Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Wants To Push For DRM
RareButSeriousSideEffects writes "Techdirt reports that 'Newest Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes me nervous when the government and its actors role play about technology and how it should be meted out. Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is radio spectra.
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
But it should be up to the companies themselves whether to use it or not. Having a government-defined standard is also a good idea and adds to the competitiveness of the DRM provider marketplace.
We insist.
Thank you.
Shouldn't the FCC focus on bigger issues like boobs indiscriminately appearing on the Super Bowl. Or how about shock jocks saying naughty words on the radio. Geez, stay focused FCC!!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Just so long as you remember this:
she knows its outside the FCC's authority
In other words, have any hobby you like. Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag (PDF warning).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
When all is said and done, it is the market that will ultimately decide whether DRM is a "good" idea.
If, for example, the record companies leave the installed base of CD players unable to play the latest and greatest CD they are pimping, it will not sell.
Yes, I know it is not so simple, but really - think of it this way - if the next gen of DVD players is too cumbersome to use because of DRM, the whole platform will fail. Think of DiVX, the old rental DVD scheme that Circuit City and other sold for a time. You might have a hard time finding it today.
DRM is a noose around the neck of anyone who believes in freedom. In a free market, DRM is acceptable as long as the laws aren't preferential for those who create content over those who buy content.
I'm a firm anti-copyright believer, I see no reason for copyright anymore now that information is so readily available (high supply, low demand, zero price). DRM is merely an attempt at the media distribution cartels to try to strangehold the market of the various media.
The FCC is no longer useful. I don't believe it is even Constitutional. Technology has completely replaced EVERYTHING that the FCC is mandated to regulate, but because of the regulations, we can't let technology grow to meet the needs of the hundreds of millions of citizens in the U.S.
If we want to be at the forefront of technology, it is time to disband the FCC and let companies find ways to take advantage of all the bandwidth being wasted on analog TV, radio, HAM, CB, and other ancient/antiquated technologies. Re-read the Constitution, see that the FCC is merely a pawn of the media cartels, and dump it along with every outdated law that they provided input on.
I don't need them, and I fail to see a need to continue to pay for them.
If they want to noose my data, I just want an equal opportunity with my noose.
How can you be a huge fan of DRM? I guess she's never bought a "CD*" only to find it wouldn't play on her CD player. * "Disc does not comply with CD specifications and may not play on some players due to DRM implementation" /actual text printed on Sony "music disc" I got as a gift. Was able to listen on the multi-format DVD player in my home entertainment system. Unfortunately I mostly listen to music at work, where I can't play this disc...
include $sig;
1;
What again is that organisation about? So far, I didn't really see what benefit they offer anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I just sent an email to Commissioner Tate:
Dear Commissioner Tate,
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
I've just gotten a job with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and while I know it's normally outside the DMV's jurisdiction, I'm a big fan of the death penalty for grouse hunters, hockey players, and Girl Scouts, and will use all my resources my new job to bully others into furthering my agenda.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
This is just another example of why the FCC needs to be pulled back. It has been obvious for quite some time that they have too much power.
DRMs are hackable. Even if the FCC can find a good DRM, someone will eventually crack it. If they want true copy protection, find something new, invest some money. But it's time for the three-way between the FCC, MPAA, and RIAA to break up. The people are sick of the overpriced fines and insane amount of jail time for such a bogus crime. Copying material hurts few people unless massly distributed which most people don't do. It should become a misdemeanor and enforced locally. FCC and FBI, time to start some new governing. We can't live in a society focused on reeping the benefits off the poor who can't afford your expensive media rights and copyright violation repercussions.
Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
It's an interesting exercise in encryption, for one. For another, it allows media outlets to protect their content as they see fit. If they don't want you to be watching something more than once, that's up to them. It allows the consumer to differentiate between media outlets that are consumer-friendly and consumer-hostile.
And finally, having the freedom to make bad decisions is a very fundamental freedom.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It just takes our rights.
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
This is a link to a story on a blog that consists of a link to a story on another blog that doesn't cite any sources. This is an interesting way to create a news story, but I can't figure out how to tag it. "metablogging" came to mind, but that doesn't really seem to sum it up very well. Can anybody think of something better?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I hope they figure out some really effective way to implement DRM, so long as it doesn't exclude the option of having NON-DRM content. As long as I can install and use Linux and go online without having to prove I'm using a "DRM compliant" OS, I'm not particularly worried. If they finally get DRM to work, it will drive people to alternatives that don't use DRM. Sounds good to me.
Every time I hear more stories about DRM I keep thinking of the Star Wars line about tightening grip = more people escaping and that more general one about blood and turnips. People are reluctant to spend money and if these content providers really do succeed in cutting off all freeloaders they will find their audience and "buzz" shrinking. Which might be fine with them, and I agree they should be able to charge for it if they want to, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it.
What we need is a website with Napster like popularity and only free music and movies available. For music the same system could also identify scheduled live performances and locations. Then things can really take off. Actually, it sort of sounds like something Google would be good at - Google Maps + Free Music interface + information on live performances. Not too much money in it though, at least not for Google.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
That's completely different from federally-mandated DRM, which gives us no choice in what we buy, and forces upon us the business whims of the content cartels. That is not a characteristic of a free market, nor of a liberal democracy. I understand the need of the business to protect itself from people whose illegal activities threaten their botton line. I seriously do completely understand that. But I do not think that enacting federal laws that impact all customers negatively in the effort to mitigate the behavior of a minority of customers is asinine.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Great! Now maybe we can make even more money by having the FCC regulate random sounds we hear in public spaces, our thoughts or even our posts!
P.S. If you just read the above post, it is pending protection by DRM in the near future. So, in order to avoid a lawsuit, please send your 2 cents right away.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter
Shhhh! Keep saying that, and the RIAA is going to ask for a refund on its new purchase.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Publicly admitting an intention to abuse a relatively high-ranking public position to further a personal agenda should be ground for dismissal.
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
If it's "outside [their] authority", how can we expect anything to come out of this? Plus there are other "minor" issues to think about, such as infringing on certain "other" rights that people are assumed not to think about or care about (seemingly).
The FCC periodically appears to do bad things. The best solution I've found is to write Congress and protest the FCC's BUDGET. Congress won't address individual issues, or FCC decisions. However, Congress controls the FCC budget. I and others have made complaints to Congress, in that the FCC has too large a budget, as their people have time/resources to do bad things, and a LARGE budget reduction is in order. Furthermore, the monies from the reduction can be redirected elsewhere. Congress has been previously persuaded by this type or argument. Therefore, if Ms. Tate is so over-paid and under-worked that she can be on a "Bully Pulpit" for DRM, then the FCC's budget is in serious need of reduction! I know, that Congress little regards it's constituants, but, constituant supported reasons to reduce agency budgets and use the money else where appears to resonate.
Technology has completely replaced EVERYTHING that the FCC is mandated to regulate
Uh... huh? How has technology replaced, say, monitoring content on public broadcasts?(1) How has technology eliminated the need to regulate the radio spectrum so devices dont stomp all over each other? How has technology ensured that every manufacturer will somehow produce devices which accept interference?
