industry has just come to the conclusion that their paying customers are tired of junk. the tv industry is suffering also, largely due to junk. people are walking away from movies and tvs to computer (and other) entertainment. and these industries are so entrenched that rather than adapt to what people want, they are alienating their customers.
it's not just money. it's power also. many years ago (before vcrs), the television industry was proud that they could make people be in a chair in front of a tv at a specific time. when vcrs were introduced, people could set their own schedules and tv lost a lot of power. there was not much dollars to be lost in 1980 with vcrs. they weren't selling a lot of tv shows on tape at that point. but the industry was losing the ability to control people. i beleive that's what the broadcast flag is about about. if you can't record it, i can make you be in *that* chair at *that* time. unless people give up on the programming altogether.
eric
I may agree with some of your points but if I put this The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. into a memo and sent it to my boss I'd be let go quicker than you can say EULA.
Cogito Ergo Sum
"Free network television is not in the bill of rights."
Neither is commercial television. Nor televisions. Neither is the right to make a profit from television.
I'm not sure what your point is... that unless something is in the bill of rights, we have no rights to it?
Look, I get what you're saying, that its "their" material, they can broadcast it anyway they like. And it might surprise you to know that I agree with you. But at the same time, I'm not sure why the government is spending time and effort to ensure a profit by mandating a broadcast flag.
After all, a broadcast flag isn't in the bill of rights!
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...I thought it read "20 Lawnmowers Want to Kill Your Television".
Might as well be the same thing...?
You are not root, go away.
my guitar wants to kill your mama.
I am so tired of people saying if we had a true democracy then stupid things would result because look at the stupid people. My answer is maybe you are one of those STUPID people? And maybe you happen to be one of those biased people who thought, "If it was up to me I would fix things".
You see I live in a country that has true democracy and it is called Switzerland. In fact true democracy works well because believe it or not there are "STUPID" swiss! People who say, "it's because the framers were smart enough not to trust the public with such power" are in fact saying, "An elite number of people know what's good for the masses!". Let's carry this thought through and call it what it is namely fascism.
If a country like the US switched to true democracy yes in the first decade all hell would break out because people would vote based on silly ideas. HOWEVER, after people realize that their vote counts people will vote differently. People will think about their votes and they will try to understand the isses. And if the issue is too complex then a simple no will do. That is what happens here in Switzerland. If the issues get too complex they just say NO!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Because the law and decades of court decisions explicitly give them that right.
So as software developers, we can tack on licenses such as the GPL to determine how our works are used... but networks cannot tack on restrictions to how their media is used.
There is nothing in the GPL that attempts to restrict your standard fair use rights, such as making a backup copy or loading the program into RAM. The GPL only deals with redistribution rights. The GPL gives you broad redistribution rights with some conditions attached. It is well understood that for a TV show, the producers give you zero redistribution rights. But redistribution has nothing to do with you taping a show.
This proposed law is about revoking rights that you already explicitly have, such as timeshifting shows, and transferring them to the content producers. These particular rights are not addressed by the GPL; the GPL simply assumes that you retain the standard rights that you already have under the law.
If our politicians are dicking around with things like this then maybe we can regroup before invading another country. (note to self: check out dual citizenship with Antigua)
Cogito Ergo Sum
Last time I looked I was'nt suppossed to be able to view DVD's outside my region. Funny thing is the manufacturer left some "test functions" around which allowed me to do this.
Even if the broadcast flag is made legal, it won't be worldwide so manufacturers outside the US(i.e.99% of them) will have to support both modes and therefore there will be a loophole and a way of turning it off.
Unless the RiAA and MPAA are going to go around raiding houses to find these illegal devices I cannot see this working
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
The truth is that history is repeating itself here, I know this sounds off topic - but a few paragrapshs down I'll explain some more. The speculative industrial stock bubble in 1850 is very similar to the speculative internet stock bubble in 2000. The "war against indians" is very similar to the "war against terrorisim" - back then advances in transportation technology exposed us to indian culture in a very fast and dramatic way causing a culture clash, today the internet has exposed many unfree cultures arround the world to US culture in a very dramatic way to them and some have reacted by lashing out at us.
.... Second, there is no nicely divided north and south. Instead it is more like a division between tech and content industries. Third, copyrights are not the only information people are trying to controll - "money" is a way of storing information about value and transaction costs. The Fed and some large financial institutions are definitely trying to controll it, and all hell is about to break loose in the market place as well as the copyright space. Fourth, there is compelling reason to believe that no government will be on the side of freedom this time until the battle is all over. A flaw of democratic government is that it is often more accountable to the media than it is to securing freedoms.
Back then it was about controlling the labor market (slavery) in the industrial era, today it is about controlling information in the information age. Back then they screamed bloody murder that people were stealing their property rights as industrialists wanted to use available labor without giving a damn about who alledgedly "owned it". Today many industires and individuals want to just be able to use information at their disposal to provide effective services, without being microregulated with a zillion tons of content restrictions. (like google's guntenberg project, apple's ipod, to name a few out of thousands)
The speculative advances of the industrial revolution also caused a period of growth followed by a deflationary adjustment. Today, the housing and every other market is way over saturated in debt - and the writing is on the wall. (watch out for a major economic "adjustment")
There were even people who desperately tried to get the slave states to get along with the free states who naievely didn't understand the nature of slavery or that the forces that would drive the industries apart were far greater than the ones that bound them together. Today there are all these people who are desperately trying to cling to the copyright system, even though any sincere thought will show it's pretty much DOA, and should be DOA.
So yes, the way congress is acting shouldn't be any supprise. Renember how they extended slavery to last forever for all colored people, renember how they punished people for simply teaching others how to read. Funny how copyrights have effectively been made to last forever, and copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
There are some important differeces though. First you can't controll information with physical violence, but you can attempt to controll it with BS, threats, lawsuits, brow-beating, etc
This is just a case of an industry losing potential buyers, because said buyers have found a means of getting the product they desire without having to go to the local store to buy or rent it. Needless to point out, this goes hand in hand with the RIAA's crusade against music piracy, which would explain their involvement in this.
But one thing I have noticed is that coming back from the days where you would have to hold a tape recorder up to a radio to get a copy of your favorite song, actions taken against piracy in general, while showing some form of momentum, have essentially come up with almost nil progress in a grander scale.
People still copy music/movies/applications, and while some are sanctioned for it, the vast majority go unchecked. This is why I believe that the process of putting a stop to piracy will never really see any culmination, unless certain rights of privacy are violated (and hey, look! They already have on some cases. Coincidentally, they were the cases that saw most action of prosecution).
I honestly don't think the media industries are losing SO much money due to media pirates that justifies cause for such rash decisions.
To put it bluntly: We've been doing this stuff so much, and for so long, that putting an end to it would be near impossible.
