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."

Comments

This Just In...

[ackthpt]

WASHINGTON D.C., The Senate is forming a committee to look into why it is a bad idea to have foxes in charge of the henhouse. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) stated, "In the interests of diversity, we don't really understand why this should be any kind of problem and we'll work dilligently with foxes and chickens to see what can be done to have them live together in harmony." A Festus Fox was unable to give a comment as his mouth was currently full of feathers. No chickens have been found to provide their point of view. The chickens total lack of cooperation so far is seen as an attempt on their part to block progress in the matter.

Re:At last count

[LordKaT]

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.

so quick??? use a desensitizer

[bennini]

already slashdotted. i cant see the article even. try the cache.

subverting democracy?

[Peyna]

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.

Re:subverting democracy?

[GungaDan]

You missed a critical point: "people are stupid. That's why we pick STUPID representatives to vote STUPIDLY for us."

Re:subverting democracy?

[bogado]

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.

In this case the will of the unprotected minority (RIAA, MPIAA, *IAA, Disney, Sony, Exon, name other deep-pocket industry here) is being bravely defended by those braves congressmen and congresswomen. Going against every single individual interest and battling those evil, terrorist backed, so called "fair uses". They must be heroes , risking their career to fight for such noble and unjust-iced minority.

Re:subverting democracy?

[thefirelane]

Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.

Just a nit pick, it isn't Congress's role to go against the will of the majority. They are supposed to represent this will. Protecting of minority from the majority is the job of the judicial branch... such action is currenly refered to as "judicial activisim" by the people making the laws, even though it is exactly what they are supposed to do.

Re:subverting democracy?

[hackstraw]

If slavery and civil rights were held to a popular vote, there's a good chance the laws never would have passed.

Great examples of some of the better laws in the country :) Prohibition is missing though.

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.

So, these poor rich people get protected and everybody else gets punished. I think that this is the subverting that the gp was talking about.

Re:subverting democracy?

[Paul Bristow]

Yeah, because Switzerland, as a country where the people vote directly on many issues is a great example of democracy gone bad, wheras the USA...

Oh wait.

Re:subverting democracy?

[Kjella]

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.

No, even if you had a nation of 300 million geniuses, it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on every subject of national interest. There's simply not enough hours of the day with the current load, imagine if 300 million people were to submit their own suggestions. You need some kind of system to both reduce the caseload and the number of manhours per case spent in total. Feel free to suggest a better system. I don't want half my day answering votes, and at the end of the day still have "You have 143,242 unanswered votes", 99% of which will be highjacked by some rally. And most of those polls should be modded to "-1, Troll".

Re:subverting democracy?

[Hoi Polloi]

people are stupid

I don't think it is a matter of stupidity (the writer is excluded, right?) as much as a matter of not caring or being unaware. People in general don't react to things until they become a crisis, i.e. ignoring their diet until they get heart disease, building in 100 year flood plains, slowly trashing the environment, watching their freedoms get whittled away, etc. It is hard to think for the long term (look at most US companies) and the people who may be aware of this bill will not stop and think about the ramifications of it for the future. I'd also guess that most people are not even aware of this bill. Face it, most people watch sports instead of reading Slashdot.

When voting for someone people just think to themselves "How can I believe what they say they will do? There are so many issues and I barely can understand them so screw it, I'll just vote on my gut or for my party." This is how we end up with so many ideologues, gold diggers, and unqualified politicians.

Re:subverting democracy?

[slashdotnickname]

Just a nit pick, it isn't Congress's role to go against the will of the majority. They are supposed to represent this will. Protecting of minority from the majority is the job of the judicial branch.

There is no law requiring a congressman to represent the will of his/her constituency. The definition of what would constitute adequate representation would be too subjective to capture in law. Instead, what motivates politicians to be in tune with the people's will is mostly their desire to be re-elected.

Re:subverting democracy?

[narcolepticjim]

I don't think you're being specific enough -- it's the House of Representatives that's meant to be closer to the will of the people. The Senate is meant as a counterweight to that tendency:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Re:subverting democracy?

[jandrese]

Plus, 95% of what Congress does is mind numbingly dull and uninteresting for normal folk. I mean how are the "masses" supposed to vote on the regulation of the prices of Lettuce?

Re:subverting democracy?