HAM and CB are both still useful technologies. Look no further than your favorite natural disaster to see HAMs at work helping organize efforts when all your high-tech technological solutions have broken down. They ARE pushing to force a change to all-digital TV, but there are still a whole lot of analog TV's out there. You propose forcing the entire population to go out and buy new sets to fit with your idiotic view of how the spectrum should be used. Don't you think THAT would be benefitting the manufacturers of TVs more than anyone else?
If you don't regulate the spectrum, all that will happen is companies will build devices to stomp all over each others' devices. If you don't regulate the spectrum, there will be nothing stopping someone using the same frequencies as air traffic controllers. Disbanding the FCC has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever read on slashdot. Restructure it, sure. Fire everyone working there, fine. Try to remove the corruption, absolutely. But to suggest we don't need any regulation of the radio spectrum is absolutely ludicrous.
(1) - not that I believe their monitoring is right, but it's what they do, and technology sure hasn't changed that in any way.
The FCC actually runs itself more like a private corporation than a government entity; or rather, it has some of the worst of both worlds, it seems to be almost entirely profit-driven, but retains all the inefficiencies and bureaucratia common to a large and basically unaccountable government operation.
If you look at the proposals and rulemaking that they spend the most time on, it's perfectly clear that they spend their time on whatever is going to get them the most revenue. When it comes to auctioning off some radio spectrum to the highest bidder, I'll bet the Commissioner has a red phone on her nightstand just to clear up any 11th hour problems as they're pushing things through. But try to get something relatively simple done (like the relatively uncontroversial changes to Amateur Radio) and you'd better be teaching your kids about it, because you may not live that long.
Somewhere, something went very wrong inside that organization, their mission changed from being the electronic and radio equivalent of the Parks Service, to a division of Internal Revenue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If there is a single DRM system, who decides who is "in it" and who is "out of it"? You cannot simply allow anyone to write software (eg. media player software) for DRM content because as soon as someone obtains access to the raw data (necessary for playback of music/video, in the absence of DRM-compatible hardware) they can just write that raw data to a non-DRM file, and all of a sudden the DRM isn't very useful because everyone can convert their files to unrestricted formats with this software.
You might say "okay, well, what if there is DRM-compatible hardware?"
In the case of DRM-compatible hardware (aka "Trusted Computing" hardware) you have the same problem. Who are you going to allow to create this hardware? If you allow anyone to do it, they can create hardware that circumvents the DRM system, resulting in media converted to unrestricted formats, or even users finding out the encryption keys embedded in the other DRM hardware.
Eventually you get into a situation where you can't let just anyone make hardware that is compatible with the DRM hardware, and you can't let just anyone write software that is compatible with your DRM system, or else the DRM system is broken. The side-effects of this scenario are extremely beneficial to established hardware and software companies, but make it practically impossible for new companies to create software or hardware that works with the DRM group of hardware and software. The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
First, let me declare how overwhelmingly disappointed I was when I checked the calendar and realized that it was not, in fact, April Fool's Day. I'd frankly prefer slashdot becoming the Portal of Ponies! to seeing this in the news.
:-\
1) Frankly, any political official has made the choice to be a political official. At that point, one should accept that there are compromises - like neutrality. Yes, I know she is not a judge (just as I am not a lawyer) - and yes, I know that it's not the FCC's decision. Still, how secure would you feel if the President of the US said something like, "actually, I'm a huge fan of burning witches at the stake, and am looking forward to using my platform as a 'bully pulprit' on the topic"? To put it another way, and try to express my emotions as purely as they're coming on - italicized for strong language - this isn't her goddamn job, I didn't ask for her goddamn opinion, and shouldn't she be "using" her "position" as something other than a fucking bully pulprit? Hey, Debbie, how about, you know, doing the job that you were appointed to do, to serve the people - not "lead" the people, not "encourage" the "direction" the "people" will "take" - not get involved in corporate goddamn matters - but rather, commission the federal airwaves so I can watch the ballgame on ABC without Joe McHam broadcasting his own drunken play-by-play?
2) These seems like a transparent "deal-making" sort of statement. Allow me to elaborate - considering that the major networks are already involved with the FCC over the whole "naughty words" thing, what's stopping them from reaching a deal like H.R. 2911 (you know, the Tipper Bill - 'Prenatal' (sic) Advisory - aka the bill which caused me to - yes - sympathize with Bushitlerlol in the 2000 election (a vote for Red is a vote for Not-Blue - sure I was rooting for Nader, but anyway, I digress)) - aka, "well Mr. Government, Ms. Debbie - we don't want no legal setbacks... so how about we settle this here matter out of court... we'll all line up and force DRM on the customers if you agree to, uh, lighten up on the S word when it's sweeps week"? My hypothesis: Absolutely nothing, and that is what in fact will happen. So much for the "free market" that some fake-Libitarian +5 Insightful Idiot posted a few posts up from here.
This woman is twice as idiotic as Harriet Miers, and yet who really gets outraged over this? Where's the media uproar over this nonpolitical, opinionated statement from someone being paid with my tax dollars? Oh, yeah, Bush said something silly, that's more important. Certainly hasn't happened before, certainly isn't going to happen again.
Ugh.
Anyway. I kinda wandered off the main line and turned my guarenteed karma-whore into a post that pissed off the Republicans, the Democrats, and is probably -1 Redundant to the Independant Frontier Electronique Freedom Fighters (all two or three of them still bothering to post online these days, heh). So go ahead, mod me...
~~-- -1, Flamebait
This is at the edge of what I am capable of grasping. You might want to explain your position--I know I'm not the only Slashdotter that is stunned.
The hive mind mentality is so hard to break away from. All the little slashbots lined up in a row. Try thinking independanty sometime... it is really refreshing.
But on topic all DRM is a protection method, a system of permissions. A purveyor of goods has every right to sell merchandise in the way he or she sees fit, if they see fit to restrict their offerings so be it, the market will respond in kind. It really isnt that hard to wrap your head around.
So, she's a big fan of, and wants to push DRM, eh?
I guess iBIQUITY is not gonna be too pleased...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Dear Madame,
The FCC was originally set up to regulate the Radio airwaves. Then you took it upon yourselves to regulate the TV broadcast spectrum. Following that, you decided that censoring programs was within your mandate as well. (Lets ignore all the 1st amendment issues right now).
Now you have decided to enter the fray on the side of DRM. Either pro or Con, this should be a completely business decision. There is nothing that needs regulating via the FCC with regards to DRM.
I respectfully request that you and your fellow commissioners keep your noses out of this. The majority of us are quite sick and tired of the FCC trying to expand your mandate coverage. It is and has not been welcome.
Sincerely,
The government is the real danger of DRM... any kind of Digital Rights Management will be easily circumvented. Sometimes it is only a matter of days before hobbiests are able to break DRM on a product.
The danger comes from when the government starts arresting people who post DRM circumventing software on their website... or mandates that DRM must be built into hardware (it is very easy for hobbiests to distribute software to the people, but not hardware)... Or prohibits public libraries from circumventing protection.