That's the way I see it.
All that researching alternate models stuff takes time. Just give them this kind of power so we can see some citizens with pitchforks and torches action on CNN. My cable bill is paid up and hurricane season is almost over. There's (marketing) void between now and Christmas.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Actually, it *does* mean we can copy it FOR PERSONAL USE. That's what the "Betamax decision" was all about. It doesn't mean we can turn around and sell copies on the corner (distribution), though. Most premium-channel shows (HBO) have the 'for personal use' disclaimer upfront.
I'll leave as an exercise to the reader the question of P2P downloads of shows I *could* have recorded off-the-air but forgot to program for. If I record off-air, the Betamax decision applies, no issue; if I forgot to set up the VCR and grab it off a torrent somewhere, somehow to the MPAA I'm the modern Satan?
You might be interested to follow the money trail behind there. There are two major money sources behind this legislation (well, probably more, but it takes time to mine OpenSecrets): The national association of broadcasters and the national cable and telecommunications association. Together these groups have given over $300,000 to the people who signed this letter over the past two election cycles. That's an average of more than $15,000 per congressman. It's scary that I can buy a congressman's support on a bill for less than the cost of my Mazda. Of particular note is how representative Upton, the man who the letter was directed to has already received over $35,000 in this and the previous election cycle from these interests.
More analysis and complete listings can be found at this entry in my weblog.
Anyway, so in response, I called my congressman, Mike Doyle (PA-14), and asked to speak to the tech person to understand his position on the broadcast flag. It's important to note that not all legislators who signed the letter support the flag on the same level. I was informed that Doyle supported it to keep copy protected content off the internet, but still wanted to allow time shifting and burning to DVD, copying to PSP etc. Good, but misguided. If your legislator takes this stance, I highly suggest referencing the Darkent Paper from Microsoft Research. Basically, it says that DRM will fail in these endeavors. Also, when you call, try not to sound like a loony. Being able to cite specific examples of how it will hurt you is good (e.g. I travel a lot and this will prevent me from watching shows on my PSP or are you willing to explain to grandma why she can't tape Monday night football to watch it the next morning because she can't stay up past 10pm).
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Let the *AA legislate themselves into irrelevancy. Meanwhile, go outside and see the sun. It's quite pretty ( after it's burned the flesh from your bones ). Play with your kids, talk to your parents ( in shortly timed bursts to maintain sanity ), go to the park and play with a frisbee.
I haven't had a TV in years and I do not miss it. So let them keep passing these laws and essentially screwing themselves over.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Thanks for clearing that up to me.
At one point the Internet looked like providing a fix, at least for the literate, in terms of supplying information. But even there the good stuff is increasingly subject to Gresham's Law - it's being buried under the piles of shit. And now that Rupert Murdoch has suddenly discovered the interthingy, and is moving the centre of his empire to the US, it won't get better any time soon. But cheer up! The Roman Empire ran on panem et circenses; it's just a social cycle and eventually it will collapse. Probably when the barbarian hordes from China invade, steal all the electronic goods, and put the population of the US to work building giant terracotta statues.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The U.S. government is for sale to whomever has money: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
It's not just the broadcast flag.
I can't believe that internet piracy - even at much higher levels - would encourage broadcasters or producers to abandon the free terrestrial TV market. They make more money than they lose through piracy. Other countries have successfully switched to free terrestrial digital services and there is no sign of this "reluctance" amongst producers. Does a higher resolution display really make that much difference?
In fact, very few people do upload broadcast TV shows to the internet. Those that do are usually of a lower quality to improve download speeds, but even if they do simply upload a copy at broadcast quality, the hassle of doing this is too great for most people to be bothered with. The people who actually do this will find a way to circumvent the broadcast flag.
So the broadcast flag would fail to stop a small monority from an act that actually causes a fairly trivial amount of actual damage.
This link in this item suggests all the members of the Commerce Committee support the bill? Uh... how about making it more clear by listing who really is sponsoring it, and by posting a separate link of who to contact (on the Commerce Committee) to kill it.
Just a thought...
These are mostly politicos with low standing. These all want to be the next Sen. Ernest 'Fritz' Hollings, D-Disney, why anyone would want to be a crooked racist crackpot I don't know. However it does pay well.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Read the f***ing articles, Follow the F***ing links, you will find your list.
www.wavefront-av.com
What they don't realize is that by doing this, they will lose a lot of their audience. I for one rarely ever watch live TV anymore (unless the program is in HD). Time slots are of lesser importance as DVRs become more mainstream, television stations ought to embrace the opportunity rather than killing it! Online music stores have not made me any less likely to steal music (since I never did it in the first place); likewise, this flag only hurts the honest consumer -- pirates will always figure out ways to circumvent such measures.
27 years without tv. Just don't put a broadcast
flag on my sewing machines. www.clearplastic.com
Cleara
A hint: not the general populace.
TV in the USA basically sucks. I watch PBS and a FEW other shows. I have given up on cable and dish or any other pay service (out side of a DSL line and a news server subscription, I will get to that later).
If you have an alcoholic in your family one way to help is to try to control their drinking, the other is to let them reach bottom and hopefully they will be ready to look for help.
I suggest that we encourage every stupid limiting/controlling idea and let the dead market fix itself. Remember DIVIX pay per view DVD-s? that product did well. I wonder what sap has disks they can no longer watch? We need a hard lesson for the American consumer. The MPAA may be able to provide it.
There are some British shows that I watch (from news gropes, thank GOD for DivX). If they were available I would pay for that!. A lot of new stuff I like I think is from "chanel4".
So for now I will just use my news subscription, when that gets turned off I guess I will read old books from garage sales.
There's nothing worth watching on anyway. Now where'd I leave that book?
I don't see any problems.
IPTV is on the rise, and soon Content providers will be independent and they will not care about the broadcast flag. What they will care about is a way to track the number of views their video gets, and that could be done in the codec so that every time a video gets watched, it sends a ping to a server running a program that keeps records of the number of pings it gets.
then the trading can ensue.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
There's nothing new about this kind of subversion. Lawmakers are already ignoring their constituents on issues such as the Iraq war, immigration and the economy. They have been bought off by corporate interests. The United States is being cannibalized to generate profits for big corporations.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
This is an ideal use of "the politics of personal destruction."
If they want to play footsy with the RIAA, this is what we must do: Find out about these politicians' families. What jobs do their wives have with lobbying firms ior law firms? Who are their clients?
Call their clients and badmouth them. Lie if you have to. They will. Don't be fair. They aren't. Destroy them if you can. They would not hesitate to let the RIAA do it to you.
One half a dozen of these snakes have been crushed under the wheels of a smear campaign, the rest will not be willing to accept the odds that go with supporting the RIAA.