[dajak]

America has become a corporatocracy. The bankruptcy and energy bills are only two recent examples of legislation passed for corporate benefit and public detriment.

Why the neologism? Is this system substantially different from Mussolini's Corporatism aka Economic Fascism? To me this describes any political system that disconnects economic 'national interests' from the private interests of the majority of citizens that make up the national economy.

Communism nationalizes big industry, and Fascism jumps into bed with big industry. Corporations run the state, or the state runs the corporations. Both are faces of the same coin: the same kind of people are in charge. You don't make a free market by letting industrial policy be dictated by captains of industry.

Re:subverting democracy?

[Flamingcheeze]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -- H. L. Mencken

Re:subverting democracy?

[Durandal64]

It's not that people are stupid. Everyone around here likes to use this excuse to seperate themselves from the masses. Americans are not stupid.

When 55% of Americans believe in creationism, I think it's safe to question the value this country places on intellectualism. Sometimes I have to double-check my calendar just to make sure it's really the year 2005. Aren't we supposed to be past all this tripe about mythical snakes subverting humans with poisonous fruit by now?

Already dead

[lovebyte]

For me, like for many people here, TV is already dead.

Re:Already dead

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

Seconded. I haven't owned a television in years, and I don't plan to in the future unless there is some way to cut down on or eliminate commercials.

Seriously, 20-25 minutes of commercials in an hour is just insane. I'd be more than happy to pay an extra fee to the cable company or to the owners of the 2-3 channels I would actually watch to have them eliminated.

Re:Already dead

[cybpunks3]

Thank Reagan for that. He loosened restrictions on the ratio between commercials and content. So hourlong shows are really more like halfhours shows.

Re:Already dead

[_Sharp'r_]

Guess what? They have these really neat boxes now that let you record tv shows to a hard drive and skip the commercials while watching them at your leisure. I understand there are lots of people who make them now, commercially or home grown.

It's also nice for watching football games, where you can watch a full game in an hour, since you can just skip the between-plays waiting times.

So no need to watch any more commercials and no need to be tied to a broadcast schedule.

Re:Already dead

[Damvan]

"unless there is some way to cut down on or eliminate commercials."

It is called a TIVO.

Library card

[ewg]

If you'll excuse me, I have to go renew my library card...

Slashdotted Link

[Mad_Rain]

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! ;)

too much opinion not enough report...

[Tominva1045]

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!

Re:too much opinion not enough report...

[91degrees]

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?

Yup. I work for the software industry, and quite honestly, I want them to stop adding the ineffective over priced copy protection mechanisms, region lockouts on consoles, and irritating licence agreements. I presume a lot of people who work for other media companies are the same.

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. As a consumer as well as a producer, anything anti-consumer affects me too.

Re:too much opinion not enough report...

[Anonymous Coward]

"How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?"

In an idealistic world people would not work for a company whose ideals conflict with personal interests.

In the real world people will do almost anything to get paid.

It's easy to walk out on a job when you live in your Mom's basement.

It's not so easy when you work in a tight job market and have a family to support.

Re:too much opinion not enough report...

[Schweg]

Look at it this way. A small group of companies, representing a small percentage of the economic output of this country, want specific legislation passed to support their particular business model and choice of technology. Why should they get to prevent the technology companies from coming up with different models for distributing and protecting content, and prevent consumers from choosing those technologies and models that they are willing to accept?

Yes, they have copyrights, and those should be respected. But if the movie companies don't feel that current distribution methods allow their copyrights to be respected, then they don't have to distribute them. Of course, they'll lose a lot of money if they refuse to distribute. But rather than doing the hard work of researching alternate models, and compromising with technology companies and consumers, they want to be able to dictate to everyone else. Why should they be allowed to have this power?

Somebody please explain this to me

[ettlz]

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?

bad argument in the article summary

[Richthofen80]

The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies

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:

• free the slaves
• allow women to vote
• legalize abortion

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)

Re:bad argument in the article summary

[necro81]

free the slaves
allow women to vote
legalize abortion

Emancipation and Women's Suffrage, however, are entirely about extending rights to a group of people which had previously been denied to them. One could (depending on which side of the argument you are), argue the same for the third item.

