New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame

An anonymous reader writes "Representative Lamar Smith is sponsoring the Intellectual Property Protection Act. The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Among the provisions is lowering the standards for 'willful copyright violation' and increasing the corresponding prison term to 10 years." More information is also available at publicknowledge.org.

Comments

Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Lamar Smith, Christian Scientist, hater of immigrants & proud possessor of one of the stupidest middle names eve (Seeligson).

Reading Open Secret's page about him, you see the usual line up of Legal firms, Content & Tech companies. Just the people who stand to benefit from this legislation the most.

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[808skeptic]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism? This is overtly Orwellian doubletalk. I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state, but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism. It's fucking ridiculous.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Because most people are bought even cheaper and more easily?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[reldruH]

Be careful with how loosely you throw around the 1984 references. You never know when Big Brother is watching...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ColonelClaw]

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like.

Wrong question.

Right question:

I wonder if the Bush Administration cares.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[lendude]

...not Hedy Lamar, that's Headley Lamar!

Where's my froggie, where's my froggie? Kribbit...that was close.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ArsenneLupin]

but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism.

You can. You can resort to blaming it on child pornography instead. Works just as well!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[suv4x4]

hater of immigrants

I've always wondered how the heck can US citizens hate immigrants. That's ridiculous right? Is Lamar a Native American?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[lorelorn]

All they are doing is repeating the same level of sophistication in an argument that it took to convince them.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[NitsujTPU]

Still wrong.

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Let me go ahead and repeat that for you, since nobody ever understands that.

A CONGRESSMAN.

The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

Want to fix this situation? Blame the right people.

It sounds almost like Congress has this double talk thing worked out as well.

"Everything that we do that pisses people off" = "The Bush Administration"

These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[arivanov]

Err...

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism.

Frankly, someone in the US gov is taking lessons from the el presidente Antonio Bliar's book that any lie is OK provided that it is for the "just cause". Can we see some damn proof of at least one instance when this has happened?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[skribe]

I wonder if the American people care.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[bxbaser]

Still wrong

Bill Clintons fault !

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Elemenope]

For the most part I agree that blaming the congressmen for acts of congress is more politically productive, but I would submit that your view that this is separate from the executive's legislative agenda (and rest assured, it has one) is simplistic at best.

Part of what makes the Republican party so scary (besides the wacko puritan crazies that overran it about 25 years ago) is that it boasts a strong party loyalty amongst members of congress in a system that franly doesn't encourage it. Admittedly there are outliers like Ron Paul in the House and Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the Senate but they are truly anomalies in an otherwise placid sea of party line voters. Part of that loyalty comes directly from executive strong-arming, particularly threats of not helping to fundraise for reelection (which can be crippling for a congressman). To say that Bush and his team bear no blame for the legislation coming out of their congressional colleage's collective asses is missing the forest for the trees. Especially when Mr. Gonzales is quoted in TFA as relating this legislative agenda to combatting terrorism. He's an executive officer, no doubt about it.

There is something to be said about politicians being bought and paid for, and particularly with legislation like this the largest pressure comes from industry lobbyists, but when you follow the money it also inevitably leads back to party and president (for the ruling party).

Now, ultimately, you are right in that focusing on Bush takes the attention off of some Members of Congress who richly deserve some democratically-imposed term limits, and because the picture is more complicated than you make it out to be, many of them will slip thorugh the cracks looking cleaner than they ought to. And that is a tragedy.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the immigration debate just dismantling this political regime as many MCs find themselves in a damn'd if ya do/dam'd if ya don't situation. It seems like the first time in a while that the republican stranglehold on the politcal consciences of its own MCs is breaking as they look to their own necks first.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Bin Naden]

Unless I am mistaken, this is not retorical, it is a clear statement that piracy is being used to fund terrorism

So when is oil becoming illegal?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[NiceGeek]

Still wrong - from the TFA:
"The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith"

note - CREATED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sy161e]

To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (in reference to copyright infringement).

Attorney General Gonzales was appointed by W. Bush, so it is entirely appropriate attack the Bush administration's doubletalk.

"Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"
So when is oil becoming illegal?
"

as soon as oil stops funding global warming

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Ihlosi]

So when is oil becoming illegal?

Why, it already is !

Why do you think the US are spending so much time, money and general effort to acquire huge quantities of the stuff and waste^h^h^h^h^hdestroy it ?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[tremmor]

You must be a terrorist to say something like that!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you missed the sentence that said the draft legislation was created by the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[jsnipy]

sheep +1

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[xSauronx]

Fuck you! TAFT started all of this!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[barefootgenius]

It has to do with buzzwords and time allocated to a story in the media. Basically someone is sitting in Washington D.C. telling the politicians what the current emotive words are. Things that scare people (terrorists, child pornographer, drugs) are good, or things that make people feel proud/good/safe (patriot, homeland, security, freedom, etc...).