If the broadcast flag is made law, what is to stop television companies (who we all know are sooo impartial) from preventing shows 'they' dont agree with from being recorded. When I say they, I mean anyone who has influence over these companies (government, big business).
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Best thing I ever did. TV sucks.
There is such a thing as a consumer boycott. You may have heard of them. Just don't go to any more movies, don't buy or rent any more DVD's, CD's, cancel your cable and/or satellite, and turn off your television, or rather don't turn it on. It doesn't get any easier. You don't have do a thing. Well, you do have do one thing. Let them know and especially their advertisers know why you are opting out.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
you ASKED for this!
_____________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian Candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
I'm sick of people confusing capitalism with the supremacy of capital over people. I'm all for capitalism, but I'm for a diverse market with many sellers and buyers. The Broadcast flag is the attempt of a few mega-corporations to make the rest of us a perpetual revenue source. At least the GPL crowd is making tools that people can use in their own creative endevors. So don't rip the open source developers as being anti-capitalist.
Think global, act loco
Ok, lets look at what we will be missing if we turn off "free broadcast television". 5% of stupid people will not be able to watch "COPS". Now lets look at what we will get. More bandwidth for newer more efficent media outlets. More internet media competition for local news, sports, weather etc. Government sponsored free or close to it broadband (It seems like this is a basic human right at this point in our country) I imagine wireless broadband, wifi, cell, telephone, cable companys would pick up the slack. How many people here have viewed Broadcast Television in the past 5 years? Not me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can think of a few...lets see. Money...money, greed, money, money and oh yes, of course money and greed.
I am interested in buying one or more HDTV capture cards, but I am concerned that some manufacturers have already built in Broadcast Flag support in anticipation of the regulation that was to go in effect last summer.
I know that pcHDTV is safe. Have any of the other manufacturers, such as ATI, already built in Broadcast Flag capabilities?
I stopped watching television years ago and I'm much happier for it. The only reason I have one around is to watch DVDs and for my game systems. I don't download TV programs because nothing on television is worth the time it takes to watch it, the bandwidth I would need to allocate to downloading and uploading to other torrenters, or even the infinitesimal chance that I'll get served a lawsuit over it.
If you all just stopped paying an exorbinant amount of money, monthly, to people that want to do you harm, maybe things would change.
...but not my TV!
Bitter and twisted, DON'T ever FORGET the TWISTED
The problem is that it's not even a handful of people who want this law, but a handful of companies. Big difference.
Why does anybody think the employees of a company have (or should have) any say in stuff like this? The editorial/political policy of a company is set by the management, who (at least in theory) represent the interest of the stockholders. Employees don't enter into the equation at all.
I don't tell my employer what to think, and they sure as heck don't tell me what to think. If I am truly upset at my employer's political views, I am free to quit (and, fortunately, the reverse is not true).
TV is dead, this is a last gasp attempt to hold on to a passing technology.
It will just speed up it's final rattle.
The internet and fat pipes with international access is the future.
The internet knows no boundaries, there will always be countries that will sell you/us what we want, and with the internet as a delivery system, who can stop them?
Movies hit the internet within hours of their first screening! If you can't control that, what can you control?
If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
Obviously, that means that we should, under no circumstances, deliver a Broadcast Flag; we really need the bandwidth for more useful purposes. For example, if we use those channels for WiFi or WiMax, then Internet access becomes easier and people can choose what to watch, as opposed to having ABC and NBC show them bad television with worse advertising mixed in.
First, very few households get broadcast TV any more. I have seen numbers as low as 20%. Most housholds have cable.
Second, what about the mantra that if you don't want people to record things, then don't send it on the radio spectrum? Cable companies can ask you to sign terms of agreements for viewing their broadcasts. They could put broadcast flags in their transmissions if they so choose --and there isn't much that anyone can do about it except not subscribe.
Ultimately I don't think producers and broadcast networks realize that it is their very own throats they are cutting. Those people who have a life do not schedule them around television broadcasts any more. That's what VCRs and TiVO are for. If too many programs have this flag, those who sell advertising will notice that the circulation isn't as wide as it used to be. And then guess what: It will not get used.
Television shows aren't free. If the distributors choose to stop airing this stuff because they can't get the broadcast flag, that's their business. Are we so far gone that we're back to bread and circuses to keep us passified? I say let Congress pass this bill. It will be an interesting experiment. I can't wait to see how much illiterate hate mail the congress critters get because kids can't watch their cartoons on TiVO, housewives can watch their soaps, and those with little imagination can't watch their gussied up game shows we call "reality television"...
I think this is a lot of hooey over nothing. Nobody's got the guts to use a broadcast flag. I dare these guys to do this to this to a program for one year. It'll never survive.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
is that Switzerland is small and homogenous, and that's why pure democracy works. It's worked in New England, too. But the founders just thought that it wasn't the best way.
Describing the voters as stupid is taking it too far. Voters are smarts, mobs are dumb and we all know it. Even pure democracy doesn't allow lynchings, no matter how popular.
8 of these 20 senators are up for reelection in 2006, more than the percentage of the entire Senate (40% vs 33%). Call their office, ask how they'll vote, decide whether to vote for them to represent you for the next 6 more years, and tell them that you and all your Internetted friends are voting that way next year. That's the only way to influence them, short of sending them sacks of cash bribes^Wcontributions, or finding them in bed with a dead girl (or live boy). If you really want to make a difference, don't just call them with consistent, effective talking points. Send them a paper letter. Because plenty of these neanderthals don't have any idea what a "broadcast flag" is, and probably think they're voting for some kind of "wrap myself in the American flag" rule that scores votes among the blindly patriotic.
Republicans:
Conrad Burns - Montana 202-224-2644
Trent Lott - Mississippi 202-224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas 202-224-5922
John Ensign - Nevada 202-224-6244
Olympia Snowe - Maine 202-224-5344
George Allen - Virginia 202-224-4024
Democrats:
Bill Nelson - Florida 202-224-5274
Maria Cantwell - Washington 202-224-3441
Senator John McCain - Arizona 202-224-2235 is running for president in 2008. Call his office, too, and tell him whether you and all your Internetted friends nationwide will be voting for him.
Senator David Vitter - Louisiana 202-224-4623 just stood up for his partymate Bush's failure to protect his state before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. He's not running, but he's so vulnerable that he doesn't need to hear that rich, smart people are against him, along with the poor evacuees and victims.
Senator John Sununu - New Hampshire 202-224-2841 is the most powerful telecom senator. Call his office and tell them what his "tech constituency" thinks of his votes to protect us from being regulated into media vassals.
