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
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
If it weren't for my girlfriend (who regularly watches more tv than me), I could see getting my cable tv disconnected in protest. But in order for that to work, the masses of reality tv watching zombies have to be convinced that there is stuff to do outside of the box. Some people are content to live in teh matrix though.
Because that's 20 lawmakers who were either bought out by the industry, or are clueless about technology in a technological age. In either case, they can heavily influence their cohorts. It can (not saying it will) be a viral effect.
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!
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?"
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
all we have to do is brainwash oprah to tell all of her viewers to commit mass suicide one day. then our country will be free of these zombies.
until that entire generation of tv culture (the ones that wake up, eat breakfast, eat lunch, eat dinner, work, play, and fall asleep to a tv being on) dies, we can't make a dent.
in 50 years a lot of them will be dead anyway, i don't think the new generations seem as crazy about living on the tube, but we'll see.
-- lol pwned
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
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
Posted as AC to promote non-karma-whoring
"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.
If it weren't for my girlfriend (who regularly watches more tv than me) [...]
If she watches more TV than you, why do you think she wouldn't understand? Especially if you have Tivo. Hell, you should tell her about this. She'll probably write a letter too.
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"
Here are the 20 signatories of the letter:
Shadegg R-AZ
Bono R-CA
Radanovich R-CA
Whitfield R-KY
Rush D-IL
Shimkus R-IL
Wynn D-MD
Pickering R-MS
Terry R-NE
Ferguson R-NJ
Pallone D-NJ
Bass R-NH
Engel D-NY
Fossella R-NY
Towns D-NY
Sullivan R-OK
Doyle D-PA
Blackburn R-TN
Gordon D-TN
Gonzalez D-TX
Also, Upton, R-MI, is also known to be strongly in favor of the flag. On the other hand, Upton is only a subcommittee chair, while Barton, R-TX, is the chair of the entire Energy and Commerce Committee. According to the EFF post linked in the OP, Barton may be willing to trade the broadcast flag for certain concessions from the ??AA (why Barton feels he has to bargain with the ??AA is beyond me - the entertainment industry is not the end-all, be-all of campaign finance).
Note that the people who signed the letter are lost causes. It's still important to deluge them with phone calls, but don't expect them to change their minds. The only true recourse is to vote against them next year. What's more important is the opinions of the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee; they couldn't be convinced to sign the letter right away, and that must mean they're either opposed or on the fence.
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
Copied from the (non-text - grrr) downloadable copy of the letter on the EFF page:
Hope this helps.
(This is the point where someone shows me a list in text I could've just copied :))
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?
*looks at sibling posts*
Yep. I recommend people mod up the AC who had the contact info too. :)
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 only true recourse is to vote against them next year.
Which won't happen.
Even many of the people whining on this forum will still vote for the candidate who agrees with them on abortion, or the war in Iraq, or some other "issue" which can't possibly be impacted the slightest iota by a single congressional election, because that's what always works for the Republicrats, especially in mid-term elections.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
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.
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!"
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
He's a /.er, so the relationship is bound to be on extremely thin ice. No need to suggest taking away something she likes.
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
Because the 20 who know what is in this bill is about 19 more than usually read any of the stuff they vote on. The rest just decide by working out (NOT ((bill's supporters hate the president) XOR ($I hate the president))).
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.
Correct, but each and every one of those people will keep or lose their jobs based on party-line issues. The bile in your throat you feel over this particular issue won't hurt them at all.
This is why politicians on both sides love the abortion issue, especially when raising funding for their campaigns. Nothing can be done about it one way or the other, because Roe v. Wade is established constitutional law, and not enough people want to change things for an Amendment, which is what it would take. However, Republicans know they can count on the "pro-life" vote, so long as they keep pretending they have the capacity to outlaw abortions. Democrats know they can count on the "pro-choice" vote, so long as they keep pretending that the Republicans have the capacity to outlaw abortions.
Every once in a while an honest politician like Tim Penny comes along and openly admits that the whole debate is completely irrelevant, and we should be voting on issues that matter, like the budget, but nobody wants to hear it, so it all just gets drowned out in the din of partisan screaming.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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!
Good. Nobody from Michigan... yet.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Thus the word "Republocrats." Or do you prefer "Demicans?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because it's 20 on a committee of 57, writing a letter to the chairman of said committee (who already approves of the flag). So they're about 8 people away from a simple majority, which will get the broadcast flag included in the digital TV bill, where it will probably pass the House. It has already passed the Senate.
-Greg
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.
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
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"!!!
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.
I bet your a fun guy to go with to the improv on a Saturday night.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
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??
Sure I am - because I'm fun and educational.