Because the media only allocates a short amount of time to a story, its all a game of getting what you want by saying as many of these emotive words as you can in as short a time possible whilst camouflaging the fact that you are doing it. That, along with the indoctrination that we get as children, pretty much serves to keep people doing what the government wants.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[jlholimon]

Because politicians are professional liars who's only objective in getting re-elected is to serve lobbyists. Start pushing for lobbying reform and go kick you house rep and senator in the arse about it.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[clydemaxwell]

No, they want you to throw them around more. It weakens the effect it has on us.
fewer people freak out when they hear that we live under big brother, now.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Baricom]

its all a game of getting what you want by saying as many of these emotive words as you can in as short a time possible whilst camouflaging the fact that you are doing it.

So, in essence, speechwriters are just like spammers?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ozmanjusri]

Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

I'd always thought the money chain for Al Quaeda funding was reasonably clear, with most coming from donations to "charitable" organisations such as the Muwafaq ("Blessed Relief") Foundation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4963025/

That was pretty much how the IRA got their money too, so it's not like this is a novel concept. Why not introduce laws banning anonymous donations? It'd be more efefctive than this crap.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Detritus]

You have to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. I have no problem with people who immigrate legally, with the proper visa. I do have a problem with those who enter illegally, or who enter on a tourist visa and decide to stay. They should be deported, and anyone who hires them should face criminal penalties.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your political system allows for - and encourages - politicians to sell out fast. Politicians who get more ads on the TV and on the streets get more votes. How do they pay for that air time? They get campaign contributions from companies. But then they need to suck up to the companies, right?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Because they all are? It's kind of hard to vote for the politican who doesn't operate in self-interest when they all operate in self-interest.

The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, not only in revenue but power over the people. (The growth rate of the US government has been simply incredible -- look it up sometime.) Did you think this occurred by chance, or better yet, because voters have been voting for the wrong politicans this entire time?

The indisputable fact is that the power elite works in self-interest, just like you, me, and every other human being on this planet -- the difference is that they hold the unique "right" to employ coercion as a means to an end, and we don't. That is why every year, there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, and thousands more ways for the power elite to exploit the existence of power -- not because voters have been voting for the "wrong" politicians.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

How about stopping outsourcing to India? I think that's funding terrorism activities. And stopping outsourcing to China because that funding surpressing fundemental human rights?

Oh wait, but there is money to be made there. Never mind.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Professor_UNIX]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

I have a better idea to help stomp out terrorism: Decrease the amount of years copyright protection applies to 5 years in order to spur new innovation and content creation rather than hoarding and milking of old material that should've entered the public domain decades ago. Copyright isn't about creating some kind of intellectual property that can be traded and acquired by successive businesses, it's about encouraging innovative new creative works. How does the Beatles songs still being copyright protected encourage them to make new albums? Half of them are farking dead!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IsThisNickTaken]

These days I look at voting between the two major US parties as a choice between being punched in the nose or kicked in the groin. Which is "better"?...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[replicant108]

It's been said many times, but it bears repeating:

Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.

Terrorism is the alternate password.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

You have to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

Do you really believe all of your ancestors came to America "legally"?

Anyway, screw it, the US has behaved so appallingly in latin America, that the immigrants have the right to come & try and get a little of their wealth back (and they work damn hard for it too)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sendtwogrey]

Hmm... Didn't the CIA fund themselves in a similar manor blaming those pesky drugs barons? Just how much funding is the bush administration losing from the Middle East since he parked an army there? The oil gone could explain why there are no Blackberry's on capital hill only Redberry's.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[eric76]

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Yep.

It sure was introduced by a Congressman. That doesn't mean that the Congressman wrote the bill.

The President cannot introduce legislation himself. It takes a Congressman to do that.

Even though the Congressman introduced the legislation, the legislation was drafted by the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

['nother poster]

I have no idea where you get off blaming taft for Hamiltons screw ups.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[RandomPrecision]

The one who apparently linked it to terrorism, however, was Alberto Gonzales, who I consider part of the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[stinky wizzleteats]

The rhetoric under question is that of Alberto Gonzales. Alberto Gonzales is the Attorney General of the United States and reports directly to the executive branch. So, yes, we actually can blame Bush for Gonzales publicly making the absurd connection between copyright circumvention and terrorism.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the nail - I hope that people in the USA will realize this better sooner than later.
Another (more fresh) example is "V for Vendetta" which suits better than Orwell's 1984, because the former society lives in a faked democracy and the latter is a clear totalitarian system.