Go ahead and call any of the rest of them, if they represent you. That means they represent you, not the interests of some out-of-state media cartel that's just ripping you off:
Republicans:
Chairman Ted Stevens - Alaska 202-224-3004
Senator Gordon Smith - Oregon 202-224-3753
Senator Jim DeMint - South Carolina 202-224-6121
Democrats:
Ranking Member Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii 202-224-3934
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia 202-224-6472
Senator John F. Kerry - Massachussetts 202-224-2742
Senator Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota 202-224-2551
Senator Barbara Boxer - California 202-224-3553
Senator Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey 202-224-3224
Senator E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska 202-224-6551
Senator Mark Pryor - Arkansas 202-224-2353
--
make install -not war
The "There are 20 law makers currently supporting the bill" link in the summary is incorrect. The twenty Senators listed on that site are the ones in the Commerce Commitee who will be voting on the Senate version of the DTV bill, and may or may not support the broadcast flag.
This article, however, was about a new push to get the Brodcast flag added to the DTV bill in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce , in particular in the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee . The way that legislation works now-a-days is that there is rarely an opportunity to get a bill ammended when it goes before congress. All the formulation and ammending of bills happens in committee, and then the house and senate usually just give it an up or down vote without any modifications (but after a great deal of grand-standing). So these are the people who have the most influence on the final wording of the House version of the DTV bill. If you have representatives from your state in this committee you should definiately write them. Even if you don't it won't hurt to pick someone from the subcommittee and write them anyway.
The representatives listed by Mad Rain, above, is the correct list of supporting representatives - 20 of the 57 members of the House Commerce Committee. If they are in you district, they are the people you should writing letters of disgust, and let them know you will be voting against them in the next election.
In addition if your Senator is on the Senate Commerce Committee and you haven't written them yet on the broadcast flag, then you should, as they will be dealing with this issue as well.
Lastly if your senators and representatives are not on any of these committees you should write them anyway in case the bill makes it out of committee. Since we dont know an exact number for this bill yet, it helps if you know in what capacity they will be working with the bill, to help them identify what bill you are talking about. Keywords - Digital Television Bill, Broadcast Flag, Commerce Committee.
Of all the scumbags in the Senate, you picked Barbara Boxer to parody as hypocritical? How about Bill Frist (R-TN), the Senate Majority Leader (ie. "in charge of the Senate")? Frist is about to be indicted for insider trading $millions of his family's healthcare stock, as part of his preparation to run for president in 2008. All while forcing rulebreaking votes to pump $BILLIONS of corporate welfare into drug companies, inefficient anticonsumer "privatized" healthcare, and many other votes and party decrees that block cost effective healthcare development and consumption. In other words, robbing us to keep us sick, then dumping his own shares when even those scams couldn't prop up his family business. All while violating a "blind trust" that's supposed to prevent his even knowing which shares he owns, let alone direct his conflicted interests to make a fortune off our misfortune. And Frist is just the biggest kingpin - he's not even the biggest scumbag.
So you pick on Boxer. I'm calling you out as a fox in the henhouse, wearing chicken feathers and crowing a chicken alarm to lock you in with your prey.
--
make install -not war
This is obviously regulation without representation - as bad or worse than taxation without representation.
Throw your TV's on congress's steps! I've got an old junked one, I'd gladly send to DC, if someone there will place it neatly on the front steps of congress.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
What exactly is bigoted about the GP post? Is there something wrong with the name Bubba? Is it wrong or bad to watch Nascar, Jerry Springer, or Reality TV shows? If you think so, you are the bigot. If you are objecting to the phrase "American apathy" you are merely unobservant.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'd strongly suspect that most of these commoners just love whatever comes with the box. Which in almost all cases (thank you Mr Monopoly) would be Windows.
To justify your statement you'd need to test two groups of people with Linux and Windows respectively, neither group having touched a computer in their life. I don't believe such a test has ever been done on a suitably large scale.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
"If you forgot to set up the VCR and get it off torrent then somebody else recorded it and illegally offered it up for uncompensated distribution."
[note my eyes are closed, tears are running down my cheeks, and the back of my hand is held up against my forehead with the fingers pointing up]
Oh no! Not that! Waaaa! Waaa!
Maybe what they ought to do is to allow you to download the episodes with the commercials still in them.
Since people are lazy, they'll still watch the commercials, they'll cut off "uncompensated distribution" [imagine me crying again], because if they make it easy to get, then people will choose the easiest path.
Oh, and they'll still buy the episodes on DVD because the quality will probably be higher, they'll be extras, and people like to collect things.
There you go. All figured out.
Write The Fucking Word, it's not like masking it with *s makes it any less offensive.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
And then they don't want to take a side. So they recommend a referendum where the voters choose instead.
Is a modern role. The checks and balances system was never intended to work in quite the way that it has with the Supreme Court. In key situations, mostly this century, it's worked out well. But we could just as easily have 9 justices protecting the status quo (see: separate but equal). It's remarkable now that the news orgs are retelling the history of the SC, that so many SC judges were so political. And if Bush had any cojones, he'd fill the bench with true Conservatives, which is mostly why he was elected.
Anyway, that's why we should remember how important the filibuster is in the Senate. That's the true protection of the minority, where even Rhode Island can veto California.
Don't get me wrong, you're nervous (probably) about single Conservative states extorting the Senate for favors, and I'm concerned about 5 justices reading abortion rights into a ~200 yr. old document. We should both be concerned, and that's why the only real power is in voting.
It is a representative democracy. A democracy is a government directly controlled by the people. We do not vote on bills or introduce legislation, so we are not a democracy. More specifically, we are a republic (a government controlled by a document, the Constitution), that establishes a representative democracy.
I realize they don't want us to copy digital stuff (I disagree with that, but whatever). If it even passes, could companies not just make converters that turn the digital copy protected signal into an analog *free* signal so it's legal to copy on whatever?
I know digital is clearer, but I've lived in an analog world for awhile and recording/viewing analog is not that big of a deal to me.
If this bill makes it illegal to convert a digital copy protected signal into an analog signal so users could record, then i'll be very upset.
Does anyone know??
Let's take it for granted that your postulation is correct, that it will make it harder to watch television. Why is this a bad thing? (no TV in over 17 years, and better for it.)
I did and I hope others too, that's probably why I don't see a lawmaker from Maryland listed there. What about these other states? Also, do you think these lawmakers really listen to appeals by the voting public in their region or do they just do a "yes-sir" job for the likes of MPAA and RIAA.
"Today, the housing and every other market is way over saturated in debt - and the writing is on the wall. (watch out for a major economic "adjustment")"
Generally, the type of adjustment you're talking about here doesn't happen in residential real-estate for a simple reason: People can't afford to sell for less than they paid. They can't because they generally don't have the means to sell for less than their mortagage without declaring bankruptcy.
That's not to say there won't be some downward pressure on housing prices, but the usual effect is very temporary and usually only effects very specific properties. In the late 80's and early 90's there was some deflation in housing prices, but it was only for 18 months and prices clearly are higher than they were in the late 80's.