In the case of the broadcast flag, it is specifically designed to limit the rights of a person, to limit what the person can do. It should be no wonder that only a few people are clamboring for something like this - it goes against the free spirit of America.

Re:bad argument in the article summary

[z0idberg]

only a handful of people wanted to free the slaves?

I assume you are not counting all the actual slaves....

only a handful of people wanted to allow women to vote?

if you dont count all the women......

And there is a big difference between a handful of *people* supporting an idea and a handful of *companies* supporting an idea.

People generally have peoples best interests at heart.

Companies generally have companies best interests at heart, frequently at the expensive of people.

Re:bad argument in the article summary

[radtea]

only a handful of people wanted to allow women to vote?

if you dont count all the women......

Many women were opponents of universal sufferage. Tarbell's attitude was not at all uncommon, to the extent that there was an active anti-sufferage women's movement. Google on "women opposed sufferage" to find out more.

Sadly, it probably needs to be said that I am fully in favour of women's sufferage, although blackly amused by the claims that it would usher in an era of peaceful prosperity, rather than the bloodiest century in human history. And if anyone thinks women were generally opposed to war in the 20th century, google "women white feather britain" before you post...

A brilliant person once said...

[Anita Coney]

"Never get between an American and his TV set." If Congress passes this bill, there will be hell to pay.

Re:A brilliant person once said...

[surprise_audit]

Maybe there will be hell to pay, but by the time it really begins to bite the average American, the bill will have sat unopposed for a number of years. How many TVs and VCRs actually honor the broadcast flag already? None, or very few, because the legislation isn't there to support or demand it. How long will it take to get enough market penetration to make a difference? Years, because a new TV isn't something that you absolutely *have* to have every year.

I predict that if the broadcast flag gets passed, it'll be far enough in the future before it really takes effect, that the broadcasters will have a fair chance of claiming, "but it was always there, we just didn't turn it on"...

We all know how this will work out.

[Mysticalfruit]

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.

Hang on, let's stop lying.

[iainl]

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.

Re:Hang on, let's stop lying.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not lying. It breaks your TV. If your TV needs to support the broadcast flag to display content, and your TV doesn't support it because it was made before this law was passed, what do you think will happen?

Re:Hang on, let's stop lying.

[UnknowingFool]

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.

One of the implications of the original broadcast flag in conjunction with digital TV was that all devices used to view the signal were affected. For new TVs, that meant they had to incorporate technology that would not allow the signal to re-record as well as accept digital reception. Had the broadcast flag not been struck down, it would mean that you could not buy a new TV without the flag. As for old TVs, they would not be a problem.

Kill Television ?

[rainer_d]

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

We'll All Be Criminals Soon

[eno2001]

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.

aaaah the irony...

[Tominva1045]

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.

The way you fix this

[john.r.strohm]

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.

Re:The way you fix this

[stinerman]

You are certainly correct if this was 9/10/2001. After 9/11 and the anthrax scare, most congressmen ask their constituents to use email or call their offices since snail mail literally takes weeks to be processed and delivered.

I would say to be most effective, you should call, fax, and email in that order.

Re:The way you fix this

[spun]

It's not that the value of a constituent's opinion varies in proportion to the amount of difficulty one has to undergo to have their opinion heard, it's that the difficulty means that fewer people who feel that way will express themselves. Therefore, someone expressing themselves through a relatively difficult medium like snail mail are thought to represent a higher number who did not represent themselves. So a letter received is counted as expressing the opinions of hundreds of consituents who did not write, while an email recieved is counted as only representing the opinions of the author. I don't see this as unfair or illogical.

But yes, Representative democracy in the United States is all shot to hell, largely thanks to the "career politician" fucktards.

Re:The way you fix this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the proportion of work you put out, it's about the proportion of work you force the office to go through in dealing with you. If you hand write a letter, you are pretty much going to force some low pole staffer to send you a letter back. If you call, you are gonna take up 10 - 15 minutes of a staffers time answering your call. Email is a quick skim and a delete. Maybe an autoresponse. A fax gets a form letter back.

I work for a non profit here in the DC area, have quite a few contacts on the hill, and this is the norm. I've seen congressional and senatorial offices that have had to turn off their phone switches because they were getting so many constituent calls in outrage over a given topic work ground to a total halt. Officials have called our office near begging us to call the dogs off because they were getting overwhelmed by constituents.