If companies want to use DRM, so be it. That should not be where we focus our attention... because DRM is a joke. We need to stop the government from enforcing DRM at all costs!
I think she should be kept in office precisely for her ill-advised comment. Anyone who makes such an assertion is better than their replacement-- who will likely have the same opinion but not be foolish as to state it. Heck, she just gave opponents of DRM ammunition to lobby against any bullying she does, and she's forewarned them of her agenda.
When in doubt, keep the noisy idiot over the cunning schemer.
A.
Too bad I used up my mod points yesterday. I'd have liked to give this post more visibility.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
During the industrial revolution, the southern states tried to isolate themselves from change by fencing themselves off from the rest of the union. Today, industries are trying to isolate themselves from the changes of the information age with DRM.
The difference was that back then there was a clearly divided north and south. Today we are all mixed in together. Then the government was on the side of the industrial interests over the plantation interests. Today the government is on the side of the media interests and not on the side of the Interent. Back then it was about controlling people with coercion (slavery), today it is about controlling people with information. Back then there were racial divides, today it is more of a proprietary divide.
While technology and history is on our side, it is going to be one hell of a battle and all hell is about to break loose.
They did side with the consumer, when they fined Janet Jackson for exposing her crusty 50 year old boob on public tv.
I for one am for DRM, even though it can be sticky in some situations. People used to at least rent movies to copy them, but now, zero money is going to the movie producers for pirated movies. It's gotten to a point where downloading a song or movie from the internet illegally has become so widely accepted socially that DRM may be necessary. I just download stuff due to the convenience. But when half the people download movies and convert them to DVD, it doesn't sound very convenient...
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
New in the country? Looking for a good tutorial on how our government works, but not enough days to burn walking around the capital and digging up the dirt? Here's a quick guide to the underpinnings of our system:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0
CRONYISM. Study it, discuss it, live it, learn it. We don't hire competent people, we hire OUR FRIENDS and any other greedy lamprey that has attached themselves to us and looks good in a suit.
So remember this folks. If you decide to immigrate here, bring friends and a good looking suit.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.
I walked TFA and TFA's TFA looking for the exact quote, but the TFA's parent seems to say the exact opposite.
If she really said this, I am prepared to express outrage to anyone who will listen, but would like to make sure this is what it is purported to be. Does anyone have more information on this?
analog TV, radio, HAM, CB, and other ancient/antiquated technologies
You have no idea how much the airwaves actually are used by mission critical systems, do you? Wireless is the future, not the past. Analog TV is still in full force in many areas where cable still isn't available (including my childhood home). HAM and CB are far from antiquated and are still used in full force. I'm sorry if you don't use them. HAM's pay for licenses which goes to the FCC and CB's are low power transmitters operating on a very small frequency range.
The point is there needs to be designated ranges, otherwise you will have Joe Ham who will stick his 1KW transmitter too close to the operating range of something important - say the transponder of a cell tower (900 MHz) and disrupt cell service. For example. There needs to be regulated bandwidths.
You have it all wrong anyways - they are actually generating money for the government. About 1 penny of your taxes goes to fund them, but then they turn around and generate multi-billion dollars of revenue. reference. Their budget for 2006 is $304M, all but $4.8M comes from regulatory fees. And they generate $26.8B for uncle Sam through auctioning off freed up frequencies.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$hit about DRM.
"Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
They certainly should. It is their establishment.
They put the effort forth to get you in there by buying/renting the space and all that goes along with it. If they want to allow a person to smoke inside they should have that right. Also, if they decide they don't want people smoking in their place they should have that right.
Last I checked restaurants are private places which a person decides to go to or not to go to, unlike say the DMV which a person has to go to get something done.
If you serve good enough food and sell your restaurant as a smoke free establishment I will gladly forgo smoking for two hours to pay you money.
Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
Her views are her views, however why did she have to say this while punched on the clock?
It's as if I was in court said something the Jury shouldn't have heard, was objected to, and withdrawing my statement knowing full well that I just tainted the jury and that no matter what the judge tells them, they will in no doubt, keep what I said in mind.
The sheep will hear it, accept what the government said although it's beyond their scope, and eventually grant that power. someone has to right? We don't have a Federal Digital Rights Management Commission as of yet.
This is just an introductory tactic to eventually gain power and regulate DRM officially for of course... copyright reasons; Exactly what the FCC was hired to do right? I forget these days. Enlighten me.
...is that she'll be looking for a high-paying job with one of the big media houses when she leaves the FCC, and with the shilling she's doing she expects to find one rather quickly.
My sig is too lon
I don't mean a brain, that's a no-brainer.
As the 'Newest Commissioner', does Deborah Tate even have a "bully pulpit"?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just sent a professional - but also nasty gram over to her @
:)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/mail.html
Feel free to do the same
The protection of DRM by the goverment (From FCC regulation or DMCA type laws) is at odds with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
This clause lets the government assign exclusive rights of a work for a limited amount of time (to encourage science and art).
Currently, No DRM has an expiration or time limits of any kind, so by protecting or mandating DRM, the government is in effect allowing exclusive rights of a work and unlimited amount of time ( with no regard to the effect of this on art and science ).
"The market will decide what succeeds or fails" is a silly tautology, "the market" is just a personification of such decisions after the fact.
"The market will decide what is good" is false; the market makes dumb, short-sighted decisions all the time. The market doesn't care about "good" the market cares about "profitable", in the very short term.
"The market" is just the collective decisions of lots of people, deciding things for various reasons, presumably including the FCC commisioners endorsement of an idea. So implying it doesn't matter if the FCC commisioner steps outside her authority to push a particular idea because "The market will decide", is crazy. The market is deciding; Government officials using their offices to push something, and others calling them on it is part of that process.
DRM will succeed if it is profitable for device/content creators in the very short term. If the next gen of DVD players is the only way to watch movies for even a short period, people will take it's cumbersomeness as unavoidable and we'll be stuck with it forever.
Under the bounds of the licensing agreement you agreed to when you made the purchase. Same as a EULA for any software program you purchase nowadays. The similarities are actually quite striking.
The US government will not be happy until it seals itself off from the rest of the world. In the backs of their minds they probably realize that the more insane they get the less chance they'll have for getting other countries to bend to their will and adopt their policies. Much of the news I see related to this type of thing seems to be an attempt by various agencies to alienate and isolate the US. I would imagine that when the US begins producing everything locally, and has their own isolated internet because no one wants to deal with them anymore, they'll shut their borders and we'll never hear from them again.
I'm not sure if this mentality is born of some diseased consciousness that believes its the only way for them to be safe, or what is causing it. They remind me of that crazy relative everyone has... they don't seem so bad at first, but everytime they talk you realize just how far gone they are.
of this is that this could make DVR's, DVD-R's, VCR's (what's that?) and what not illegal if she should ever get this confused as part of her job.
Imagine coming home and wanting to relax and watch a movie you recorded only to be greeted by a message: "You are in copyright violation of bla bla show, please delete it."
Worse, they could make it so you have to pay twice. Once for cable or sat and again if you want to buy(record) the show.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Hi Deb,
This is because most anti-DRM organizations are not proposing legislation, but rather joining me in my cause of dissuading public officials from legislating and mandating DRM.