Free people should not allow for such a demagogy, where:
    "someone I do not like/stands on my way" = "terrorist",
and:
    "terrorist" should be jailed forever without any trial,
and:
    "any foreigner" = "a potential terrorrist", unless he proves otherwise.

J.tar (Sorry, still as anonymous).

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[voice_of_all_reason]

Somebody change the combination on my luggage!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

['nother poster]

Nah. Most of them don't care, one way or the other. Now, if Gonzales were to tie Copyright infringement to higher gas prices this legislation would be a slam dunk. Rights be damned, I can't afford to drive.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[The Spoonman]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Because you miss the fundamental flaw of representative democracy: you get people who are representative of the democracy.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[MindStalker]

I stopped reading your post at
Part of what makes the Republican party so scary (besides the wacko puritan crazies that overran it about 25 years ago) is that it boasts a strong party loyalty amongst members of congress in a system that franly doesn't encourage it.
Because we know that all parties do and have done this. Yes its a wonderful thing to have the opposite party in congress as the President. But don't pretend any one party is any less stupidly loyal than the other.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[DigDuality]

I feel that you're both right and wrong here. While you are correct, the cries of the "blame Bush first" crowd get tired and old, just as the "blame Clinton first" crowd did, we have to understand that this administration, like the Reagan administration has set the tone in terms of business deals. Now democrats are no saints and plenty of Dems are pushing for crap like this as well, but we wouldn't be seeing the merger we are, the bills protecting corporate interest only that we are, among a plethora of other things, if there wasn't a corporate Republican in the white house, a high incumbency rate in our Republican led Congress, and a shake up to tilt things even more towards conservatives in our Supreme Court. No Bush isn't directly responsible, yes people are looking in the wrong place, but yes we are in an atmosphere where the ton has been set by Bush & Co.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[niiler]

Q: What are you in for?

A: Programming, owning a computer without Windows, and thinking about Making something instead of Buying it.

Nuff said.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

of course. and don't forget jay walking = terrorism? voting anything but republican = terrorism? selling arms to small 3rd world dictators = democracy?!?!
ah, america, i love that sense of logic that is always on the forefront of the publics mind
 
...you've all forgotten the true meaning of terrorism--when a very rich person has less money than there used to they become scared, or in a state of terror, thus anything making them poor must be terrorism.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[tha_mink]

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

But...but...but...if you download Metalica, the terrorists win. Doesn't everyone know that?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

A lot of people don't - they stay home, because they know that both the Democrats and Republicans are in Sony's (Japanese), Universal's (French), Chrysler (German) pockets. Both fucking major parties.

The folks who stay home as a protest (and it's usually nearly half the potential voters) are then claimed to be "apathetic."

I'm not throwing my precious vote away on a party (either one) whose politicians not only don't represent me, but represent foreigners whose interests are completely contrary to my own.

I'm voting Libertarian. If you're a liberal, I ask you to vote Green or some other liberal party. But PLEASE don't cast your vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

It's about time we took our country back from big (business) brother.

-mcgrew

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[elrous0]

My personal favorite was when they equated obesity with terrorism. I guess that makes McDonalds the local equivalent of the Taliban.

We must fight them at Burger King so we don't have to fight them here!

-Eric

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[The Snowman]

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Go back and read the Constitution. Only a member of Congress may introduce legislation to Congress. However, the president (or anyone else) is free to write up a bill, give it to a Congressman, and have him introduce it for him. Presidents do this all the time. The "Patriot" Act was written by the Department of Justice to increase police state powers. When 9/11 came along they just did a search and replace to add "terrorism" to it, handed it to a Congressman, and the rest is history. There are plenty of other examples, such as the New Deal. Roosevelt wrote up all those spending bills but never introduced a single one.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[rmadmin]

Amen. Material that is covered under IP law is usually a luxury (Movies, Music, Games, etc). On the other hand, for me gasoline is a requirement if I want to get to work. The true terrorists are the ones running the oil companies! :)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[smchris]

I wonder if Gonzoles is one of those people who says "Quite frankly," when he knows he is lying.

If this bill is 10 times more unpopular than the DMCA, it should only pass with about a 90% vote, so get used to it.

Will attempting to acquire a copy of PartEd apply because I could use it to back up a PC's Windows install and recovery partition?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Lucractius]

if you need a speachwriter for a 2 minute blipvert peice of tv trash... you arent fit for your office.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[AoT]

This is such a bullshit arguement. What you are really saying is that you support the status quo. If you really thought that there being illegal immigrants was the problem then there would be an easy solution, declare them all legal, poof, no illegal immigrants.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[FidelCatsro]

Too many Terrorists sit around all day smoking joints and listening to the King Tuby records they downloaded.
If the Bush administration is right , the only way to stop terrorism is to hide all the Mucnhies

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Cryssen]

*obscure reference to the Mayflower*

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Daniel Dvorkin]

But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do. This is a simple fact, easily verified by a look at voting records.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism? This is overtly Orwellian doubletalk.