--
make install -not war
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.
frist pest
--
make install -not war
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.
"Is there something wrong with the name Bubba?"
Not at all.
"Is it wrong or bad to watch Nascar, Jerry Springer, or Reality TV shows?"
They're vapid and generally unredeeming, but no, nothing inherently wrong there either.
"What exactly is bigoted about the GP post?"
The implication that parent is somehow more informed/better than individuals who are named Bubba and watch those shows.
Did you miss that part, where the parent said
"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"
Did you catch it that time?
In all fairness, Frist is R, he's supposed to be evil. Barbara Boxer is D, and she's supposed to be on our side.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
Isn't Oprah only on broadcast anyway?
That is all.
good point, but we don't have a tivo. And the millions of TV watchers out there who don't have one won't care enough because it doesn't effect them. But yeah, i do have tv tuner cards in my windows and linux boxes, would be a shame if they weren't able to record something. I myself am all about fighting the RIAA and such entities, regardless of whether or not it directly effects me now, because what's the next step? Thought police?
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.
It's a good example of an infallible principle of politics: That a small number of people who derive a large benefit can get something passed, at the expense of the larger number, each of whom has less at stake.
Increase taxes by a penny on each American, and you have $30 million to give to somebody. And if a cause is the least bit sympathetic, that somebody will have incentive to march on Washington and tell their tale of woe. They'll usually make enough noise to drown out the silence of the other 300 million.
Similarly, outside of Slashdot and similar tech-savvy audiences, few voters even KNOW about the broadcast flag... much less understand the implications. And to be honest, the real-world implications to the average TV viewer are minimal.... most will be happy to record what they're allowed to record, as long as it's the same as their neighbors.
I'm not against copyrights or for piracy. But I think it's the entertainment industry's repsonsibility to find ways to protect their content from new technologies, just as the software industry has had to find ways to deal with it, and every other business has to pay for their own burglar alarms and security guards. As far as I'm concerned, they're free to promote and distribute CSS and the like (and you can be sure that HD-DVD's will include substantially improved security). To most consumers, they're benign. Sure, they make it "impossible" to copy disks and realize your fair-use rights, but they don't make it illegal to do so. The DMCA and broadcast flag, on the other hand, do seem to change what constitutes "fair use," and they tilt the field in favor of copyright holders. In the case of the broadcast flag, Congress is basically setting up a distribution channel for the industry's favored technologies. If it fails to work adequately, they'll pass more laws to "close the loopholes."
But, a small group with a lot at stake can often get changes made at the expense of the general public, few of whom have enough at stake to march on Washington to demand redress.
No, Anonymous savage Coward, in comparison to the American socialized medicine. And any talk about the "higher mortality and wait times" in Canada better deliver some facts - people without goldplated health insurance in the US, not to mention the 40 million uninsured Americans, get screwed harder than any Canadians. Which I saw firsthand in the years I lived in Canada. And when I tried to get a specialist just to interpret an enzyme test outside my healthplan, and I got a 3 month wait in New York City which could easily have seen me die, if I didn't have other options. So go feed your braintumor somewhere that someone will endure your corporate disease rantings - I'm immune.
--
make install -not war
I prefer the terms Elephants and Donkeys.
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
But Boxer is a sentor from California. She is supposed to be representing the interests of her constituents (Californians). So when she works to pump more money into an industry that employs a lot of her constituents, she is honoring one of her 'proper' obligations at the cost of the rest of us. When someone from Tennessee votes this way, they are screwing their constituents (and us) in a manner that screams 'corruption'.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
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!
The broadcast flap reminds me a bit of Clinton's attempt to push manditory V-Chip use back in the 90's. Nobody had a clue what a V-Chip was, but as soon as the real chance of them being forced on us came about, people educated themselves very quickly, and it was shouted down.
I suspect the same will happen when people start to catch on that their TiVo is about to be messed with.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Repugnicrats
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.
How about Elephants and JACKASSES.
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.
Anonymous bigot. People actually like the stuff mentioned. Just because you don't is no reason to make fun of them. It's not bigoted or a stereotype to say that people like Jerry Springer, Nascar and Reality TV. It's bigoted to assume that merely mentioning that fact is tantamount to denouncing those things. Idiot.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
Ah, so it was the "apathetic american" part. Okay, okay, that's a little bigoted, but it matches my prejudices so it must be okay. You mean Americans aren't politically apathetic? What's the average voter turn out again? Sorry, but a case can be made for calling Americans apathetic. Or are you so PC that you can't stand to hear anything remotely bad said about anyone?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Pickering R-MS
Remember this name. Pickering's been a member of the Telecom & Internet subcommittee since the mid-90s, and he's the guy responsible for COPA, the overreaching "Child Online Protection Act" that was later declared unconstitutional. His interests are in the commercialization and family-friendlification of the Internet, not in the protection of online freedom or anything like that.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
How about fat bloated crap factories and diminutive equines?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
because Roe v. Wade is established constitutional law, and not enough people want to change things for an Amendment,
Golias, meet President Bush. Mr. President, Golias.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
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
Is it really that useful to bury them in correspondence?