I think commercial real-estate is more sensitive to deflation because small companies readily fold when their debt service exceeds their cash flow. For residential mortagages, people will pay as long as they can, and even if there's a problem, banks are not eager to foreclose because its more profitable to let customers work through the problem.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
What happened to the public owning the spectrum? If a company wants to broadcast on this far-reaching medium into essentially every home in their market, rather than using a private cable or satellite distribution system, they need to accept the public's control. If they don't want their product broadcast freely, they can hand in their license, which will be snapped up in about two seconds by another eager company.
Last stop you...
Are you that fucking stupid that you don't see the stereotyping being put forth here?
I guess you would be fine with this then too:
I'm going to get my friend Yolanda some fried chicken and then we'll give her a weave while we watch Everybody Hates Chris
That's it! I am formally announcing my intent to run for president with my "Shit will be different" campaign. I have no ties to anyone and will gladly tell the MPAA/RIAA to jam it up their ass.
The promises I will keep:
1.No DRM of any kind on publicly viewed/listened media.
2.No software patents.
3.Adoption of open source in government.
Get your "Shit will be different" button now, and as a bonus I'll throw in the "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out button" while supplys last.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Democracy has been subverted for ages and will continue to be. The only thing that keeps it rolling along is the electorate eventually gets pissed off enough and kicks the scoundrels out and installs new scoundrels. Rotating the bastards out is something akin to hitting the reset button - things work well for awhile until it's time to reset again.
These 20 congress folk who signed the letter need to be reminded who voted them into office. The bribes the MPAA and RIAA are paying had better be enough for them to live on once they're kicked out.
That's right, it doesn't matter. The broadcast flag will eventually become reality in some way/shape/form. Write your representative all you wish, bitch about it till your old and grey, but it will come wheather you like it or not.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
This is just one more example of a basic problem with the way government views laws these days.
The problem is that they are not satisfied with laws which define illegal behavior, but insist on progressing beyond that to define lawa to prevent us from even being ABLE to break those laws.
There are perfectly adequate laws on copyright. Now they want to pass laws making it illegal to possess tools which in themselves are harmless but *could* be used to break a law.
This sort of law should probably be very rare. As someone pointed out, based upon this sort of logic ever male should probably be in prison since they possess the equipment necessary to commit rape.
Rather than fighting indicidual pieces of legislation, we should be concentrating our efforts on reforming the creation of "restraining" laws -- which really are probably unconstitutional based upon prior restraint -- but good luck in trying to get one of these before the SCOTUS.
That is all.
Yet another misleading headline to an article not about Ned's Atomic Dustbin . Just when I think this place is finally developing some musical taste. Bollocks.
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
Dear Congressman Radanovich,
I understand that you are supporting a Bill set forth to require the use of the Digital TV Broadcast Flag. While this has no direct benefit to the users of digital tv, it comes as a worriesome revelation to those of us who use and enjoy analog tv, and have no intention of soon switching over and purchasing digital tv sets.
I know that this bill is an effort to force people to purchase digital tv sets, and I know that Congress can't shut down analog television until 85 percent of American households buy digital sets. I feel that it is being done under a great amount of subterfuge in order to appease the MPAA in it's digital and IP copyright wars against those who choose to share digital media over the internet and other distribution channels. I feel that you've been fooled into thinking that this Bill will successfully regulate such use. In fact, it will have no effect on it seeing as how all pirated works of digital media are captured using analog computer capture cards and the analog out ports on their digital tv's and receivers. It also stifles the rights of Fair Use that some people choose to use in order to archive television shows for their own private home viewing, like the generations before us have done with no harm to the Film Industry.
I emplore you to look deeper than the surface on this issue. While it may seem to protect big business, and clears up analog airways to be sold to cell companies, it clearly violates Fair Use, incorporates unfair DRM (Digital Rights Management), and forces the public to switch to digital tv sets prematurely when there is no good reason to. Even if it were harmful to grandfather such things as analog tv, removing it's potential for the good of the public is like banning classic cars who don't meet California Emission standards. This is akin to forcing classic car owners to sell or buy new cars simply so car manufactures can make more money and consequentially incorporates technology that inhibits the normal person from being able to service their own vehicles without extremely pricey computer equipment and toolsets.
I do hope you rethink your stance on this issue, and look at it from all perspectives, not just that of the MPAA and big business, and what they have to gain from it. Always put the consumers demands and needs first, because it is us who keep your big business and supporters in operation. Businesses are here to provide service, not to ramrod us into litigations that deny our basic rights as customers, and those given to us under law. Big Business should be in servitude to the public, not the public in servitude to Big Business.
The **AAs SHOULD win. It would be the absolute end of them.
As the greed of the **AAs and their clients reduces content by 'dumbing it down', as has happened with television reality shows which are cheaper to produce than anything else, and by making their media into infomercials, Q.E.D. Q.V.C. etc., in a relentless pursuit of profitability, they are happily slitting their own throats.
We will ultimately win as more and more independent producers create more and more shows on more and more capable PCs and release more and more content on the net because they can't get, or need, financial backing or because they just don't want to compromise their quality of their product, (like Firefly and now Serenity which are successful in spite of the show having been killed by the network executives in their pursuit of greater profitability.)
I say let the **AAs win themselves into oblivion with their zones, flags and other restrictions. Can you imagine a shorter, expurgated version of Richard III with ads, product placement and a different ending, in different regions, because some soulless idiot thought that it could make more money? **AA clients are actually paying for this.
Unaffiliated producers can then make the shows and movies that they need to make and reap the benefits of radio, TV, CDs and DVDs that are in no shape to compete because the **AAs have made it systemically and systematically impossible.
Just because your have requin coding and broadcast flags dosn't mean you have to use them and just because you can make more dough making a "Fear Factor" doesn't mean that you want to. Eventually, content producers will be pretty much forced to opt out if they want to produce content.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Perhaps everyone should stop worrying about how they are going to record the next episode of The OC and start wondering why they have the right to record that episode. Don't tell me you paid for it -- we all pay to watch cable TV. It doesn't mean we pay to be able to copy this content, distribute it or whatever the hell else we want to do with it.
It's starting to annoy me like hell when people support the rights of large corporations to screw the consumers, even when those "rights" are against current law. Forget illegal distibution of Britney Spears mp3s. Forget suing twelve-year olds. Why on earth do you people insist on claiming the moral high ground for faceless corporations acting against the law?
The Average American watches 4 hours of TV per day (http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&heal th.html)- anything we can do to rid America of this horrible menace is a welcome thing!
Bring on our new High School Gym Coach overlords!
The thing to remember is the only thing that will change this is Action, not words.