That sounds like terrorist talk to me, boy.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mike_the_kid]

Yeah, but when was the last time the Executive and Legislative branches (including both houses of Congress) were controlled by the same party for 5 consecutive years?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state

I went that far when the 'war on terror' was declared. afterall isn't by definition the goal of a police state to 'quell' any faction opposing it's 'order'?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[SpaceLifeForm]

Q: How about you, what are you in for? A: Murder, got 7 years, out next month.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Chowderbags]

Except that laws passed through Washington have to go through Bush to get passed, so if this passes, yes, we can blame Bush and we can blame Congress.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Mr. Ghost]

Part of what makes the Republican party so scary... This actually applies to both of the political parties. Both parties are only loyal to the party not to the American people, both parties have rogue elements but the vast majority of each will always tow the party line.

I have finally gotten so fed up with the whole thing and am now going to vote for the Constitution Party whenever possible and after that I will probably vote Libertarian Party and lastly on my list will be those Republicans that still believe in limited government because the vast majority of them no longer care about this.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[wpegden]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

Most people don't. Even most people over 18 don't. Don't forget that....

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

True that. But I think what you mean to say is that "terrorism" is the blanket term applied to anything someone wants to portray as unpatriotic. I think I'm just as entitled as anyone to lay claim to being a patriotic American, but I despise attempts by protectionist media oligarchies to curtail my rights as a citizen.

Who's terrorizing who around here?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

When illegal oil benefits the power elite.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

> But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do.

Why, yes indeed. You would too if a moderate and ashamed of your liberal base.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

You never know when Big Brother is watching...

Actually, we do know. At least on the internet and phone system, Big Brother is always watching.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ichimunki]

It's the classic divide-and-conquer approach that America has been using since Day One. In this case the divide being created is between the artists and their audience. Guess which side wins... Bzzt! Neither. The media corporate execs are the only ones winning in this game (OK, so they do create a few multi-millionaire "artists" that serve the same function as lottery winners: keeping the suckers playing).

The execs are the only ones in a no-lose position. Or at least that was the case before computers and the internet. It's time for a whole new paradigm. But to get there, consumers and artists are going to have to work together... hence the sick beauty of the divide-and-conquer approach. The longer artists and audiences are kept from reaching mutually satisfactory solutions, the longer the media corp execs can line their pockets.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mrchaotica]

I'm not going so far as to say that we're in a police state...

I will! This country became a police state the second the "PATRIOT" act was passed, allowing imprisonment for secret offenses.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mrchaotica]

Tell that to Bush!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

So therefore copyright infringement = marijuana?

JH

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Captain Splendid]

I don't know. If you download one of the recent Metallica releases, everybody loses.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[thisislee]

I'd like to know what utopia you live in where countries are not run by either politicians or dictators that make decisions based on their personal benefit and not necessarily the good of the citizens.

That said, the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves. The approval ratings that they get for doing their job are at some tiny percentage of the country as well as a president witha an approval rating at 30ish percent. A lot of these leaders are up for re-election in november, and I hope that many of them will be replaced.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[evil_tandem]

it's mostly because "republican" is better defined. basically there is a vary narrow set of ideologies, and everyone in the party (for the most part) shares them. everyone else just gets lumped into "democrat". so inside the democratic party you actually have a vary wide range of values and agendas, and people who probably shouldn't be lumped together polictically anyway (yay for 2 party system).

the reason democrats can't put up a unified face is because they aren't a unified party.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[iminplaya]

...but you can justify stronger IP laws without resorting to blaming it (and everything) for terrorism.

But that's just it. They can't. As more people understand the madness of IP, terrorism becomes the only way to defend it. So now when someone criticizes IP law, they are supporting terrorism. No different than those who would dare to criticize American policy. Anything that would normally be considered indefensible now has "terrorism" to protect it. For now, it's a great ploy. Let's hope it backfires real soon.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

fewer people freak out when they hear that we live under big brother, now.

It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives.

People, as a whole, are sheep. It's the very thing that shows the likes of the Simpsons and Family Guy show - mob mentality rules, people are sheep. The majority usually complains about indescressions for a week, then accept them.

Take the RIAA for instance. There was a huge web backlash when they first filed their 1.7 billion john doe lawsuits. Since then, /. is about the only place that continues to hold hate for the RIAA - everyone else just buys their music, no matter how many 80 year old grandmothers they bankrupt.

Same for public survellance. You're videotaped hundreds of times a day. Initially it was uncomfortable, but now people just ignore and accept it.