For instance, Mike Doyle is my representative. I'm going to call his office and ask wtf? in an intelligent, polite manner. I'm going to express my distate for his politics, express that I won't vote for him again (and omit that I didn't vote for him the first time). I'm going to pass this on to the local linux user's group (people who are aware of the broadcast flag and likely to be vocal.)
I don't want to sound like a yahoo. I don't want to have my voice drowned out in a sea of mass emails from people outside of the district. I want to make it clear to him that his position is costing him real votes. I don't want to be lumped in with the lunatic fringe.
Troll Like a Champion Today
Which is why Buffet and Soros are both Democrats, and why small business men and farmers tend to vote Republican.
Your statement is simplistic. The parties are coalitions of pressure groups. The "platforms" are just plans to benefit the groups in the coalitions at the expense of those outside. Some industries support the Republicans some support the Democrats. Some consumer groups support one, other groups support the other. The pressure groups vote for whoever promises to give them the most stuff.
Democracy (where the government represents the interest of the people) is essentially dead in this country. All we have now is pressure group warfare.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the greek roots of "democracy" mean "people" and "power" while the greek roots of "monarchy" mean "one" and "rule". The implication seems to be that while the people have "power" in a democracy they do not "rule". An interesting observation...
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
...and she's supposed to be on our side.
Our side? What the fuck is "our side"?!?!? Did Slashdot just become a Democrats-only club while I was away?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes, Frist is a fox in the henhouse, but that does not excuse Boxer! Republican sins do not excuse Democrat evils. As someone living under her rule, I can tell you first hand that she's a living example of Hypocrisaurus.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Nationalizing the healthcare (like in Canda) isn't going to fix the problem: that a pressure group has gotten special powers from the government and is using them to benefit it's supporters at the expense of the public. If we take away the special power, the problem would largely resolve itself.
Before someone mentions "tort reform":
While it is true that in SOME states, the loose tort laws have driven the cost of insurance so high that doctors can't get insurance (decreasing the supply further). This is neither a national problem, nor in and of itself can account for the high cost of health care. Real tort reform is a good idea, but GWB style tort reform is a waste of everyone's time.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
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?
Yeah, but they got the V-Chip snuck through on some later legislation or something, as I recall. They're in all new TV's sold now, aren't they?
Counting on the people to rise up over the DMCA (parts of which I'm okay with) or Broadcast Flag isn't a winning strategy. For that matter, perhaps nothing is; it's just the nature of democratic government to give in to interest groups on such matters.
A better argument, to my way of thinking, is to demand equal protection for small artists. I mean, Broadcast Flag may be great for Time-Warner, but it does nothing for an independent filmmaker. DMCA may be great for Sony and iTunes, but it does nothing to help a garage band profit from their work, in fact, it makes it harder by entrenching the big distributors even more.
In a time when the Internet enables more and more people to have access to distribution, goverment MIGHT be persuaded to find ways to make copyright protection useful to more people, rather than simply inflating the profits of a small sector. No business in America concentrates profits on so few people as do the entertainment and software industries. Of all the artists in America, I'll bet fewer than 1% ever profit from copyright protection. If the Democrats could just stop sucking off Hollywood's artificially-enhanced tits, they'd have a good issue to run with. Problem is, the Republicans just might agree with them.
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.
If you are concerned about health care, why support socialization? Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors. Ostensibly this is the control "quality"; realistically it is to drive the cost of healthcare up.
Nationalizing the healthcare (like in Canda) isn't going to fix the problem: that a pressure group has gotten special powers from the government and is using them to benefit it's supporters at the expense of the public. If we take away the special power, the problem would largely resolve itself.
So, if you allow more doctors, then people will suddenly become rich enough to afford the insurance?
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm from California ... and all I have to say is ... its a sad sad day when Barbara Boxer is the good guy.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
The broadcast flap reminds me a bit of Clinton's attempt to push manditory V-Chip use back in the 90's.
I think you must have the Clipper chip and V-chip confused. Clinton et al wanted the V-chip included in every TV; this chip gave people the *option* to make use of it. My TVs have them, sitting unutilized. I don't remember much of a stink about including a user-optional tech.