The most effective thing you can do is phone one of the 20 legislators - or yours to make sure s/he doesn't join them - and tell them you are unhappy with their support for this and will give money and your vote to their opponent.
The second most effective thing is to send them a 20 cent postcard - use one of those free ones at restaurants and clubs - and write a short note about it and sign it.
The third most effective thing is to email them about it - but this is about 1/100th as effective as calling them and 1/10th as effective as writing them.
The least effective thing is to talk about it but take no action.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The apples were existentially bad because they were from the tree of forbidden knowledge.
That is a fucked up basis for anything.
But what can you expect from religion? They're selling certainty, even if its wrong. All rational people can offer is: 'It sorta works like this, we think, maybe...'
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
EFF action page to oppose the Broadcast Flag
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
WONDERFUL! The Industry is in desperate need of new blood. I say let them walk!
PCHDTV is a PCI card with Linux support that handles HDTV and does not recognize the broadcast flag. At least it would work a while until DRM finds its way into every PC motherboard (again, by government decree).
Support your public library.
See Subject
If the masses can't watch television they will be thinking for themselves
Under the home taping act, and the precedent of the Betamax Supreme court decision I am able to record what ever I like to watch when ever I like (time shifting). As indicated in earlier posts about the 'viewing' window of a recorded show on a DVR (TiVo) they want the 'viewing' window to be restricted (maybe two weeks?). I know on a recent recorded sporting event I had tons of warnings about not being able to view the 'restricted context' - a quick conversion to different video format and back removed all restrictions. It is not the business of DVR manufacture or broad casters to interrupt or enforce the will of a content maker. The consumer's rights under the doctrines of fair use, and home taping act are what TV recording is based upon. To cave in on the request of a broadcaster flag is to violate the precedence of the courts will and my rights, this is a terrible injustice. All they are trying to do is get into law what the courts told them they could not do a decade before.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
I'm willing to bet that a signficant number of people don't even know about the electoral college, how it works, and how their vote relates to the overall process ANYWAY.
While I think true representation would be a good thing, I'm not sure it change things much. You'd still have the same kinds of people running for office, you'd still have incredible barriers to entry, campaigns involving absurd amounts of money, the unending self-interest that characterizes most politicians, etc. These are systemic problems that have evolved over years of neglect, and in my opinion, there are only two ways to clean it up:
1. Thoroughly clean house over the next few election cycles
2. JUST SAY NO to federal money
I'd say the second task is probably one of the most influential factors in terms of why certain people, depsite the damage they inflict on the overall system of democracy, keep getting back into office. Like overcoming a bad crack habit, it will also be the most difficult.
Seriously, there just is not that much on that is worth watching anymore, no matter the age group or viewing preferences.
'TV' is just beginning to shift to the internet, but I believe it will move there explosively even within the next year. As networks continue to degrade in quality of programming AND if the bigwigs lock down content and effectively destroy all the current, non-locked TV sets, the move will be even more drastic.
Brand new 'TV' networks, and some existing ones, will provide more and more content on the internet. The internet, for the most part, is much more democratic and generally the best will survive over time.
But new problems will definitely arise. The bigwigs will want to lock content in the new distribution as well. They may do it immediately, but maybe not. Also, broadband ISP's will get greedier as they see more dollars streaming by and an increased number of subscribers. Price wars will probably not have a chance, as by then they will have locked their regional monopolies. They will have incentive to make their networks faster, either by customer demand for speed, or their networks falling apart because of an increased load of constant high-bandwidth video streams. This will only raise prices.
Though I did not spell out my reasons for everything put forth, it is fairly sound and will probably happen. One thing is for certain: many ways or another, TV as we know it is on its way out.
One of the most interesting things is that I assumed that physical mail would have more weight than electronic mail. (It takes more effort to sort and throw away physical mail) He specifically says that email is better for reaching him because of the Anthrax notices... http://www.wimsworld.com/~wbonner/BroadcastFlagRe
A domestic flight within the U.S.A. costs roughly $500 USD for a business class seat (assuming no special benefits). Lets say you stay in a 'modest' hotel for $200 a night spending $100 on food and other expenses. Multiply that by at least 48 times (48 states, costs of travel insanely simplified) and just by travelling around the country you spend $38,400 just going to each state. Add the costs of building a political platform ($1 million), political donations ($500,000), TV/newspaper/magazine ads (get kickbacks, $500,000), and you break the 2 million mark just turning the hype generator.
Can't drive across country, too much land, too little time. Can't campaign in just one state, you'd never get enough votes. Radio doesn't reach enough people, same with TV and the internet. A 'direct democracy' works on a microscale (state/province/Switzerland sized area), but any area larger than India, more hostile than Israel, or full of tough terrain as (North and South) Korea and it doesn't work.
Let Congress feel the /. effect - email your senator or congressman/woman, especially if they're on the Senate Commerce Committee or the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee.
"That is the saving grace of humor, if you fail no one is laughing at you." -A. Whitney Brown
On the EFF page, it says that the chair of the committee, Joe Barton is not interested in the mpaa's advances unless there is a deal. That's almost as scary as these 20 congressmen sending him a letter in the first place. What sort of a deal is he interested in?
How much higher would your cable/satellite bill be if these services did not compete with the airwaves? How is "20%" "very few"?
Ba-zing.
The problem is that the 20 people are not the people being linked to by the link. Those are senators. Yes, getting them to be opposed to broadcast flags is a good idea. But there's not point in flaming them, yet. (Even Trent Lott...)
As linked to elsewhere, here are the jerks who have sold their souls to media:
Find out who your representative is, and make sure these people get nailed.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
These type of comments annoy me to no end. How does TV make people any dumber or lethagic than reading a book? So is it better if I sit back and read Harry Potter for 2 hours a day than if I watch TV for 2 hours a day? If so, why? Is learning about witches, warlocks and whatever else all that useful? Yes, some books may be educational, however, some TV shows are also educational. At one point in time, people looked at novels as people look at television today, a complete waste of time. People enjoy different ways of entertaining themselves.
From the open letter:
"The broadcast flag protects free, over-the-air digital television programming from unauthorized redistribution over the Internet without restricting the consumer's ability to copy programming or enjoy it anywhere within a personal at-home network."
From wikipedia:
"Possible restrictions include inability to save a digital program to a hard disk or other non-volatile storage, inability to make secondary copies of recorded content (in order to share or archive), forceful reduction of quality when recording (such as reducing high-definition video to the resolution of standard TVs), and inability to skip over commercials."
So is the open letter lying outright? There seems to be a conflict here... what am I missing?
The truly scary part of your message is how you did not get modded down as a troll.
"So as software developers, we can tack on licenses such as the GPL to determine how our works are used... but networks cannot tack on restrictions to how their media is used."
No, no, no, no!