To use another Simpsons analogy - take the time Apu was on Homer's lawn looking in the front window and Homer wanted him to leave:

Homer: Will you get off my lawn!?
Apu: Why don't you make me!
Homer: Why!?! Aw... I give up...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Lawrence_Bird]

In fact the drug trade does provide funding for many terrorist & insurgent groups.  Those that are islamist are more than willing to ignore edicts that say they should not have any involvement with such things as it allows them to continue to wage jihad.  In the case of 420, which comes primarily from Mexico and Canada, those involved are transnational drug cartels from LatinAm and Asia.  While they may not directly cause terrorism, they too have associations with known terrorist and insurgent groups.  Its quite a tangled web, but I will agree with you the hyperbole is too strong in the this case.

As to IP infringement funding terrorism, I suspect it is tiny and they have latched onto some piracy by a group in asia which might be associated with ASG, but I tend to think they are making a similar argument as with pot - that while the groups involved are criminal gangs, many of those also have working
associations/overlaps with terrorist groups.  Again, its very much
a reach.

The bottom line is that if these are 'good' laws they should be
enacted on their merits without reaching for the "T" word when
links are weak at best.  But as this latest is a total crock and
give away to media companies I'll be on phone to my reps this
afternoon and letting them know how I feel.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

That said, the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves.

You make the same mistake everyone makes - assuming the leadership give a shit about Christian morals. Religiously, this country does everything it can to bend over backwards for everyone except Christians.

The reason that government seems to support such Christian thought patterns is two-fold:

1. The Bible-Belt represents a huge, huge amount of votes
2. Many donators with deep pockets demand it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that leadership themselves care about a Christian utopia. Just those who control money (and thus control politicians) do.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[itchy92]

The scariest part is that it works.

personal anecdote:
I'm getting a mattress delivered to my condo today (in Miami). Our management has a strict policy about reserving the elevator several days in advance, and will refuse any delivery not scheduled. So I was talking to the front desk security guard about it yesterday, and the exchange went something like this.

Me: ...I know you guys are ridiculously strict about your service elevator.
Him: Yeah, but don't you prefer it this way? I mean, we can keep track of anything coming in and out of the condos.
Me: Not really. Frankly, how is it any of your business what I'm bringing in and out of my condo?
Him: Well, it's for security, you know? Someone could easily bring in a bomb or something. If it happened to the World Trade Center, it could happen here. We've got families and... (all I remember is a faint buzzing noise from here on out)
Me: (incredulous stare with mouth agape)

... So this guy just told me that we have to schedule our service elevators to protect against terrorism. And he compared some random high-rise condo in Miami to the World Trade Center. Whether that's his personal view, or that of the management, I don't really know or care. I was absolutely dumbfounded that this would be the reason they cite.

And apparently it's okay to bring bombs into my condo building, as long as I schedule it beforehand.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[IAmTheDave]

But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do. This is a simple fact, easily verified by a look at voting records.

Recently this is true, because the Republicans hold a majority just about everywhere it wants to. There was more dissention during the Clinton years.

The party in power demands to stay in power an often call all collegues to mindless loyalty in order to keep it that way. If the democrats were on a five year majority rule bender, you can bet they'd demand the same party-line zombie-like loyalty the Republicans do now.

Although, then THEY would be embroiled in scandal with the likes of Abramov, Delay, etc.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Oblio]

Are you kidding me? The libertarian/God-Squad split of the party is huge. Reagan brought them all together in "The Big Tent", but Goldwater Conservatives, NeoCon's, Libertarian-Reps, and GodSquad all fall on different issues. Not to mention the corporatists.

It is not that the Republicans are a unified party, but they HAVE been much more pragmatic on issue trading amoung the base, and their rigid hierarchy does facilitate stronger voting and message discipline.

I think that the parties aren't different in their "unification", but in their corporate structure and hierarchy. That may be just semantics though.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country?"

Name one country where that is not the case.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[evil_tandem]

i was just pointing out that in terms of voting and agenda the republicans basically put up a unified front (regardless of why this is). like always the devil is in the details, but at the moment they are enjoying so much power because they are the largest unified group.

registered democrats in this country way outnumber the registered republicans. yet you watch politics in this country and you would think republican's were a much larger group than they are, and it's because democrat isn't so much a party as it is "everyone who isn't republican". so in reality the democratic party isn't as large as it seems either because it contains many people with very different beliefs who's only common ground is that they aren't conservative/republican.

hard to build a strong party and unified message when there really isn't much common ground to base it on.

imo the democratic party would become much stronger if some splitting was allowed to occur.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[pclminion]

I didn't vote for this administration. What can I do except continue to vote in ways I think will help? Funny, the bulk of our armed forces are on the other side of the planet right now. Hmm...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell's only been dead for ~66 years. In Soviet America, 1984 is still not in the public domain.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[frankie]