Sincerely,
Paul
It's time to get organized on this one. The only way the FCC will get the message is massive, grass roots action that says:
"We the people do not want DRM."
And this needs to be promoted with more vigor than Firefox, Ubuntu and your favorite web CMS. We all need to get on this now.
-- $G
They certainly should. It is their establishment.
Certainly they should not. The problem is that no one establishment will ban smoking, for fear of pushing customers elsewhere. You quickly end up with there being zero establishments that put limits on smoking.
Those of us that do not wish to inhale any second hand smoke are left with the option of staying inside with the windows shut, 24/7. That's exactly the situation we were in before states or cities started banning smoking at certain establishments.
It's referencing a Techdirt rumor article, which in turn only cites a random blogger who appears to have made the claim without any attribution at all. My BS detector is going off big-time. It *is* /. though: should I have that fixed?
And nothing else is done. Get that righteous indignation off your chest and go about your business.
Meanwhile, in the corridors of power, the party line remains intact. "Corporations know what is best for the consumer. It's in their best interest." And the other party line, "Anyone against DRM only wants to steal copyrighted material."
And what exactly are *you* doing to change that opinion? Nothing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Obviosuly, most people here are going to disagree with what she is saying as it does not seem well thought out.
However many people seem quick to say that an FCC commisioner has no place to be speaking out on this topic when the FCC cannot legally mandate anything.
I think that view is incorrect. I think it's a really good idea for the chief of the FCC to speak out for things they think are important that are somewhat related, as DRM and things like the broadcasr flag are. After all, what if here message were that we needed to end the DRM fiasco that is wasting companies millions and harming consumers? The FCC would still have no right to mandate that position, but it would be good to let that preference be known and try to drive the positon into the minds of others.
Frankly I am really glad to know EXACTLY where the current FCC head stands on this issue, so that I can take active precautions (writing my senators, supporting the EFF, writing product manufacturers) against undue influence from those quarters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I agree that what you suggest is a possible outcome. It could also be possible that folks as adamant as you are about smokers in their establishment would make their place completely smoke free. I'm in a city that's hasn't (yet) mandated all establishments be non-smoking, and I've noticed some are smoke free, which would suggest that the entire world may not be shut off to you and those who are offended by smoking.
I don't understand however is why people are so adamant about the issue. I am an ex-smoker, and as a result I think I'm more inclined to notice smoke - some part of my addiction still perks up when I smell it. I can count the times on one hand(with fingers left over) that smokers in a private establishment have been so offensive that it was bothersome.
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
I'm not trying to flame or even argue, just offering a differing viewpoint and trying to understand yours more.
What else can we find out of scope to work on while we completeley ignore the telco problems at hard ( AT&T should have never been allowed to be purcahsed, don't get be started on the bellsouth aqusition ). The american people are about to get shafted. as if they already weren't!
Humm... dubya appoints another well meaning but totally unqualified hack. If I support family vlaues can I haev a cushy goberment job tu.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
A true Roseanne Rosannadana moment:
She thought she was talking about "Digital Radio Markets"
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
In this case, I totally agree with the FCC Commissioner.
Everyone should get DRM set up as soon as possible.
It stops the people who buy on iTunes from creating mash-ups of the songs they purchased, and it prevents "just anyone" from selling their music on the accepted marketplace. (the iTunes Music Store) ... those are the features of DRM that the music industry is truly interested in, despite their claims about it "preventing piracy".
I don't have a problem with DRM, I buy tones of music online legally using Itunes. What I have a problem with is the government being more concerned about inititaives that help corperations than they are about things like public saftey, education, and healthcare. Why does the government waste time and money endorsing and legislating DRM and other crap when they could be acctually be helping the PEOPLE they were ellected to represent. Let corporations use all the DRM they want, customers will either accept it or stop buying there crap, but don't waste taxpayer money trying to force feed us DRM.
So you prefer walking through the crowd of smokers on the way into the restaurant/building?
Yes, I'm a smoker. Yes, I wish I wasn't. No, I am not for "smokers rights". I think if people own something they should though have a say in what an what can not go on inside of it. If I visit your house I wouldn't smoke. Your house. Your rules.
An establishment needs a liquor license to sell liquior. Let them create a smoking license. If the place feels that adamant about letting people smoke let them fork over the cash for a license to do it.
Non and ex smokers are some of the most vocal people I have ever met. Do you really think they won't voice their opinion if they are bothered? There were many non-smoking restaurants before the ban here. If it is legal to produce and sell, why is it not legal to use in a private establishment?
I agree that what you suggest is a possible outcome.
Its not just a possible outcome, it was reality up until my city banned smoking in all bars, restraunts and other businesses.
It could also be possible that folks as adamant as you are about smokers in their establishment would make their place completely smoke free.
Alas, I do not own any establishment. Which is the case of most people.
I'm in a city that's hasn't (yet) mandated all establishments be non-smoking, and I've noticed some are smoke free, which would suggest that the entire world may not be shut off to you and those who are offended by smoking.
I've lived in 3 different cities now, and never once had I found one that banned smoking. Consider yourself lucky, I doubt that's the norm. Oh, I'm not 'offended' by smoking. Someone else is causing harm to me by smoking near me. I consider that an attack.
I don't understand however is why people are so adamant about the issue. I am an ex-smoker, and as a result I think I'm more inclined to notice smoke - some part of my addiction still perks up when I smell it. I can count the times on one hand(with fingers left over) that smokers in a private establishment have been so offensive that it was bothersome.
You don't understand because you once were a smoker. As someone who's never smoked at all, I can tell you it gets 'bothersome' very quickly. Just like I find FL too be way too hot, because I live very close to Canada. Its always bothered me being in a smoke filled room; sometimes to the point where I had to leave because I was made physically ill from it. You literally could not see the door from across the other end of the pool hall / bar because the smoke was so thick.
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
So we're already breathing in so many toxins one more won't hurt?
You might live in a large, smog filled city, but I don't. Pollution in Vermont is pretty minimal, even in downtown Burlington.
I'm not trying to flame or even argue, just offering a differing viewpoint and trying to understand yours more.
Nor am I. I think you'll have a hard time understanding this at all, being an ex-smoker. Peronsally I don't care what people do, until it starts interfering with what I want to do. Anyone can smoke, but I don't feel like I should be forced to breath it in also just going about my day to day life.
How about firing her for abusing her position of public trust? She's not busy enough regulating porn, stopping municipal WiFi, dropping barriers to media monopolies, breaking up the Internet into multiple telco fiefdom "tiers"...
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
--
make install -not war
Is it the people or the corporations?
> Alas, I do not own any establishment.
Then buy one. Or establish one. No one is keeping you from doing it.
> I've lived in 3 different cities now, and never once had I found one that banned smoking.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places. Actually, it wasn't the city, it was an unelected board who illegally FORCED the ban on the city. The town (OH) doesn't have an explicit ban, but most places enforce their own ban. Anecdotal evidence can go both ways, YMMV.
> Someone else is causing harm to me by smoking near me. I consider that an attack.