The Clipper chip for encryption, on the other hand -- with mandatory gov't backdoors -- that was shouted down.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
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 salaries of Doctors in the US are about 3.5x what they would be if the supply was not restricted. That's the single biggest source of cost reduction. That's why many poorer Americans see a nurse practitioner first and only go to a doctor when they must.
The cost of prescription drugs is the second biggest source of problems, but again the FDA has policies designed to raise the cost of drugs. Get rid of the policies and the higher cost americans pay will go down.
When I said 75-90% of the problems in this country are caused by bad economics, I wasn't kidding.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Yeah, I am picking on Boxer and for a very good reason, dum-dum, she's always on the side of the entertainment industry, read: Hollywood/Burbank/Studio City, when she as a Dem should be on the side of the people.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
4 hours a day. This is likely to include TV as background noise. How many people fall asleep while 'watching' TV at night? How long will the TV be on until said person wakes and turns it off.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
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 ----
Thank you for proving my point.
Yes, Bush is a radical "pro-lifer," and gets a lot of his support from people who want abortions outlawed.
If Roe v. Wade can survive two terms of Reagan plus one-and-a-half terms of Bush The Younger, then it's clearly bulletproof enough that the debate is completely redundant at this point.
The same goes for all the screaming and yelling over Iraq. Whether you think going in was the right call or not, you can't "un-invade" a country any more than you can unscramble an egg. The debate is over, because the war is a fact now. The only thing worth discussing is what will be done next.
What we should be talking about is changing bad laws, like RICO and PATRIOT, fixing our budget problems (and while our military spending has been significant, far greater long-term impact has been made by foolish domestic spending introduced on Bush's watch), improving our border security, decentralizing education policy ("no child left behind" should not mean "let's all go back and get him") and coming up with an energy policy which moves us to better fuel sources in a way which doesn't involve artificially inflating the cost of oil until gasoline costs more per volume than premium imported sake.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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
Hey! Get off my lawn!
:)
I'm supposed to be the only Austrian here.
Good post.
Are you a corporation or a person? If you are a real person - not a legally-defined fictitious entity like a corporation - then liberals & progressives (not necessarily Democrats) are on "your side", whether you support and/or agree with them or not.
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. ~
Are you a corporation or a person? If you are a real person - not a legally-defined fictitious entity like a corporation - then liberals & progressives (not necessarily Democrats) are on "your side", whether you support and/or agree with them or not.
Sorry, but someone who does things I don't agree with and don't want them to do is not "on my side," whether they claim to be or not.
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
No, it was that way before you left.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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.
Right, and the fact that doctors have been gouging medicare for simple procedures has nothing to do with the inflated prices of health care. You can't pin down all the problems on one thing.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I meant the peoples' side, as opposed to the corporations' side, which I thought would be clear in the context.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Ok - this is a problem on Slashdot. If you are a moderator and you see a post you disagree with, that doesn't necessarily make it a flame or a troll.
Bill Frist ranks as one of the most singularly corrupt people in the Senate. That's not to say that there aren't Democrats on the take as well, but lets call a spade a spade here.
I don't know enough about Barbara Boxer to say if she ranks near Frist in the senatorial corruption game. I'm more willing to forgive pro MPAA/RIAA votes from her because, as other posters have pointed out, she represents California. Those people are her constituents. When a Senator from Wisconson supports the same legislation, I can't help but wonder which constituents he/she has in mind.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
That's interesting. If you are truly anonymous, I think that's a disservice to South Carolina, because you're working for all of them when you advise their representative. But that's besides the point that you're detailing for our benefit.
My own position on the "broadcast flag" is that it can be considered helpful, if enforcement is not mandatory and automated in the consumer's device against the consumer. As a content network operator, I want to require copyright holders to assert their copyright status of content they publish, so I can tell whether it might not be allowed to be republished by me. But requiring the player (for example) to enforce that assertion is dangerous. In fact the "broadcast flag" has value in the other direction than the current legislation implements: protecting the consumer from unwittingly violating copyright. The "broadcast flag" ought to reflect the existing laws about the "©" copyright assertion symbol: it's nonbinding; but when valid it represents adequate notification that the recipient must determine whether the assertion is correct at the time of retransmission.
All that's too complex for most congressmembers or nontech/nonlawyers to swallow at once. We have to kill the current "broadcast flag". And instead use the issue momentum to do it right, with a "copyright status field". Which consumers and producers can use to protect themselves under existing copyright laws. In conjunction with a copyright registry operated by the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress, so copyright assertions can be quickly, cheaply, massively validated. And of course the concommittant "teeth" in enabling legislation for fraudulent or frivolous assertions. If Senator DeMint can grok any of that, and help pull it off, then he's protecting and enabling South Carolinans, and all Americans, to make the most of our intellectual property, whether we're consumers, producers, or both.