The works are not of the authors, they are of the people. The authors are promised a temporary monopoly to incentivize them to create the software in the first place. Which for all but custom-built software is complete nonsense.
The media is not the networks'; not in a real property kind of way, and not even in a copyright, temporary-monopoly kind of way.
The GPL does not determine how a work may be used; it only restricts it's distribution.
The GPL, by the way, was created exactly because copyrighting software is such an insanely stupid idea in the case of off-the-shelve software. It was introduced to counter-act the idiocy of granting temporary monopolies to things that don't need such a monopoly. Using it as an example of how great copyright is, is either a very cynical or a very stupid thing to do.
And finally, do not include yourself in "us" when you have no idea whatsoever of what the GPL does and why it was created in the first-place. You are as much part of us as dog-shit is of a man who just stepped in it.
"start wondering why they have the right to record that episode"
I am legally allowed to do anything that is not explicitely forbidden. In that class of things to do there are still a lot of things that are immoral or unwise, but recording TV programs is not one of them.
"It doesn't mean we pay to be able to copy this content, distribute it or whatever the hell else we want to do with it."
That is because the "content" is already burdened by a little thing called copyright. If the networks want to be part of the copyright racket, they should start producing this "content" you speak of. That nets them automatic copyrights.
And the point? They are one of the richest/corrupt organizations out there today and donate ( payoff ) millions upon millions of dollars to washington each year. The fact they are small in number is totally irrelevant.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am posting as an AC because I (1) do not want to be flamed, and (2) I am not looking for karma / fame / recognition for this. I just want to let folks know that at least one Senator will be informed of the technical objections to the broadcast flag.
I am a Ph.D. candidate in Information Security and I have the distinct pleasure of being one of the people that have been asked by Senator DeMint's staff to advise him on technology issues. In fact, my wife will be driving one of his staff members (carpooling) to a church function tonight. I shall have a letter ready to be delivered to this staff member, who will, in turn, ensure that the Senator is advised of my opinion on this matter. I oppose the broadcast flag for many of the reasons cited in other posts, and also simply because it will not work. I shall inform the Senator (through this staff member, who happens to be a close personal friend of the family) of my objections.
I cannot guarantee that the Senator will vote one way or another, but I can do what I can to ensure that he is advised of the technical issues and why this is such a bad idea. I have the advantage of the experience in the field and some academic credentials to lend some weight to my opinion. This, combined with the introduction from the staff member who asked me to provide advice to the Senator, should gain his attention.
Please, everyone in South Carolina, call Senator DeMint's office.
An anonymous South Carolinian.
See my other post with the full response I got from my congressman. He explicitly told me that real mail is delayed getting to the congress because of Anthrax and Ricin.
r eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=129&mode=thread&cid=137 66072
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164933&th
An elitist is someone who believes the stone devalues the diamond.
Or
Some see mostly shit. Some see mostly fertilizer. An elitist sees hispanic landscapers unloading mushroom compost while having a "driveway moment."
Or
It takes a sheep to say the New Yorker cartoons are not funny and a peacock to say neither is Jeff Foxworthy. Only the peacock thinks he is brave for saying it.
Or
The difference between a sheep and peacock? A sheep is useful before you kill it.
Or
A sheered sheep is proud of his nakedness. A peacock without feathers is not even poultry.
Or
A peacock thinks his feathers prove he is a shepherd.
doh. I am an idiot. first comparative reads:
population (less than) 1000 voters, homogenous: pure democracy works out fine.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
No shit, Sherlock. That's because she's a Senator, not a Representative.
Be assured that she is firmly in the pocket of the Hollywood fat cats on this. In fact, she co-sponsored the bill in the Senate.
Democrats have historically been more servile than Republicans to the entertainment industry moguls, despite their pious declarations of support for the interests of the little guy, and their campaign donations reflect this.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Well here in Utrecht, we recently had a vote over wether or not the stores should be able be open every sunday. In this case there are several parties who are effected by this decision: the big malls the small shops and the consumers.
Note that it was already possible to be open the first sunday of the month, it was about the other 3/4 sundays in the month.
The big malls are in favor of this, since it will encrease their marketshare. (Not more profit, since it is researched that people are buying less on saturdays and mondays)
The small shops, will not be able to sustain a profitable extra working day. So they are against it.
The consumers don't care since they can buy things anyway.
The outcome was that the shops are open enough of the time, so that this was not necessary to be open on every sunday.
This is as complex as you can get, without the majority of voters getting confused. But as you see, most people don't give a damn.
.
At the same time there was a referenda here in the Netherlands wether or not we should accept the constitution of Europe.
This was important, most people thought it was important, but no-one really understood what the consequences would be.
There were parties who were in favor of accepting, they claimed al sorts of arguments why we should vote pro this constitution. Most of those pro arguments, I thought well, I could do without those. (More liberalism, more free market, more big companies, less government etc.)
There were parties who were against, they also had their arguments, most of which I thought, well, that's why I will vote in favor of the constitution. (Dutch government gets to say less, but the europarlement gets to say more.)
Then there were groups of people who thought, well, "I do not like this government", the so called protest voters, "they are in favor, so I'm against."
These are just a few groups there were hundreds of them.
The outcome was a no, we don't accept this constitution.
It was a several hundreds of pages of legal texts, so that stating more than 1% of the voters actually read the constitution, contiplated the consequences, would be overstating it.
The government turned this "no" as an argument, Europe costs the average Dutch Sixpack too much, and to demanded that less money should be going into the EU. (Which was no argument at all (or just a very tiny one) during the period of information and discussion.)
To get to the point, it was far to complex. A "yes" was the only thing to be interpreted correctly. A "no" could mean anything, and as for politics, business as usual.
.
For the conclusion, either it is too trivial, that politics should be able to understand and represent the people. (And do their jobs as they are getting paid for it, out of our tax money, that is, I hope)
Or things are just too bloody complicated so they should either figure out what should be the best for all of us, very little people have the luxury of time to contemplate what all the consequences are.
It's like a business model: delegate to the proper people.
Congressman Wynn,
RE: Broadcast Flag
I was both shocked and disappointed to find that you've allied yourself with the big money interests in Hollywood, namely the RIAA and MPAA, in support of the "Broadcast Flag".
I find myself sickened to think that you've abandoned our district in favor of big out-of-state corporate interests. It's as if, dare I say it, you're a fellow traveller of the Rove/DeLay crowd!
The Broadcast Flag was struck down by the courts for very good reason. The courts ruled in the interest of the public. I urge you to follow suit.
Ah yes, that non-interactive pushed audiovisual medium full of ads they used in the last century.
*goes back to World of Warcraft, Nintendogs and streamed internet video*
If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
Promise?
Since the parent is offtopic (and appropriately so modded), shoulden't every reply to it also be modded Offtopic?
Although I am not new here, I still do not get this mod system.