You are trying to harm my freedom of choice as well as the freedom of choice of business owners. That is an attack. Going to places that allow smoking and getting pissed because people smoke is NOT an attack.
> I don't feel like I should be forced to breath it in also just going about my day to day life.
You are in no way FORCED to breath in cigarette smoke in your day-to-day life. You may be inconvenienced in that you have to search for a non-smoking establishment, but it is deceitful for you to say you are forced.
A quick search turned up 8,733 here
For some reason, this isn't enough and legislation was passed to ban all smoking everywhere. The market works in this case, yet fanatics demand still more.
Man, you really need that seminar!
After following the links, I can find no quotes from her speech. As mentioned in a previous post, she may have been talking about something other than digital restrictions management. Until I see quotes of the speech, this is nothing but hearsay.
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
iPods are "most players". For the rest, most use WMA instead of AAC, so you can get the songs you want from Wal-Mart or Napster or some other store.
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it.
Depends on how much of a pain it is, and if the media in question is your only option for purchase. i.e. if you don't like 128 bit AAC and want to play songs on your iRiver, you can buy a physical cd or a track from a different online store. If you want to buy one of the Batman movies on DVD, you are stuck with whatever Time Warner offers you.
As background, there are 5 Commissioners, 1 of which is designated as the Chairperson by the President and only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.
If she actually does follow through on pushing for DRM, it means at least 4 other people + Pres. Bush (actually, whichever people he has advising him on the matter) don't care if she spouts off.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
Some people view breathing in second hand smoke, the same way as being farted on. It may not be as bad as the pollution we're breathing in while on the side of a road, but nonetheless it's something that people would rather avoid.
Live forever, or die trying.
Anyone with me on this? We need to start up a US equivalent of the Swedish Pirate Party. Our platform:
DRM is illegal
Rein in patents
Reduce copyright terms
Restore fair use
Restore internet provider competition
We on Slashdot complain about anti-consumer legislation and ideas, but the only way to do fix it is through political power.
it's outside her authority. so she should shut up and sit down now. better yet. let's get someone in the position who doesn't have a prior agenda.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
This person could start their own non-smoking place or frequent businesses that were non-smoking, but such places don't typically exist. What tends to happen is the non-smoking section, but that doesn't eliminate the second-hand smoke (and smell), so it's a distinction without a function.
Your freedom ends when it affects other peoples,whether its swinging your arms in circle, smoking, or driving wildly. So legislating non-smoking within public areas is, arguably, the only way to ensure that YOUR freedom doesn't trample on ANOTHER's freedom. I know its not perfect, but you can go outside to smoke, or the business could provide a "smoke rooom" for smokers.
And to your last point, yes, I have been forced to breath in smoke in my day-to-day life because you can't avoid it in many places. Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck. Drive a car, yes, but then walking from the parking lot to the office/business, there's the 101 people smoking whose smoke gets on my clothes, in my lungs and eyes. It's not just looking for a smoke-free establishment, its being able to choose a smoke-free life. I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking. As for the other polutions in the city, I DO contribute in some ways to those (though I try to reduce them as much as possible), so I have agreed to the outcome there.
Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... very nice to non-smokers, and for the most part, the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room or outside.
One suggestion to solve this is to find a technology that let's smokers have their smoke without it affecting other people. If that were available, I would have no problem with the NEW smoker.
Might be tough... we have to find people who like Country Music first.
it's always a fine result when politically driven beaurocrats decide what's best for us.
there should be at least 5 incompatable standards for DRM, so the consumer can choose how they get maximumly screwed out of what they bought.
This marks the first time that I can recall where an appointed official who's job is to regulate the public's airwaves in the public's interest has openly said that they are not interested in doing what is best for the public, but a narrow constituency in the media companies.
There is no sane argument that DRMed content is good for the public at large, seeing as DRM infringes on rights enshrined in the Constitution itself. In fact, the only constitutional DRM is that where you, the owner of the computer/media box/etc. hold the private key.
This person should resign immediately and so should the idiot who appointed her to the position.
So where is the evidence that TV broadcasts and people videoing TV shows ever ruined the media giants?
TV still exists, Hollywood exists and Disney etc are larger than ever. So there is no need to restrict people left right and center. In fact it's all theory that people who have "pirate" media would have purchased it had they not been able to pirate it. The pirate market is seen at possible growth and revenue when in fact many people pirate it either because they can't afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money on the media in the first place.
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Just a small note about something we should be aware of.
As many of you know, the courts struck down the FCC's attempt at the broadcast flag, citing 'no authority' for the FCC over this issue.
However, it is completely possible for congress to pass a law that gives the FCC the authority. Consider: while some law makers may find it career damaging to support a strong DRM law, it would probably be much more palatable to pass a law that vaguely gives the FCC the power to "set anti-copyright infringement guidelines" or somesuch nonsense.
Her comments may be her way of telegraphing to congress and the pro-drm-industry lobbyists that she's on their team and ready to act.
---
In a somewhat related note, can we drop the sexist 'bitch' tag on the article and instead use the much more humorous and gender-neutral tag 'asshat', please?
As long as you can defeat it by holding down the shift key while inserting the CD.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
The new FCC commissioner should be proud of speaking out on this issue in a way that is likely to garner more world consensus.
The Peoples Republic of China has long had a difficult time with criminals disclosing state secrets. If more of China's state secrets were protected by strong DRM then such damaging leaks could be prevented.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
One should question any article such as this one that does not quote the person to whom a statement is atributed. This article is strictly hearsy. Without an actual quotation, we cannot know what was said. Even when people are quoted it is frequently out of context.
Of course, we do know she hangs out with a bad crowd - as the statements attributed to her were made a Bar event.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Dear Deb,
Maybe I should rephrase and say that I don't support legislation for or against. And that is the whole point. Thank you for your troll. I've had a good time with it.
I'll look into your alegations about the EFF, an organization which is concerned with a whole host of things, only one of which is DRM. Now that this is firmly put to rest I will be ignoring your comments so long as they are posted anonymously.
Paul
PS: you meant "your excuse."
You had the awesome power to shape the world, and instead of wielding it, you asked the government to do it for you, reinforcing the view that we all need to be ruled for our own good. Well done, comrade.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
People used to have to at least obtain a legit copy, be it from a friend or a rental store. Now the copy you download will have gone through maybe dozens of people before it gets to you.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
The great irony here is that a lot of blogs were started to try and balance out the "echo chamber" that exists in the corporate US media.
By implementing DRM but also copyrighting, they take something extra that wasn't theirs (a collection of copyright-related laws and use of the courts to enforce them), without the exchange: giving the content to the public domain in 90 years. It's something for nothing, taken from us at our expense, without us having the option to opt out of subsidizing copyright enforcement.
That's what's not to like.
If a content producer doesn't like the quid-pro-quo deal that copyright offers, then they are free to keep their content a secret and not distribute it. Or they're free to negotiate whatever non-disclosure contract (and technical enforcement mechanisms (DRM)) with their customers that they want to. But the flip side is that they shouldn't be granted copyright, shouldn't have Senator Disney trying to create criminal penalties or other special laws governing that contract, etc. They shouldn't be able to fraudulently misrepresent a shadowy "license" transaction -- where the customer doesn't even know he's entering into an implicit contract where the terms are not even disclosed to him -- as a sale of goods.