Another thing of import is that a whole lot of congressmen do not have real opinions on many issues. A good majority simply have their pet projects, things that impact their districts, and everything else they deal with in one of about three methods. They set the number of letters for on one side, the number of letters against on the other side and which ever side has the most letters, that's the way they vote. They vote along party lines if it's a devisive is issues. They vote in a way that down the road they can get political capital from another congressman/senator for a favor for their district.

Well, I for one am relieved

[Tibor the Hun]

I had read the title as 20 Online Lawnmowers Want To Kill Your Television

Obviously I need a shot of coffee...

Well, you WOULD be right,

[mrchaotica]

except that the current administration is NOT (fiscally) CONSERVATIVE!

Re:You people are worrying over nothing

[grumpygrodyguy]

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.

lol, if you really think that's what the current administration is doing please read me sig.

time to fire up a memo to the big guy?

[Tominva1045]

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.

Re:How about a list?

[Anonymous Coward]

taken from boingboing.net:

John Shadegg, R-AZ, (202) 225-3361 | Mary Bono, R-CA, (202) 225-5330
George Radanovich, R-CA, (202) 225-4540 | John Shimkus, R-IL (202) 225-5271
Bobby Rush, D-IL, (202) 225-4372 | Ed Whitfield, R-KY, (202) 225-3115
Albert Wynn, D-MD, (202) 225-8699 | Charles Pickering, R-MS, (202) 225-5031
Lee Terry, R-NE, (202) 225-4155 | Charles Bass, R-NH, (202) 225-5206
Mike Ferguson, R-NJ, (202) 225-5361 | Frank Pallone, D-NJ, (202) 225-4671
Eliot Engel, D-NY, (202) 225-2464 | Vito Fossella, R-NY, (202) 225-3371
Edolphus Towns, D-NY, (202) 225-5936 | John Sullivan, R-OK, (202) 225-2211
Michael Doyle, D-PA, (202) 225-2135 | Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, (202) 225-2811
Bart Gordon, D-TN, (202) 225-4231 | Charles Gonzalez, D-TX, (202) 225-3236

Posted as AC to promote non-karma-whoring

OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[SerpentMage]

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!

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[SerpentMage]

And yes again the "We are bigger than the Swiss therefore it will not work" argument. Yet again this is a classical excuse on why it works in Switzerland and not anywhere else. Direct democracy can work on national level if it is a NATIONAL issue. Many people confuse county, state, and federal issues.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[SerpentMage]

>>> Do you even know what a true democracy is?

I wish people who make such accusations take the time to find out what Swiss politics are all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy Yes there are elected politicians who iron out the details of what the people decided. After all true democracy needs to be efficient and smooth. Politicians do what politicians were originally meant to do, namely carry out the details of running the country based on the desires of the people. Yes people can carry out "initiatives" but these "initiatives" are every three to four months.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Interestingly enough, the Swiss Germans make up the majority of Switzerland; so in any direct vote they would get to decide what is best for everyone. When I lived there one of the complaints I heard from my Italian and French Swiss friends was that if the German Swiss decided something was good it became law at the national level.

While direct democracy can work well it starts to break down as people become less homogeneous and have varying views of what is good based on their cultural norms. Even a country as small as Switzerland is not a country of only cows, Heidis, and chocolate or watch makers.

Speaking of Heide, Switzerland was the last European country to give women suffrage; and unless it has changed they still can't vote in some local (largely ceremonial) elections.

It's wonderful and interesting country to live in, but the reality is very different than the popular image (in the US at least) most people have of Switzerland.

The US has true democracy on a local level to a limited extent - we vote on laws directly, as well as many revenue issues. Some states allow citizens to overturn or create laws via popular referendum as well (CA falls to mind). We just don't do it on a national level; as a republic with limited federal powers that's probably not a bad idea considering it would concentrate power in a few very populous parts of the country.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[lgw]

Athens demonstrated the many, many problems with direct democracy in a world power. A country with many international interests can go to ruin very badly without a strong charismatic leader in a direct democacy. Of course, the many Shashdot isolationists who would like to see the US act more like the Swiss would no doubt be happy.