--
make install -not war
The electronics industry in California is far larger and more profitable than the movie industry. They are not as good at lobbying yet though. Hurting the CA electronics industry to help the movie industry is not helping your average constituent.
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.
I don't believe that grotesquely oppressive environmental regulation is "on my side". I see it as pandering to scientific illiteracy and innumeracy in exchange for votes. And that's just one "Left issue" pulled from a big bag.
Face it. Both sides do this kind of crap, but to pretend the "Left" is some kind of holy host "on my side" is viewing the world with rose colored glasses ten miles tall.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Actually, on this topic Boxer IS an appropriate source to parody. The only reason to not choose her would be that she is a Senator rather than a Representative.
She's my senator, and she's better than Feinstein, and now I've said most of what's in her favor. (I could list details, but that gets boring quickly. And controversial.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No...but the left pretends to favor the rights of the individual over the corporation, so they are supposed to be on my side.
OTOH, the right pretends to favor the rights of the individual over the corporation, so they are supposed to be on my side.
Of course they both lie.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Ah, yes, and while we're at it, let's get rid of the FDA, which reduces the supply of food and medicines ostensibly to control "quality", but really just increases the cost of food and drugs.
That people may end up becoming gravely ill -- or dead -- by consuming contaminated food or medicines is a good thing since it will weed out inefficient consumers. (The market will readily correct for the type of seriously ill person who is poor at making rational, informed choices.)
In the resulting free market, brands increase in value, and even in the presence of cut throat competition a strong brand would never risk the damage to itself by cutting costs in rigorous monitoring the safety-critical areas of their food or drug production chain.
So you're right... bad doctors aren't a problem to be prevented in advance by state-enforced controls on the market. Proactive regulation is a non-solution. A reactive tort-based system will encourage players in the free market to be even more careful about avoiding costly, harmful, and deadly mistakes.
Suuuuuure...
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?
Actually, if you want to be anal about it, the hi-def transport streams that you can download are much higher quality than anything on DVD (1080i, etc). That said, most people don't download that stuff.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Furthermore, the arguement that the government can improve quality is complete BS. Let us look at a similar case: The government decides it wants everyone to drive a car that has the quality and safety of a BMW, so they pass a law requiring all cars to have that level of quality.and safety Does everyone end up with a BMW-level car? No, instead everyone who had bought a car at the lower quality now ends up without one, because they cannot afford that level of quality. The government thought cars were important and wanted to improve the quality of car everyone drove, now there are fewer cars and many people who can't drive.
The same thing happens with all government "quality" controls. It is easy for a bunch of middle class voters to support manditory quality, they would buy it anyway and it makes finding a product easier. What you won't admit is that less fortunate people don't have that choice, for them the choice is cheep and low quality or none at all. Forcing them to choose none does not respect their rights.
Furthermore, what you can't account for is that before the government gave out these special privileges the number of deaths caused by malpractice and similar problems was LESS. There is absolutely no reason to expect the situation to be any different if we go back to how things were.
If you are interested in the effects of occupational licensure, a chapter by that name in Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom provides a reasonably good introduction.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
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.
Certainly, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as the Republicans who are the slaves of the oil and weapons industries who see their best way to increase profits as murdering a bunch of people despite their idiotic lies of being "moral" people. Complete oxymoron that. A Republican with morals. What next.
Nice try throwing irrelevant partisan hackery in though. Better luck next time.
from the second linked article in the blurb: "tell your representative that you and your fellow constituents won't stand for the Broadcast Flag, especially without a hearing showing evidence that anyone but the MPAA and RIAA supports it." That won't work. Writing your congressman doesn't work at all wether Rep. or Democrat because they both only listen to the money. Back during the Napster fiasco I wrote a letter to my Washington state Congresswoman who was a Democrat by the way and simply asked her to make sure this pressure against Napster does NOT stand in the way of a new music distribution business method. To do so would be akin to the Pony Express whineing to congress about the invention of the telegraph. Her reply? "I fully support companie's attempts to protect their copyrighted content." Even though no where did I say Napster should be left alone or that the Napster suit wasn't valid. Translation: Wake up you liberals, the Democrats are no different, if not worse than republican's when it comes to doing whatever the supporters for them want instead of what their constituents want. And before some liberal say's I'm a right wing nut who finds fault only with democrats let me say I am disgusted with how the Republican's (particularly Delay) pushed through the G.A.S. bill last week as they simply towed the party line (as Delay demanded) instead of what their constituents wanted. A vote that close on something that monumental should NOT have been allowed - PERIOD! It should have been forced to be dropped and re-examined at a later date. It did go along with what the President has been saying he wanted since his very first inaugural address though - more refineries of our own which is how Delay was able to twist all the other republican's arms and it shouldn't have surprised anyone but still it's obvious they voted that way instead of constituents way. BUT neither do I like the Democrats tactic either. They didn't vote as their constituents wanted either but merely to stick their tongues out at the republicans. The whole thing is just sick. /em wishes for a rocketship to blast off this rock with and find a new home.