When the retail transaction of buying a non-DRM paper book, versus "buying"(?) DRMed media, becomes different so that the customers can see what their getting into (e.g. he is asked to sign a contract before walking out of the store), then perhaps DRM will no longer look like fraud or a desperate attempt to avoid market forces.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Maybe I'm reading your post in the wrong tone, but it's coming off with a lot more conviction than I'm willing to muster.
.... I think you'll have a hard time understanding this at all, being an ex-smoker.
Its not just a possible outcome, it was reality up until my city banned smoking in all bars, restraunts and other businesses.
I would hope that you could at least concede that it is possible that smoke free establishments can and do exist without a smoking ban, as I concede that it is possible that every single place could decide to provide smoking sections. I think that may be what set the tone for me... not sure.
Alas, I do not own any establishment. Which is the case of most people.
I wasn't suggesting that you should "roll your own" establishment if you didn't like smoking ones. My point was simply that there are most likely folks with pre-existing establishments that share your beliefs, so strongly that they run a smoke free operation. I suppose it was something of an addition to the first thought about there being smoke free places sans-ban.
It seems foreign to me that you would consider someone smoking in your general vicinity as an attack. What's the maxim - don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by x. X in this could be any number of things, stupidity, cluelessness, or inconsideration. I can only imagine that this strong feeling comes from the harm the smoke may cause you, which brings me to clarify another statement I made.
If it's the secondhand smoke issue... I guess maybe it's that our viewpoints differ on the threat. If you find yourself bathed in smoke on a frequent basis, I could see where you might be harmed, but we suck in so much pollution and crap just walking on the side of a busy road.
So we're already breathing in so many toxins one more won't hurt?
That was not my point again... I apologize for not explaining myself well. I simply meant that we intake and filter out tons of toxins a day, and no real discernable harm comes from a good bit of it. I may be uninformed, but I lean towards the belief that an hour of exposure to smoke will do little or no damage to a human body. I hope that clears up both my point, and the reasoning behind it.
Its always bothered me being in a smoke filled room; sometimes to the point where I had to leave because I was made physically ill from it. You literally could not see the door from across the other end of the pool hall / bar because the smoke was so thick.
That too would bother me, and would take a finger away from my tally. I'd probably not go there.
You don't understand because you once were a smoker.
I'd hoped that I would be able to understand your point of view. I understand that you have a very low tolerance for people smoking around you which is perfectly fine, I suppose I was curious ~why~ you lacked the tolerance, and that may boil down to the fact that you just plain don't like it... which is fine too!
Not the size of a mini-fridge (though probably hotter than the hubs of Hell at peak output...) and 2kW peak output AT 10m. To be sure, there's more and I suspect there's solid state units in the same size class or smaller. Perhaps it's just that the surplus gear you've seen is larger?
As for the truckers having 1kW rigups, it's not uncommon to see 500w rigs on tractor-trailers, and I suspect that
there's always some idiot putting a 1kW+ lashup on their rig on a periodic basis. The 100w linear's just as bogus
as the 1-2kW one for the band- and Uncle Charlie (as the Childrens' Band crowd call the FCC field agents) are so
overtaxed that they can't be bothered with interference from local TV stations bleeding over into adjacent UHF
stations (The offending tower was all of 3 miles from the FCC's listening post in Dallas...) so what makes you think
they're going to be enforcing power violations in CB's bands? They might be doing it at Hamfests, etc. because
most of the people aren't idiots like they are with CB- there's a whole lot less people inclined to violate and
the people that get caught doing it have loads more to lose.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
> Take the subway, bus, or other mass transit, you're stuck
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??? I had no idea such places existed in the U.S. any more (maybe you're not in the U.S.?). I thought that was considered a fire hazard. I apologize: apparently, I was wrong. There should be no smoking in tightly-packed, enclosed areas like that, IMO.
> its being able to choose a smoke-free life
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. You can work for Motorola, they fired all their smokers. Making a life choice and sticking to it does not mean you have the ability to keep your lifestyle without giving anything up (convenience). For instance, is there only one entrance to your place of work? Can you use another door? I know little about where you work, so this may be a completely useless suggestion, but you could suggest a company policy to prohibit smoking from withing X feet of an entrance. A few feet doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it works. My work has such a policy (20ft), although being a hospital people may be more apt to follow the policy. And there's always gonna be jerks who will ignore it.
> I don't want to smoke, smell like smoke, or have anything to do with smoking.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive. (Sure, I can grow my own food, but that's an inconvenience, perhaps on a similar level as avoiding smoke, IMO)
> Now I live in a state that has a statewide ban on smoking in public areas in buildings... [..] the smokers I know don't mind going into the smoke room
Isn't that contradictory? You just said it was banned, but if a place has a "smoke room" it has NOT been banned.
I support ab initio copy protection for all our nation's precious intellectual property.
I know herding cats is harder then herding turtles, but I'd still rather be a cat then a turtle :P
~= scwizard =~
When a government official tries to extend their own authority, they are way out of line. This stupid cow needs to be dismissed from the taxpayers' payroll, immediately.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I just think she should spend time doing her job and stop hindering competition.
Afterall, the only that has kept the US of American and the West ahead of the World was when the England and then the UK was fortunate enough to stumble across fair free-market trade (albeit initially internally) based on the freedom to make contracts and fair and equal judgement, which then developed into the free-market competitive capitalist economy.
It is competition that brings efficiencies (people trying to getting maximum output for effort input), and it is competition that brings innovation (competiting to provide a 'better' product to your customer).
DRM (Digital Restrictions Management, otherwise sometimes known Digital Rights Management) limits peoples 'Rights' and cut competition, thus severely hurting innovation and likely efficiency over time.
The market has thrived in the past without the need for restrictive controls like excessive patents, and without unduly long copyright coverage times. But now we have these and we are beginning to see a downturn in diversity and innovation whilst the large controlling companies manage to keep hold of their ever increasing profit streams.
Its a pity that competition and innovation and efficiency is slowly being destroyed in the US. Other competitive economies like China and so on are the ones that will be setting the rules in the future if the US carries on down this path.
It's not enough to band together in opposition of something, you need to have a convincing and consistant argument as to why X is bad or harmful. The media cartels already have their response to why anyone wouldn't want DRM - "They want to unlawfully copy and steal content". Those opposed to DRM need some good solid facts about what DRM does to harm creativity and stiffle innovation.
Lots of reasons get thrown about by various opponents of DRM, but there is not one consistent argument that Congress or proponents hear from the "other side". I could say it doesn't stop piracy (where's the proof? weak argument anyway). I could say it's only benefiting the media moguls (may be true, but they'll come back with spin about how that benefits you). I could say that it'll forever bury our culture in obscure technology as the years roll on and we'll lose a sense of who we were (that's not a good reason - you're just a damned hippy who wants everything to be free!).
You can see where I'm going with this. DRM opponents need a consistent line with hard-hitting facts about the detrimental effects of DRM that can't easily be brushed off as simply one's opinion.