Recently this is true, because

No, it's true, PERIOD. Think back to 1993-4, when the Dems had full control in DC. They were a FSCKING MESS of constant petty bickering... which, of course, is partly to blame for the 94 Gingrich revolution.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[pclminion]

This is because the Democrat "party line" is more of a confused fractal than an actual line. A few years back for a data mining course I did a load of analysis on the Congressional voting records for the past 15 years. The mutual information (one way to statistically examine the correlation between variables) between various Democratic party issues is much lower on the whole than those of the Republicans. I chalk it up to the fact that the Democrats are trying to please too many people at once.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[nutrock69]

- "Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

These days - I hear the phrase "Terrorism" being thrown around as a blanket term that applies to anyone who disagrees with Fuhrer Bush. I also see the phrase "Unpatriotic" thrown around the same way.

Technically - terrorism exists whenever any person or group is using fear in an attempt to subjugate another as a means of control. Ironically, Dictator Bush's use of the term to scare us into being his flock and giving him unheard of presidential powers is - in fact - a form of terrorism itself.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, did you miss the joke, but I find THAT humerous.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Pinefresh]

It's a bill, not a law. Don't criticize us because some moron introduced a bill, wait till it passes, then criticize us.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[nytes]

Fortunately for you, the story right below this one on the /. main page is "Social Networking From Your Cell".

So you won't be lonely.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[0x0000]

the past few years we have been dealing with an increasingly aggressive leadership only interested in helping big businesses, christian morals, and themselves.

Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.

The "Kingdom of Heaven" ("Kingdom of God"/whatever) may be paradise, but it's still monarchy - not a democracy, or even a Republic - so what do your Christian ideals tell you about Democracy - that it's Evil, or that it's good enough until Jesus gets back?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Lucractius]

bush included ;)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[feral_wombat]

Screw that. Criticize early, criticize often. Some moron introduced a bill that will probably pass unless a huge amount of people rally against that. Frankly, the chances of that happening are pretty slim, but that's the only hope we have. So outsiders, please do criticize us loudly, early and often. Don't wait until it is too late.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[bogado]

May aplause while I stand. This is the most informative or insightfull coment ever. Please accept my congratulation. :-) Too bad I don't have my power mod points now.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Guppy06]

"It was introduced by a Congressman."

Emphasis mine:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient(.)

Just because he blustered his own party into supporting it doesn't mean that the presidency isn't a constitutionally-authorized bully pulpit.

"These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush."

What do they care? Senators might have to worry once every six years or so, but the state legislatures ensure that incumbents don't lose in the House.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the "IP theft = terrorism" line came from Gonzales, who is in Bush's cabinet.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

that is the first thing in this thread i completley agree. I guess thats what downloading thier music does though. They havn't had a decent tune/album since the whole napster is ruining our lives thing. And thats even giving more credit to the black album and anyhting newer then they deseve.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[dual_boot_brain]

listen up hippie! The only reason Jesus hasn't come back to vacuum up all the good, god-fearing, christian folk is because you dope smokers keep ripping CDs. Well, that and all the homer-sexuals running around.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely and totally counterfactual. Democrats in the modern era have never been able to maintain the zombie-discipline Republicans have shown - namely because many Democrats are actually centrists of one sort or another so tend not to vote based ideology alone. Additionally, there is usually less severe retribution on the Democratic side for stepping out of line - it's not like with the GOP where they will eat their own if they piss off the wrong lobbyist or powerbroker. The Democrats just have a bigger tent and more internal factions - it's kept them from ever marching in lockstep for anything more than a vote here or there. Even on the "big issues" that Republicans try to come at them on, like say "gun control" - if you actually examine what the elected Democrats really support you'll see a massive spectrum from one end of the debate to the other with the majority of Democrats wanting some form of limited regulations.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[kimvette]

It's because not enough people vote, and the people who do bother to vote have to choose whether they want a big turd or a stupid douche in office. Here in Taxachusetts people keep reelecting that stupid douche Kennedy back into the Senator seat. :(

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

But Democratic legislators do break away from the party line more often than Republican ones do. This is a simple fact, easily verified by a look at voting records.

Hence, why they are the minority power.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"OK, so they do create a few multi-millionaire "artists" that serve the same function as lottery winners: keeping the suckers playing)"

Rarely. The way they do business is by advancing millions of bucks to artists, thereby getting them used to a certain lifestyle they could never support, and thereby locking them into multiple album contracts which the execs control. If your albums don't do well, they can sit on releasing the remaining albums, leaving the artist with no means to exit the contract, but no means to earn an income either. Eventually the debts are called in and the artist has to file for bankruptcy.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Detritus]

Do you really believe all of your ancestors came to America "legally"?

Yes. Next question.