The TrollMod problem is exactly the inverse: dis/agreeing is not moderation, it's posting. The remedy to free speech you dislike is more free speech, argument. Moderation against posts with which you disagree is gaming the system. Which is possible because moderation is unaccountable beyond metamoderation, which seems toothless. If negative moderations required at least a brief supporting explanation, the TrollMods would drop dramatically. If negative metamoderation really reduced moderation points, there would be fewer persistent TrollMods. If persistent negative metamoderations permanently barred accounts from moderation, there would be fewer "career" TrollMods. If "Troll" and "Flamebait" moderations at least required the moderator to read and accept the accurate definition of those moderations, there would be fewer TrollMods. And finally, "Flamebait" is in the eye of the flamer. Even "Overrated" mods should apply only to the highest rated mod scores, and there should probably be a wider range, maybe -3 to +10. And there should be a way to moderate posts as "Wrong", when facutally incorrect. It's a mess, but it could be worse. At least the "Offtopic" mods of my post are arguably valid, if "selectively moderated". That argument in their favor should be required, and not merely implicit and anonymous.
--
make install -not war
I've detested Feinstein since I used to vote against her in the CA primaries. She's a dried up old realestate shill. I'm surprised a real California progressive doesn't run against her. Especially since her machine couldn't keep Schwarzenegger out of Sacramento.
Boxer is not my Senator, as I'm back in New York. So when I see someone talking about foxes in the Senate henhouse, I don't prioritize her. Instead, I prioritize the extremely corrupt Senator Frist, who runs the Senate and is running for president. He's sleazy like a fox, and demands the kind of attention the original poster instead lavished on Boxer. No doubt because that poster is on the fox team with Frist, an extreme example of conflicted interests.
--
make install -not war
Almost all of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is because the Government gives the AMA (American Medical Association) the power to limit the number of doctors.
That's a great big load of crap.
Big pharma is the largest lobby in Washington.
They have bribed our legislators to socialize our health care already.
Remember that bill Bush signed making it illegal for medicare to negotiate drug prices. Note the recent legislation in the works to prevent us from buying drugs from Canada?
These are 2 recent examples where big pharma has demonstrated their utter hatred and contempt for the free market.
So it's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us. Otherwise known as fascism.
So nice try, but while the AMA is a problem they aren't even in the same league as big pharma.
I'm not "excusing" Boxer. I've said nothing about her other than that Frist (and many others) are much hotter targets for corruption taunts. And that people overlooking Frist are on his side. Any senator with real dignity would spend several minutes each day calling out their "esteemed colleagues" on their lies, crimes and derelictions of duty. So they're all dirty - as none ever bother with that moral obligation. But a sense of proportion demands shining the light on the worst offenders, and Frist's multiplication of corruption, power, and demands for more make him #1. When we're done with him, we'll have time for Boxer.
--
make install -not war
In context you used "Republican", so I could only assume that you meant "Democrat" as the opposite. Also, you use of "Boxer" completely threw me for a loop, as she's one of the last people I would consider to be on "the peoples' side".
My apologies for mistaking your post as being partisan in nature.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Another Republican projector. I pointed out that Frist is more powerful, more corrupt, therefore the one to attack first. The only justification for your backup on distracting from Frist is that he's on your team. You're projecting your worst fears abour your own weakness onto your adversaries, the Republican hallmark. Homophobia, freeloader taxcutting and spending, traitorous "national security": you probably signed up for the whole program, scared of your own shadow. It's transparent playground politics, and I see right through it.
--
make install -not war
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
Of course any single sentence about partisan politics is "simplistic". It's imprecise, but accurate. For example, Tom Delay, the indicted House Majority Leader, is reknowned for refusing access to any lobbyist but Republicans. And to your claim about support for Republicans, those "small businessmen" and "farmers" are corporate people themselves. Noncorporate people don't vote for Republicans. And the Republican money comes from corporations and corporate people. Now, there are also plenty of people easily fooled by Republican rhetoric about "shrinking government", while they get a $3TRILLION government that can't even plan for hurricane relief. And plenty of freeloading small businessmen who will vote for lower taxes and more corporate welfare, ignoring the $TRILLIONS in debt accumulating, and rank incompetence throughout the government.