When that happens, then the anti-DRM folks will have something to rally around.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Then buy one. Or establish one. No one is keeping you from doing it.
I don't have any capital, or experience managing a restraunt (as do most people that don't own one). I'm sure a bank won't be willing to lend the money. At any rate your logic is stupid; smokers get to smoke everywhere, and those of us that don't wish to breath it in have to build our own seperate areas? Why not the other way? Ban smoking everywhere except in a cigar shop. See, it goes both ways.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
which has nothing to do with the topic of banning smoking in public places. The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Anecdotal evidence can go both ways, YMMV.
I only brought out the anecdotal evidence in response to the OP's anecdotal evidence. I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise.
You are trying to harm my freedom of choice as well as the freedom of choice of business owners.
You might as well say that laws prohibited assalt are harming your choice to punch someone in the face. Go smoke all you want at home, or in your car (with the windows rolled up). I don't care if you smoke, but I shouldn't have to breath it in when I try to enter or leave a building or enjoy a meal. Business owners don't have a choice; when you own a business you are regulated. Just like they don't have to choice to serve rotten meat.
That is an attack. Going to places that allow smoking and getting pissed because people smoke is NOT an attack.
Its not; the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke. Listen, smoke all you want, get cancer and die, I don't care. But when your activity by its nature affects others, expect not to be allowed to do that activity around others that choose not to be involved. But go ahead, keep claiming you have the right to poison someone while you're poison ing yourself. Keep telling people that they have to become shutins to avoid it.
You are in no way FORCED to breath in cigarette smoke in your day-to-day life.
Really? And what choice to I have when the entrances of buildings that I do have to enter are surrounded by smokers? When I'm walking down the sidewalk and someone else's smoke blows over to me? Or when someone in the car in front of me is smoking? Sorry, but I'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc. I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
Where do you live that smoking is allowed on MASS TRANSIT??
Not on the transit itself, but certainly at the station. Smokers can't smoke inside the subway station, so they may gather around the stairs leading to it. I nkow this wasa problem at my college that banned smoking in the buildings. Winter hit, so all the smokers huddled around the door so they could get back in quickly. You couldn't go in or out of the build without going through a cloud. Some bus stops around here are a small enclosure that's mostly open to the outside. If that, most are just a sign post you stand next to, and you are technically allow to smoke there.
Not to be an ass (too late), but you could always go to a place that doesn't allow smoking.
As I mentioned, they simply didn't exist where I lived. Believe me, I looked. It was always smoking or non.. but you could never get away from it.
I don't want to have anything to do with pollution, war, and many other things, yet I am forced to support them in a more direct way than you are forced to be around smoke, via taxes and the need to buy things to survive.
Nor do I. Unfortunatly those are harder problems to fix. I don't want to breath in the polution from my car or anyway elses. But banning cars would destroy the economy. Banning smoking in public places doesn't and has an immediate effect. In short, its an easier problem to solve.
So you prefer walking through the crowd of smokers on the way into the restaurant/building?
No, which is why smoking should be banned in ALL public places. You can smoke at your house, a cigar shop, your friends house (if they don't mind) or in your car with the windows up.
Yes, I'm a smoker. Yes, I wish I wasn't. No, I am not for "smokers rights". I think if people own something they should though have a say in what an what can not go on inside of it. If I visit your house I wouldn't smoke. Your house. Your rules.
Businesses don't have the same freedoms as individuals. The problem was that pretty much no place was banning smoking. At any rate, I think the businesses are happy now. With the ban in place, most bars and restraunts are MORE crowded. The fear they had was apparently unfounded.
An establishment needs a liquor license to sell liquior. Let them create a smoking license. If the place feels that adamant about letting people smoke let them fork over the cash for a license to do it.
Those same places with the liquior licenses were the same ones that allowed smoking. McDs never has (as long as I've known anyway). You end up back up in the same situtation as you did without the ban. most or all places would allow it.
Non and ex smokers are some of the most vocal people I have ever met. Do you really think they won't voice their opinion if they are bothered?
We're vocal about it because we're being posioned.
If it is legal to produce and sell, why is it not legal to use in a private establishment?
Its still a public place. All there were so many public places which allowed it, you really couldn't get away from it if you chose not to. So we chose to ban it. IIRC, this issue was voted on by the residents of the city.
I'm not sure on two of your assumptions:
1. That smokers will make decisions on where to eat based on whether or not they can smoke (over quality of food, location, price of food, etc.)
2. That there are SO MANY smokers that if a restaurant loses their business, that they will lose insane amounts of revenue.
Accoding to Wikipedia, most businesses do not suffer from banning smoking.
I didn't say those fears had any basis, just thats what the fears were. Indeed, it seemed to me at least that the bars / restraunts I went to got MORE crowded after the ban. Personally I expected that, but bar owners at the time probably wouldn't want to change the status quo because they didn't know what would happen. Since no one wanted to be the first, no one did..
It seems likely that a nonsmoker might make a decision on where to eat based on whether or not the air inside the restaurant was polluted, but the mirror of this probably doesn't hold true of smokers.
It may or may not.
Also, if nonsmokers are so avid about avoiding smoke, then they can always start their own restaurant, right?
Nope, just because you like eating at a restraunt and don't want to inhale someone elses poision doesn't mean you know how to run a restraunt or have the capital.
Well, Denver may not have needed a ban then. Its not like smokers only smoke in the restraunt though. I'm sure they smoke as they come out, and non-smokers still end up breathing it in just walking down the street.
You had the awesome power to shape the world, and instead of wielding it, you asked the government to do it for you, reinforcing the view that we all need to be ruled for our own good. Well done, comrade.
Bull. Its no different than laws against punching someone in the face. There's nothing sociallist about it.
> I don't have any capital
But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
> The fact that this council did so illegally doesn't have any bearing except in that city.
Umm.... and the myriad of other cities where such bans have been enforced illegally.
> > I've lived in one city and one town. The city (in WV) banned smoking in all public places.
> Try living someplace taht doesn't have an active ban. FWIW, my city recently passed such a ban.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument. I was a smoker starting about 13 years ago, the city ban was put in place less than 4 years ago, just before I moved away. I stated that the town I live in now has no ban. I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
> the reality is that until the ban you couldn't go ANYWHERE without being exposed to smoke
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells. Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision? If someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke. If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said. Unless, of course, you work in a cigarette shop... and live there... and never leave.
> 'd like to live my life, and that includes being able to go out to eat, drive to work, the bank, go to the movies, etc
No one has taken that away from you. I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
> I shouldn't have to give all that up become some selfish idiot thinks they have a right to smoke anywhere they want.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended? Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live like you.
I'm done with you and your inconsistent logic.
are forced to turn around and charge their customers / general public.
Nope. They can do what they want with them, within reason. Might be used for private networking within a company, for instance, or perhaps for profit. Heaven forbid a company should make a profit.
When a government official tries to extend their own authority, they are way out of line. This stupid cow needs to be dismissed from the taxpayers' payroll, immediately.
As a Mac user and advocate I find this sort of language quite offensive.