Anyway, screw it, the US has behaved so appallingly in latin America, that the immigrants have the right to come & try and get a little of their wealth back (and they work damn hard for it too)

I'd tell them to file any complaints with Spain, Portugal, and the Catholic Church. Those are the people that looted and oppressed Latin America.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'd tell them to file any complaints with Spain, Portugal, and the Catholic Church. Those are the people that looted and oppressed Latin America.

Right - are you saying that if one group (Spain, Portugal, Catholics) loot & oppress a continent, then another group (the US) has carte blanche to do likewise?

Thats a very interesting position to take.

I presume that if your house got burgled, and just as you finished replacing all your items & repairing the broken window it got burgled again, you'd only complain about the first burglry?

Thats quite.... charitable of you :-)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

Go ahead and say it: The past few years we have been dealing with a Totalitarian Regime that aspires to be a dictatorship - and they are winning, mostly (imo) because no one will say it out loud. The fact it's a dictatorship that calls itself "Christian" (instead of "Islamist") doesn't make it any less a dictatorship, and doesn't make it less Wrong.

I don't know what you are talking about. Outside of a covert spying program that they belive they had the legal right to do, everythign else imposed has been approved by congress itself. Now another item wich is probably more discrediting to this idea is that the vice president isn't going to run for president. It seems like maybe the people behind the sceenes might still be in power but the leaders are changing. But the people behind the sceenes are the same as those in power for the last fifty or more years. The general direction of the country haSN'T change in as much. Some new issues have been added and efforts already in place have intensified but nothing major has changes.

The second part of your statment is kind of missleading too. You see in order for chiristianity and the kindom of heaven to work as it is being described, people need to be free to choose thier beliefs. This is just a little anoyance in theories like this but nothelesser true. Now once your in the promissed land, it is as you say so i guess the final end ideal paRRalells it. Then another problem surfaces in that supposedly once your in heaven, it is a paradise. No political structure will be needed. No concept of good or evil will be needed, no concept of choice will be needed. This negate the thought of government to enforce the will of the majority or dictator.

In all, i can see what your trying to say. While i don't agree with your causality, the end result is apearing to come true. I guess the important thing to do might be "not blaming this on one person because of thier religious tone" You will find if you look hard enough, It is the result of the majority of politicians over the past several decades. Each and every politician will work towards laws that benefit them, mostley because they are likie the ones who elected them. They all try to gain mor epower so thier laws will have more effect. I remeber a represenitive/congresswoman from california durring an interview about the supream court nominies state "it is important to be carefull when picking court nominies, The supream court keeps saying laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and throwing them out. How can congress do the will of the people if this keeps happening". (thats the best of my memory and as close as possible to what was said. I" couldn't find a quote oon the web but remeber very well).

Now on the surface, This shows what congress as a whole thinks about the only documents that limit thier power. The responce it to stack the courts so the little anoyance called a constitution doesn't get in the way of what they want to do. This is accross the isle. It seems more one sided because of other politics that piss us off.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[computechnica]

Bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia so it seems:
Oil=Terrorism 8^(

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

Thats why unemployment is down, even though it is still tough to find a job worth having. Pulling resevist into an active duty role has provided this benifit for several previous presidents too. The feds have programs that pay employer to employ the returning service people after thier job has been performed for over a year and sometime several years in thier absence. It allow the company to expand to keep the jobs of the returning reservists.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[krouskop]

Lamar isn't a member of the Bush administration.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

Damnit, don't interupt my bush bashing. Everythign is his fault! /sarcasm

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Firehed]

I think I just figured out the 'terrorism' bit, actually. When you pirate stuff, the **AAs get pissed and want these new bills passed. They've gotta pay off the terrorists (read: US Gov't) to make it happen. Thus, piracy funds terrorism. Put this way, I think I'd rather have the RIAA with my money than knowing it otherwise gets translated to money in the pockets of the administration., even if I hang onto *my* money.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Nephilium]

Bah... sure, blame the new administration. They've just gotten all of the documentation from the previous administration, and are still sorting and filing it. You can't just expect Taft to come into office, and turn everything around right away!

Nephilium

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the slash dotter crowd would be thined out.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[realityfighter]

The reason for the unified front is, if you want to be considered to run as a Republican and get Republican money to run for office, you have to agree to abide by every plank of the party platform. This includes support for the far-fetched, the unconstitutional and the irrational. (For example, the Texas GOP included clauses in their platform that called for de-anonymizing the people who report to Child Protective Services.) The GOP has a lot of campaign money, and if you choose to run against them, that money will work against you. So it's not surprising that they're more "unified" as a party. They money is flowing in that direction.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[AK Marc]

I chalk it up to the fact that the Democrats are trying to please too many people at once.