Buffet and Soros are Democrats because they value a sustainable world more than some extra $billions that they can't spend in peace and freedom. The thousands of other people filling the 2% of Americans who own 50% of our wealth really show that they're the exceptions who prove the rule: Republicans work for the total corporatization of America, while Democrats at worst play lame catchup.
Also, while you're getting so interested in your discovery that "democracy" means "people rule", you should look into the definition of "republic". Then you might be qualified to talk about "oversimplification".
--
make install -not war
Ah, on rereading I see that that is indeed unclear in my text. My apologies.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
I totally agree the main revision to America's healthcare "system" (ad hoc as it is) is dropping the artificial AMA supply constraints on doctors. But the US is the only industrialized country which allows health cartels to profiteer the essential health market. So let's try the part on which we agree: increase doctors, then see if there's still a problem for socialized insurance to solve. I expect there will be, but we can argue about that then.
Meanwhile, we should tax doctors above the 50th percentile income with enough to offer complete scholarships to double the current med school enrollment. Prioritize those with foreign certifications that meet American standards, with accelerated programs for "normalization" and certification. Require every doctor to be recertified once a decade, with proceeds from significant fees on "retry" recertification attempts funding the scholarships. And another program that offers more scholarships to med students who will accept assignment in doctor-poor areas (mostly rural) for their first few years. Which will not only increase the number of doctors who settle there, but also attract more people who otherwise avoid healthcare-poor areas, reinforcing the "health investment".
When we have 2-4x as many doctors, more equitably distributed, we'll get cheaper healthcare. More competition among doctors will also drive down prices from their suppliers, like drug companies and hospitals. Lots of other problems, like "prescription mills" and other medical collusion will get sorted out by doctors whose selfinterest is more aligned with their patients. Maybe the "supply side" healthcare policy will let Americans continue to avoid the economic benefits of socialized healthcare insurance. With our changing demographics, we'll need the margin of error to survive.
--
make install -not war
Welcome to sad days, when Frist runs the Senate, Delay runs the House, Bush runs the White House, and Roberts runs the Courts, backed by Thomas, Scalia, and awaiting Miers.
--
make install -not war
Er, "dum-dum", those entertainment industry places you mentioned are Californian. As a Califorina senator, she represents Californians and Californian businesses. Democrats have no more obligation to represent people over corporations than do Republicans. It's repugnant when either do so, but you're holding Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans. Which is pretty dumb, even for a Californian.
--
make install -not war
"Why the worry?"
If your House works a bit like my House, the committee tells the House what its recommendation is, the party specialists tell the other members whether or not they agree, and then everybody will vote for it.
You did not actually believe the members read all the laws they vote on, did you?
False assumption. Since when have Democrats ever been on the side of the people?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
From the point of view of economics, both parties are bad picks. The republicans run up deficits and the democrats expand programs. Neither is good policy. BUT, the Republicans are no more the party of "business" then the democrats are. Both parties have groups in their coalition who could be called "business". If you can not see this, you need to stop drinking the kool-aid and start thinking for yourself.
As for your "republic" comment (Obviously the point was too subtle for you to get):
Republic refers to the type of institution. Democracy refers to the method of choice. America is supposed to be a Democratic Republic (a republic with representatives chosen democraticly). This has nothing to do with the point I was making.
The roots of the word democray implys that people DO NOT "rule", which may be why many of the greek philosophers believed that an isonomia was the best form of government.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Won't do what you think it will. It would be much better to make it legal for med students to sell a portion of their prospective salary over a fixed number of years in return for a med school loan. This allows a private solution that will have lower overhead and no economic distortions.
Prioritize those with foreign certifications that meet American standards, with accelerated programs for "normalization" and certification
Encouraging foreign doctors to immigrate by lowering barriers and simplifying the process is an excelent idea.
Require every doctor to be recertified once a decade, with proceeds from significant fees on "retry" recertification attempts funding the scholarships
The government should be out of the cert business. Let the AMA still certify who ever it wants, and let other groups of doctors offer their own certification. Let any who wants, practice medicine. Then, make it criminal fraud to claim certification when you are not. This will more then adequately deal with the quality problem (this is how things were until we started granting government cartells).
And another program that offers more scholarships to med students who will accept assignment in doctor-poor areas (mostly rural) for their first few years. Which will not only increase the number of doctors who settle there, but also attract more people who otherwise avoid healthcare-poor areas, reinforcing the "health investment".
The reason doctors don't go to poor areas is because medicaid and medicare don't pay enough to recover the extra costs smaller practices have. In poorer areas, doctors have a harder time staying in business. HHS can fix the policies in the programs and solve this problem now.
the economic benefits of socialized healthcare insurance
There are no economic benefits. Other things constant, socialized insurance will make the situation worse. The reason people don't see this is because the countries that have socialied medicine or national insurance do other things better then the US by enough to offset it.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
The current topic is how the entertainment industry is trying to screw us via the legislative process, and Boxer is firmly in the pocket of the entertainment industry. Frist is not.