I'm glad the Framers distrusted the common man as much as any other embodiment of power. Everyone - king, common loser, wealthy intellectual elite - gets it wrong eventually. The system should account for this.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[uujjj]

We have the same direct democracy here in California. We have a voters guide that often tops 200 pages, plus local voting guides ranging from 50 to 200 pages. And it is kind of fun getting to vote on all the nit-picky details of how the state is run. We've given ourselves plenty of tax cuts :)

Unfortunately, when people in the rest of the country need an argument against direct democracy they simply say "California" and everyone on the other side shuts up. Pity, they're missing out on the fun of figuring out what all the school funding formulas and bond measures and criminal statute amendments and auto insurance regulation schemes mean.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[HD Webdev]

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.

That's a nice thought, but it isn't even slightly true for the USA.

You do not understand how spoiled we are here.

In just a couple of years, our country would be in ruins. We'd have new laws that cap gas prices, lower taxes, public lynchings, zero unemployment laws, no space program, $10/month cable bills, authorization for the federal government to declare martial law on a whim, yadda yadda yadda. Sure, the supreme court would retroactively fix that until someone comes up with the bright idea that the supreme court is holding us back from making 'good' changes.

Please don't give us what we want because we want it all with the least amount of effort and cost.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[Liam Slider]

The US has true democracy on a local level to a limited extent - we vote on laws directly, as well as many revenue issues. Some states allow citizens to overturn or create laws via popular referendum as well (CA falls to mind). We just don't do it on a national level

Nor should we. We are a federation of sovereign States here, not one big centralized republic. Basically a bunch of little countries that work together as one big country on certain matters. If we were a direct democracy....we simply wouldn't be the United States any more. Maybe in name, but not in form, not in government, not really in society. This would be a massive break in form of government for us. A major change in way of life. A major change in culture. We'd become one giant State, rather than collection of them that come together to (try to) help each other on certain things. Furthermore, really, the only realistic way to do it would involve violating the soverignty of all 50 States, and taking away their rights. That sort of thing just doesn't sit right. USA might as well be dead, than be a direct democracy.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[aaronl]

In a true democracy you have many issues, and several failings. The issues are pretty much hashed out a millions times: population, voting complexity, time for responses, etc. The failings have also been fairly well discussed, too. The biggest is the inability to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".

Going your way, you end up without States rights, with a watered down local level, and a massive Federal government. This is exactly what happened after the 17th amendment passed, which called for the direct election of Senators to Congress. This means that you end up having a homogeneous legal stucture within your country. That also means that if the majority voted a law in that you disagree with, your only choice to avoid it is to leave the country. It ends up reducing freedom as a result of lack of choice. Doing it the way that the US *had* done it allows for the local governments to have the most power (where the people directly influence it), followed by the States, and then the Federal. The Federal was comprised half of representative chosed by the people, and half those appointed by the States. The States would be able to keep the municipalities in line, the Federal kept the States safe and ensured cooperation between them.

The important thing is that if you didn't like something in your town, you could move to the next one. If you didn't like your State, you could move to another way. The incentive to keep population, and that the reps making the laws were elected by the people, kept the laws much more sane. If we did it your way, the cities would carry everything and that's it. We'd have even larger and worse social programs (yes, that's possible), and even more enforced uniformity.

The Constitutional system of the US is almost, by not quite completely, the opposite of fascism.

(dictionary.com) "Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

The original US system did not have central authority. It had tiers of government with the largest being strictly limited in power. It also included a system to remove bad laws if the lawmaking bodies refused to do so, either through courts, election, or higher levels of government. The US system also *clearly* did not have a dictator. Social controls were to be kept out of government, hence the Bill of Rights that specifically prevented the government for being involved in them; this also clearly stated that the government was not supposed to censor. Commerce was supposed to be encouraged between States, and evenly tariffed/excised where appropriate, and nothing more. Social programs were not allowed on the Federal level, as they were not enumerated.

I won't say that the US doesn't have racism or nationalism, because that isn't true. However, the US was *obviously* not designed as fascism. Just because the system has been corrupted does not mean it was always that way. And please, learn the words you use, it makes you sound stupid to use a word that is clearly inappropriate.

Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument

[cloudmaster]

"providing an education to everyone". Ugh. Those vegetables aren't getting an education - they're being entertained and kept alive at everyone's expense because it's cruel and heartless to ignore any random thing that appears to be human. Sure, it makes everyone feel good to care about the poor wretch born with a problem or who fell out of a tree. Meanwhile, a big chunk of the smart kids get depressed and kill themselves because school offers them nothing. Hooray for the future of our country. I'm not blaming the schools, though. I know full well that their hands are tied on lots of issues. However, maybe if I gripe enough in irrelevent forums, someone will notice that we decided to forsake the wrong group - leave the "special needs" kids in an asylum (use whatever PC word sounds best there) until there's so much money to throw away on education that we can afford to literally throw educational resources down the toilet. Even if those dead smart kids realy weren't that smart, they could probably run a cash register *or* the deep fryer at the local Wendy's. Right now, the focus is all on the person who won't ever progress beyond a token job emptying the trash - if they can be left partially alone in public at all. That person does need personalized attention, but not at the expense of everyone else.

Too bad everyone's worried about "being mean" instead of making worthwhile investments.

Re:How about a list?

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:Interesting...

[Waffle Iron]

Perhaps everyone should stop worrying about how they are going to record the next episode of The OC and start wondering why they have the right to record that episode.

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.

Did'nt work with DVD's....

[gnalre]

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

Think: Civil War Era

[argoff]

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.

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 .... 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.

You're confused...

[rkhalloran]

>>we all pay to watch cable TV. It doesn't mean we pay to be able to copy this content, distribute it or whatever the hell else we want to do with it.

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?

Re:You're confused...

[Tominva1045]

if I forgot to set up the VCR and grab it off a torrent somewhere

If you forgot to set up the VCR and get it off torrent then somebody else recorded it and illegally offered it up for uncompensated distribution.

The thought is that some folks, maybe not you, but some folks might have instead gone to Best Buy and bought the DVD of the same program off the shelf.

You insinuated that they might think of you as satan--- maybe not satan, but definately someone in possession of bootlegged conent. And that is a no-no.

Follow the money trail!

[pridkett]

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).

Too true

[panurge]

People criticise fine art and serious musicians for being elitist, but television and the recording industry show what happens when you have a non-elitist entertainment industry. Specifically, you get crap. Lots of it. I'm amazed at the apparently intelligent people who denounce anything that might restrict advertising or business as "communism" when nothing could be more typical of Communist regimes than a constant outpouring of propaganda produced by the rulers and aimed at the mob, with the intention of keeping the mob quiet, obedient, nad ignorant of who pulls their strings.

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.

Re:Too true

[poot_rootbeer]

People criticise fine art and serious musicians for being elitist, but television and the recording industry show what happens when you have a non-elitist entertainment industry. Specifically, you get crap. Lots of it.

Don't tell me that you think 80% of "fine art" and "serious music" isn't CRAP, also.

And despite your opinion that the television industry is spewing out nothing but crap, I somehow manage to keep my DVR's somewhat large hard drive full of interesting programming from week to week.

Re:You people are worrying over nothing

[93 Escort Wagon]

Unfortunately, it is obvious from US political history that members of both political parties are more beholden to corporate interests than to the rights of the individual. The people in government are usually quite disconnected from reality, and have bought into the concept that "what's good for business is good for the individual - no matter what".

Actually I doubt that's only true here in the US - watching European governments deal with countries like China has given me the same sour taste in my mouth.

The U.S. government is for sale...

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Out of curiosity...

[statusbar]

I think this would be great. As long as the people in power push to make your existing TV unusable, it would end up making less people waste time watching this horrible television that we have. This can only be a good thing for society.

--jeff++

Backbenchers, no threat here.

[infonography]

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.

Line Item Veto Wouldn't Fix This, BTW

[johnashby]

To think that the line item veto would address this ignores political reality. The President would not consider using such a power to hinder the agenda of any industry group, let alone the content industry lobby. The political fallout of alienating such a group far exceeds the grassroots gain of quashing their desires with a veto. After all, who pays for the ads during the next cycle?

A hint: not the general populace.

nothing new about their tactics

[Wansu]

  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.

Free Broadcast Television

[bkruiser]

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.

Re:Good point

[MemeRot]

Their "threat" is so transparently false that it makes me laugh. Broadcasting companies are threatening to stop broadcasting? If they don't get their way, they'll just close up shop, lay everyone off, liquidate their assetts and cease to be? Right. Do you think their shareholders would support them getting out of broadcast television?