I watch next to no television anymore, and going back is harder than stopping! I haven't been following the digital broadcast signal controversy, so can anyone explain how it will annihilate television? Am I going to turn on a TV only to find nothing comes in all of a sudden? Every American won't be able to watch TV anymore? That sounds pretty good to me. Maybe people would have genuine conversations that extend beyond what they saw on TV.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Okay so who's the Ned's Atomic Dustbin fan?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Hmm... A whole bunch of slashbot Americans were telling me that we couldn't give the DNS root servers to the UN because they're all corrupt and don't represent the will of the people.
This is the problem with the US - rank hypocracy.
If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
Isn't NTSC broadcasting, that is to say, free over-the-air TV, scheduled to end on New Year's Eve 2006 anyway?
This is great opportunity for the TV industry to wave their nuts.
If the absurd bill doesn't pass, they just let the NTSC broadcasts shut down (as they have been scheduled to do for the past ten years) and claim that they shut it all down because Congress ignored their threats.
If the stupid law passes, they claim that it happened because they united together as an industry and made serious threats to shut down free over-the-air broadcasting.
Meanwhile they don't notice that anyone with an IQ over 95 is watching much television anymore. They're hustling hundreds of millions of dollars in advertisement revenues from companies trying to sell junk to people who can't afford it because they all have near-minimum wage jobs.
The last time that I watched television there were something like five commercials for SUVs in a row. Anyone who hasn't bought an SUV by now isn't going to run out and do so at midnight after having put up with five obnoxious commercials for these idiot machines.
Television sucks. It doesn't matter what the program is or the actors or the writers or whether it's on broadcast or cable. If it's on television, it sucks. It's simply the fundamental nature of the medium. It will never get better or change, because it can't. Leave it to the losers.
I'm not sure if you are a troll or just a complete and total ass.
I know you are frustrated and I do understand; while I never would have thought to dismiss an entire class of citizens when I was going through High School, I was certainly upset and disgusted that *my* programs (AP classes, academic activities, etc.) were not receiving adequate funding because the athletic programs and the "special needs" programs were sucking up the money. I, too, believe that public education breeds mediocrity and drags down the "gifted" to the lowest common denominator.
The point you are completely missing (and that I missed then) is that if you want *my* money (tax dollars) to support *your* ascension to whatever throne it is that you think you deserve, you're gonna have to deal with the situation the way it is. Give me back my tax dollars so I can provide the hours of behavioral therapy my autistic son requires; give me back my tax dollars so I can make a dent in the cost of hiring private therapists; give me back my tax dollars so I can afford a home schooling curriculum. Institute a voucher system so you can go wherever you want. My "retard" of a son is an impediment to your glorious intellectual ascension? Bullshit; your publically funded education is a drain on the therapy I need to pay for out of my own pocket so my son can have as fulfilling a life as possible.
Meanwhile, a big chunk of the smart kids get depressed and kill themselves because school offers them nothing.
A bunch of supposedly gifted students can't figure out how to study on their own? A bunch of "gifted" students can't find their own intellectual challenges? A bunch of "gifted" students have to wait to be told what to do before they can progress? Give me a flippin' break! If you are not being challenged in your high school classes, seek challenges elsewhere - it should be easy: you're the intellectual elite! If you choose to off yourself over *that*, you obviously haven't tried hard enough.
In what? You?
You are neither an ascendant nor an elite; you are a compassionless ass upon whom countless educational resources have been wasted because you cannot think for yourself about anything or anyone but yourself. If you can restore to me the money I wasted on your education, we can move on - if not, sit the hell down and STFU.
Hopefully, you won't have to learn compassion the hard way. If *you* are any indication of what the intelligentsia are supposed to be, the United States is doomed.
And of the 2 listed, only one makes sense: Bono. Her district doesn't stand to benefit much, I don't think, but she certainly has a personal interest in supporting everything the RIAA and MPAA want to do.
But Radanovich? How does the rep of adistrict whose biggest population center is Fresno benefit from something like this?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
There are 20 law makers currently supporting the bill.
Okay.
The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies.
I see. Your points would be much better made if you didn't resort to such sophomoric, error laden attempts at argumentation. "20 law makers" support the bill, yet "no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies." That's just pathetic reasoning.
Your quaint supply/demand notions about doctors really are amusing. It has been conclusively shown multiple times that adding physicians does only one thing: increase total health care expenditures. Physicians' fees are part of it, but those are only a modest fraction of the total health care bill. What do doctors do? They order tests. They order CT scans. They write prescriptions. They admit people to hospital. All of that costs money and together constitutes the majority of health care expenditures in the US.
And you may not believe this fact about physician supply, but the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services certainly does.
And if you live here in the US, your suggestion of potentially quadrupling the supply of doctors would lead to a massive increase in your taxes for another reason. Why? Because resident physicians are paid in large part by Medicare in a complex arrangements with the States and individual residency training programs.
The entire American medical delivery system is indeed broken, but after 17 years working in the medical field, I know your simplistic, mildly delusional views on the AMA and physician supply are just not helpful.
Why not focus on the administrative overhead? In private health care plans and insurance it eats up 30% of expenditures in the US. For all its many faults, on the other hand, the Medicare system delivers to many more patients while spending about 5% for administration of the system. By no means is nationalized health care in anyone's interest here, but this kind of analysis could lead to some real progress.
Where we let any jackass vote, even if he can't read and doesn't know who the current president is.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Until this is on CNN and major news media worldwide, the EFF isn't doing enough in 'De-constructing' anything.
-Gel214th
Maybe I'm not as intellectually gifted as I once was (:))...or maybe it is the splitting headache I've got right now...but I'm not sure exactly where you stand in this debate.
If your point is that you are frustrated with the lack of funding your programs receive, I'm right there with you (or, at least I was oh-so-many-years-ago). Hopefully, your frustration at lack of funding does not translate to a desire to refer to challenged children as "retards" or to believing that an intellectual elite deserve all the education resources, to which their parents also contributed, to the exclusion of those who are challenged.
I took offense to cloudmaster's attitude; hopefully, you can see that. It may look like a waste of money, but if we can teach challenged children the basics they need to care for themselves, everyone wins: the child has a chance at some semblance of normalcy through even limited independence, the parents get to see their child happy, and the burden on society gets reduced because, hopefully, that challenged child can one day contribute to his own care - both in taxes paid and wages earned and spent. Without an education, the chances of that happening are much slimmer.
Apple's iTunes is going to offer assorted shows from ABC (Lost, Desperate Housewives) the day after airing at $1.99 for the new video iPod. Somebody's looked at the torrent files out there and realized there's a market.
And the real fans will end up buying the box sets the next year for the better quality and the extras anyway. This is exactly for the forgot-to-program-the-VCR crowd.