When the topic is how the drug companies are trying to screw us via the legislative process, then I'm sure Frist will get his turn.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
Why does everyone use the ancient Greeks as being the best example of democracy?
They where democratic in the sense that land owners, i.e. the upper class, could vote.
Sure, this is a step towards the better from autocracy, but it is far from any sort of equality.
BTW the ancient Greeks implemented democracy so they could raise decent (read: more bloody) armies. The citizens (land holders), who also had a say in the law making, made up the phlanx, the core of the army and deciding factory in all the battles. Who fights harder than those defending _their_ land?
Not best, far from it. The Athenians voted to kill people at one point. Greek thought is the basis of western civilization. That means that political thought has its roots in Greek writtings. I thought it was an interesting observation that letting everyone vote on decisions doesn't mean that everyone ends up ruling...
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
People often get the government they deserve.
To quote a redgum song - "Without this kind of governement, just think where we would be".
Thanks for straightening me out.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
And plenty of freeloading small businessmen who will vote for lower taxes
That's funny. I thought the freeloaders were the ones expecting to benefit off someone else's tax dollars... (Whether corporations *or* individuals) Trying not to be taken advantage of, by voting for lower taxes and less government, hardly seems like free loading to me.
But how many will remember this list when elections come around? Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others! - Kang
Oddly, some of these Senators aren't entirely informed on the issue.
I was talking about the broadcast flag trying to make its way back up and a friend of mine was curious about it. On his first hearing of my tale, he thought I was crazy that people would be able to flag something as not being recordable or maybe severe limitations placed on it.
So he said, let me tell my grand father about this...
Turns out, his grand father (whom he seems to speak to nightly) is a Senator. I met the man too. (Not to say I didn't believe him... just kinda odd for me in a tech circle to meet politicians)
Unfortunately, the only other politician I know is a state representative. He used to have a local office in my building, but that was before the rep upgrade. Not sure how serious he will take me since our last conversation was about how I like saturday morning cartoons.
If I can see him in passing I'll see if I can make conversation.
Anyhow, the point is... make your opinion heard. You really don't know how informed your politicians are unless you make it an issue for them.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
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
OK. It sounds like you have a clear channel to your Senator, so it's reasonable to use it. But this particular action is in the House.
(OTOH, it wouldn't do me any good to complain to MY senators, as they are 0wn3d by the MPAA, with occasional sub-leases to the RIAA.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Haven't you noticed that Republicans have cut taxes (mainly on the rich, but promising it to everyone), while multiplying the amount they spend? That's getting services without paying for it. Freeloading. Republican freeloaders.
--
make install -not war
I pointed out that Frist is more important, therefore a more appropriate target. Now you're just insisting you're right, and calling me names, without addressing the points I provided, that you've insisted I reiterate. While accusing me of doing that. So I will also repeat that you are nothing but a partisan Republican projector, scared of your own shadow, with nothing more to add. You're in massive company among the Republicans, but it doesn't make you any less wrong or look less foolish.
--
make install -not war
Now you can see why the unfair "access" to Senators that lobbyists get is so important in distorting our laws. Just feeding these spokesmodel congressmembers info is enough to get them to do what you want, because they live in a bubble. Why should your friend have more influence over tech policy than, say, I do, because he's the grandson? He didn't even know about the details until you, some arbitrary (even if well-informed) friend, told him. Senators have a Congressional Research Office that we pay for. They should have no excuse to be uninformed before they cast the votes we pay them do decide. Instead, they depend on (usually corporate) lobbyists to give them (self serving) info on which they decide for everyone. Foxes in the henhouse.
--
make install -not war
Let's see some of your "evidence". And let's talk a bit about the "farmers" you cited, who vote for Republicans: 80% of the farm subsidies go to 4 giant farming corporations.
--
make install -not war
Republicans know they can count on the "pro-life" vote, so long as they keep pretending they have the capacity to outlaw abortions.
Actually their line is that they can seize control of the Supreme Court and impose their will that way.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Until this is on CNN and major news media worldwide, the EFF isn't doing enough in 'De-constructing' anything.
-Gel214th
ya you are right about that - pbs is the only one to really get the news from. every other news is enterntainment and crap too
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.
From the article:
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
A vote for the lesser of two weasels is still having to vote for a weasel.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Until some corporate executive decides to do so to boost the quarterly results in order to goose the share price so as to pick up a bonus and some stock options before invoking his golden parachute.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.