If you crawl out of the male-dominated windows world you inhabit for just one second and try joining the Apple community, you'll realise that women use computers and are quite offended by words like 'bitches' used in such a manner.
For shame.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
But you feel that you have the right to dictate the actions and allowances of someone who DOES have that capital? That they put up?
Yup, just like we can dictate that Shell Oil can't dump any waste in rivers. Starting a business does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want.
That they put up? That they risked losing by making a business that employs people? And despite the fact that they are the only ones taking the risk in a business, you think you can tell them what legal activities can and cannot take place there?
Thats the risk they chose to take. They also understand they must operate under certain rules, that they are NOT free to do whatever they may like. I absolutely have the right to tell an oil company not to pollute.
Oh by the way, once the ban (i.e. law) was passed, its not longer legal to smoke in a restraunt or bar or any of the other establishments described in the law. You're claiming its legal to smoke; this is true. Its no longer legal to smoke in certain places. Thats the law.
Are you fucking retarded? I'm willing to take a flamebait karma hit on this one because you obviously have no intention of making a rational argument.
I think you're the retarded one. My argument is simple, but apparently you're too stupid to follow it. You smoke. Someone else inhales the smoke that doesnt want to. Their rights have been violated. Smoke all you want; just dont' expect other people to have to inhale it. For some reason, you think that because you smoke, everyoen else secretly wants to. Go fuck yourself.
I DO LIVE SOMEPLACE(sic) taht(sic) doesn't have an active ban.
Good for you. Hopefully they'll wise up and put a ban in place soon though.
Then you have a serious problem with phantom smells.
Wow, thanks for telling me that those smells don't exist. Tell me, does the phone on my desk really exist? Shut up, asshat.
Are you one of those obnoxious assholes who starts mock-coughing every time they can see a cigarette in their field of vision?
Nope.
f someone is smoking 30 ft from you (and you aren't directly down-wind) you WILL NOT smell the smoke.
Wind shifts, people move.
If you do, it's either a freak of physics that the smoke managed to stay in an air pocket that long, or you are imagining it to prop up your bullshit offense. There simply are not enough smokers in the world to make sure you smell smoke EVERYWHERE, like you said.
Now you're just being ridiculous. I didn't say constantly, I said not a day goes by that I don't breath in some else's smoke at least once a day. I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
No one has taken that away from you.
Sure they have. You told me that instead of a ban I just shouldn't go to any restraunt or bar that allowed smoking. Before the ban, there were none. So I would have had to give up going to a bar.
I'd like to do those things without being subjected to some fucking hick's body odor, but just imagine the laughing stock you would be if you suggested banning B.O.
I'm sure if you did smell offensive enough, a nicer restraunt would ask you to leave because other patrons would complain. The fact is though that smoke is not like BO. BO is offensive, smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems. So the two aren't very comparable.
But I should have to give up smoking because you are a selfish idiot who wrongly believes they have the right to live their life completely unoffended?
I never said you had to give it up. I said you can't do it around me, or anyone else that doesn't want cigerrete smoke around. Please, smoke all you want AT HOME or in other places where your smoke can't possibly get to another person that doesn't want to.
Get off you fucking high horse and stop trying to force everyone to live li
> I also know that in my city there were zero bars and restraunts (excluding the fast food type) that banned smoking.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
> smoke from cigerettes is poisonous and will cause health problems
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
> apparently you're too stupid to follow it.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended. I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment). But you wouldn't know that, not wanting to look into anything that might harm your sense of self-importance and self-righteousness.
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
> how about i punch you in the face everytime I see you?
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible. Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies. If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order. I am not about to follow you around blowing smoke in your face and I highly doubt anyone has ever done that to you, yet you act as if we are seeking you out.
If your "logic" made any real sense, you could immediately shut down all coal-burning plants, take all gas-powered cars off the road, planes from the air, boats from the waters, all oil wells could be shut down, and fire banned in general. You cannot, yet smokers are demonized by assholes like you who claim that standing next to a smoker will give you cancer (not sure how you figured that one). It is bullshit.
If you know the policy of every place where you live, you either don't live in a city like you said, or you are a fucking liar. Considering your previous untruths, I'll assume the second.
Its not a very big city; just over half a million people, and very compact (due to anti-spraw laws). My wife and I eat out alot (or we did) and pretty much all of the restraunts / bars worth eating at allowed smoking. This was backed up by a study done when the smoking ban was presented. I haven't said anything untrue, you're the one making things up.
Will? WILL Talk about lies. If I smoke near someone and they get a whiff of my smoke, THEY WILL NOT GET HEALTH PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT. Yours is complete bullshit, a totally alarmist statement, and just begging to be correctly called a troll.
Well then, I guess its ok if a little radation leaks out of a nuclear plant. Smoke has an immediate effect. I've actually become nausous after only being in a bar which allowed smoking for only 30 mins. By your argument I should be allowed to slap you, because it doesn't cause any permenate harm. Oh, go read some studies by the way; second hand smoke is almost always worse then sucking on the cigerrete itself.
Stupid, eh? I'm not the one that thinks he has the right to remain unoffended.
Yes stupid, we aren't talking about being offended, we are talking about you putting poision the air i'm breathing. Claiming that smoking is simply offensive is exteremly stupid. Add some rat poision to your friends drink, not enough to cause problems though. Then tell him, see how he reacts.
I'm not the one that thinks the United States has government-sponsored healthcare (hint: you don't pay for ANYONE'S cancer treatment).
Wrong. I pay healthcare premiums. There are smokers in every healthcare plan. Cancer treatment is expensive, thus causing premiums to be higher. At some point your health plan will drop you, and you'll be unable to get coverage elsewhere. The state then begins to foot the bill. This is exactly what's going on with my best friend's parents. His mom will be dead in a few years. Care to guess what right they exersised?
Fucking trolls... If you don't know anything about law or government, don't argue it. It just shows your own ignorance
Sorry, I'm not a troll, and you'd see that if you looked at my posting history. I do know about law and government; I know my city voted for a LAW banning smoking in public places, because we (the city) decided we didn't want to be poisioned by someone else's choices. Where in the constitution or any law does it say you have the right to HARM another person? It doesn't. and you still can smoke. Just not around me.
Then I would do well to avoid you as much as possible.
So lets get rid of rape and murder laws. After all, we can just avoid the kind of people that do those things too, can't we?
Which is what YOU should do, but you feel you should be able to walk anywhere on this Earth and smell nothing but flowers and puppies.
Yes, I feel I have the right to walk around and not be attacked, have my property stolen, or have someone poisioning the air I breath. Everyone has that right. But of course in your mind its always the victums fault isn't it? She had it coming to her, look how she dressed! He deserved to be mugged, he should have known not to take that turn!
If you continued to chase me and punch me, I'd get a restraining order.
Which is stupid, because if I chase and punch you, I should be arrested. I violated your rights and the law. FWIW, restraining orders don't mean shit, and they can't be applied because you don't like what someone does; you can only get one against a person putting you in some kind of danger. Ask any battered wife that left her husband, she'll tell you how effective those orders are. Off the record, the cop usually advises the woman to buy a gun.
I am not about to follow you around blowing smoke