They're like a 4 year old threatening to hold their breath until they die if they don't get the candy bar they want. They cannot do it, period. Sorry kid, no candy bar for you.

You can take away my freedom...

[coffii]

...but not my TV!

Sockholders, not employees, set the agenda.

[minkie]

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.

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).

It's dead Jim.

[NoneExpected]

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?

Re:It's dead Jim.

[ackthpt]

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,

Check that, Bones.

Have you seen what it costs to get the programming you want over the internet? The programming I want is horrendously expensive for the quality. On a per show basis I'd be better off with cable or satellite. As it is I don't have either because what is available for basic package just isn't what I want and I won't pay for it, month in-month out.

There are some weasels out there making a lot of stuff free, but I won't put their software on my computer because I don't know what the hell it does besides give me the show, could be spy-ware or such, you know. And these people will eventually bring about on the internet such controls and limitations as we are already lamenting being on the old free domain of television.

Re:It's dead Jim.

[Obfuscant]

The internet knows no boundaries, ...

Really? Well, the internet at my house ends at the end of the cat5 cable. When I turn my wireless router on, it ends just outside the walls of my house, and even then doesn't cover some rooms inside very well at all.

While content may be available on the internet from every country, that content is not available at every end-point that is now served by broadcast television.

TV is dead,...

Let me guess, you live in an area where high-bandwidth (said jokingly, since DSL and cable are hardly "high" in real terms) is readily available and/or free.

If this attitude had prevailed during the early parts of this century, nobody outside the cities would have telephones or electric power. It was only mandates put on the utilities to force them to provide services where rates of return were small or negative that got "rural" america wired at all. Now they've got people telling them that they aren't worth the bandwidth to have broadcast TV signals sent out to them.

There is a significant number of people who talk about the internet creating a "digital divide" between the haves and have-nots. Do not make this divide worse by arguing for the removal of the information services that those who are internet-have-nots do currently have.

this is good news

[idlake]

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.

Re:How about a list?

[Golias]

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.

Details...

[AB3A]

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.

Re:Details...

[Verminator]

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.

Of course. Just as your social security number will NEVER be used for identification. Hell, it even says "Not to be used for identification" on my card!

Can't happen here. No sir.

Never underestimate the infringments we'll put up with when implemented by gradual, almost imperceptible, steps.

Re:At last count

[Desult]

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.

The only real criticism of your point

[solomonrex]

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.

Vote Them Out To Their Faces

[Doc Ruby]

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

Just to Clarify

[pavon]

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.

Not sure it's Windows that commoners love

[Lifewish]

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.

WTFW

[WillerZ]

Write The Fucking Word, it's not like masking it with *s makes it any less offensive.

Except for when its a real issue

[jocknerd]

And then they don't want to take a side. So they recommend a referendum where the voters choose instead.

Re:Except for when its a real issue

[Jim_Callahan]

Actually, when it's a real issue, they make sure Joe Idiot.. uh, i mean Public... is out yelling about abortion or evolution or some other issue that was pretty much settled half a century ago and is relatively unimportant. Then they go do what they feel is right while no one is watching. Unless they're corrupt, in which case they do whatever they feel will benefit them most while no one is watching. In all honesty, I figure this is a marginally better system than the referendum/initiative nonsense, corruption notwithstanding: just look at some of the shit that California has passed under referendum.

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[Chosen Reject]

I bet your a fun guy to go with to the improv on a Saturday night.

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[Doc Ruby]

frist pest

Re:You people are worrying over nothing

[greythax]

I'm sure there are folks here who can clearify the importance of that number though.

I will take a stab, though there are surely those who could do better. What that graph represents is the national deficite, not the national DEBT. They are 2 very different things. In short, if that graph were at the 0 mark, our national debt would stay the same + intrest. When the graph goes in the blue, we start to pay down our debt, but we are nowhere near clearing it. When it goes red, we start to get into DEEPER debt.

However, the Govt. should never, never, never be in the black.

While I understand your point, and it is not a bad one, I submit that there are some good reasons for a government to be somewhat in the black. 9/11 and Katrina are excellent examples. Government mandate put a hurting on the airline industry, which a surplus could have been used to aliviate. Katrina blew down a lot of houses, a surplus would have been handy there. Also, having a certain surplus would help us in the advent of a major war. Now, I agree, too much of a surplus needs to be avoided, but honestly, if a government has money, it is going to spend it anyway, so I doubt we will see such a thing in our lifetimes.

Why should we care about the national debt? Well, because when everything comes out in the wash, it influences what your dollar is worth on the international market. You will end up having to pay more for that Sony TV you want so bad. Well, you may not want it after the broadcast flag, but that is a different subject.

Re:You people are worrying over nothing

[jrp2]

The current administration is only conservative in the sense of social and military. They do not seek smaller government, and the size of government has expanded under their watch. Check some of Bush's campaign promises (he promised to sign any gun control legislation that crossed his desk) and facts from the congressional budget office.

Agreed. And all the "State's Rights" stuff is BS also. Only when it suits their agenda. Take a few issues recently:

- Medicinal Marijuana. The State of California enacted laws to allow it. The feds went in and arrested folks growing it. Had the feds followed their mantra of "states know better" this would have never gone to the Supreme Court.

- Right to die. The State of Oregon passed laws to allow it. John Asscroft made a unilateral decision to bar doctors from prescribing drugs for this purpose, effectively squashing it. Even though Asscroft is gone, there has been no attempt to reverse that decision.

- Gay marriage. A few states have passed laws to allow it. The feds are doing whatever they can to circumvent them or at least ignore them. No federal tax advantages of marriage, no ability to get a same-sex spouse citizenship, etc. No attempt to enforce the constitutional requirement that states recognize the public acts of other states.

If a state passed a law to do something in their agenda (read: Christian Fundamentalist or their fellow rich guy's view) that conflicted with Federal law I am sure we would see a very different reaction from this administration.

Pretty sad state of affairs.

Subverting democracy?

[jmichaelg]

Subverting democracy is an old tradition. When Congress was voting on funding the trans-continental railroad, Collis Huntington (one of the founders of the Central Pacific) used a small telescope to get a closeup look at each congress man while Congress was in session. He was deciding which ones would be likely candidates to give bribes to so they'd support the railway. He must have been good at it because lots of congressmen got huge bribes in the form of Credit-Mobilier stock and Huntington, Stanford, Hopkins and Crocker ended up owning California for 40 years.

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.

Send your letters now!

[themonkman]

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to my states Representative (CA);

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.

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:How about a list?

[plalonde2]

Repugnicrats

Re:How about a list?

[Ryosen]

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.

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[the morgawr]

Republicans give access almost exclusively to their corporate bribers. Democrats are forced to pick from among who's left.

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...

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[Arandir]

...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?

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[the morgawr]

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.

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.

Misleading article

[Cyphertube]

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:

John Shadegg, R-AZ, (202) 225-3361
Mary Bono, R-CA, (202) 225-5330
George Radanovich, R-CA, (202) 225-4540
John Shimkus, R-IL (202) 225-5271
Bobby Rush, D-IL, (202) 225-4372
Ed Whitfield, R-KY, (202) 225-3115
Albert Wynn, D-MD, (202) 225-8699
Charles Pickering, R-MS, (202) 225-5031
Lee Terry, R-NE, (202) 225-4155
Charles Bass, R-NH, (202) 225-5206
Mike Ferguson, R-NJ, (202) 225-5361
Frank Pallone, D-NJ, (202) 225-4671
Eliot Engel, D-NY, (202) 225-2464
Vito Fossella, R-NY, (202) 225-3371
Edolphus Towns, D-NY, (202) 225-5936
John Sullivan, R-OK, (202) 225-2211
Michael Doyle, D-PA, (202) 225-2135
Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, (202) 225-2811
Bart Gordon, D-TN, (202) 225-4231
Charles Gonzalez, D-TX, (202) 225-3236

Find out who your representative is, and make sure these people get nailed.

Book == Good?

[dunc78]

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.

Who's lying?

[crimson30]

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?

Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse

[the morgawr]

More Doctors -> lower cost of healthcare -> lower insurance premiums & less need for insurance

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.

Re:How about a list?

[Golias]

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.

Re:Boxer (Dem hypocrite) loves the Broadcast Flag

[Darby]

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.