I chalk it up to the Democrats thinking independently much more often. And I'd rather have them trying to please more people than the Republicans caring only about the militant religious fundamentalists and corporations to the exclusion of everything else.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Frozen Void]

When oil cartels stand behind the business it never becomes illegal.
Piracy is on the other hand is supported only by disorganized home users and
small servers overseas(where they relatively safe from US draconian laws).
Which has the power?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[MikeFM]

It's pretty fscked up that I'm thinking of moving to Mexico (from San Diego) to have more freedom and less corrupt government. That's just wrong. I shouldn't even be able to wonder if I'd be better off moving to Mexico or some other such place.

Actually something Caribbean sounds really good but I haven't decided yet.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[pembo13]

For the sake of the rest of us, could you _not_ put the Christian part in his name?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[aberrantvirtue]

They're not actually programs, they're laws. And small companies are forced to do it too without the support of the federal $$. Which is why when the service people eventually come home, employment numbers will tank again (probably on the back of a Democratic president, thus restarting this whole stupid cycle).

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Wellington Grey]

Didn't you get the memo? 1984 = terrorism too now.

-Grey

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[feijai]

Absolutely. Because as we all know, British and Australian politicians wouldn't *ever* stoop that low in the name of creating some of the more draconian anti-privacy laws in existence in the western world.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[reldruH]

Step 1: Outlaw all obviously terrorist books, like 1984.
Step 2: Outlaw all books because they can all be interpreted in terroristic ways.
Step 3: Outlaw all forms of written communication because they all have letters which can be rearranged to form terrorist messages.

Stuff like this used to be funny, but now it's just scary. I wonder just how much politicians can get away with if they just say it's to fight terrorism. I wonder how long people will let them get away with all this right under their noses.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[iminplaya]

Attorney General Gonzales was appointed by W. Bush...

And Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court. Maybe it might be appropriate to attack them. Personally, I think it's more appropriate to attack the people that voted for him. Not "attack" really, more like discouraging them from ever doing it ever again.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy. It's easier to bitch over coffee how Bush wiretaps then it is to actually do something - even as simple as writing your representatives."

The problem is exactly the opposite...Americans are TOO BUSY!
Do you wonder why you see people in the middle east out protesting (like with the cartoons) in the middle of the week?
It's because they DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO!
They don't have jobs!

It's hard to be politcally active after working 60 hours/week, then dealing with your kids/wife/friends/whatever.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Oblio]

I don't know... the only group that I think the Democrats could spin off would be the "Old Southern Democrats", and that would just move the party some to the left. This MAY be the way to go, but I don't really know for sure (a lot of people think it is, but then a lot of people want to cut out the lefish fringer's too). The DLC croud sure thinks that moderate triangulation is the answer, but they are much too... um... political for my tastes (I prefer policy to politics).

Regardless, if you break up "defection" into say two groups- voter defection and congressional defection (defection rates on elections and congressional measures, respectively) I think you have two different problems with two different solutions (I bring it up only to show that a differentiation exists).

I honestly could care less about congressional defection- that just means that you have a poor party whip. But voter defection is somewhat concerning to me, and I don't think you can say that splitting the party will make things better until you understand the nature of the voter defection rate.

In the 2004 election (a time where you would expect low defection, IMO), Republicans saw something like 5% and Democrats saw something like 10-12% (no source- I just remember seeing that in the CNN statistics pages). What was that split about? I'm guessing it is percieved "security", but I don't know. If that is the case, then cutting out a subsection of the base isn't going to help... that concern really transends the traditional Democratic splits.

I'll just leave it at that. I'm not a Democrat, but an interested observer.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[j-turkey]

The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

Not quite...the horrible rhetoric was used by Alberto Gonzales, a member of the Bush administration:

...which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Sure, the bill itself was introduced by the congress and will be voted upon by the congress, but I find Gonzales' unsubstantiated BS inexcusable.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[museumpeace]

And after all these discoveries of what is terrorism and what funds terrorism and who are terrorists and what terrorism does, it seems ironic that the administration has missed the most obvious evil of terrorism...it make u stewpid.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[aftk2]

At the risk of coming off like a pedantic twat:

1. Type "Taxachusetts" into Google.
2. Click "I'm Feeling Lucky."
3. Learn that, as of 2004, Massachusetts has lower taxes than almost 70% of the country.
4. Realize that anyone seriously using the term Taxachusetts either has a political axe to grind, or is somewhat misinformed.

(Profit.)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonzalez should be spending more of his time expediting FOIA requests that would answer many 911 questions than spending it on drastic IP laws that would address an issue with dubious terrorist connections.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[xWastedMindx]

I downloaded Metallica songs years ago. I was one of the few(thousand?) that got sent an email telling me to cease and desist or be sued. Then I switched to another P2P client. So ha, up yours Napster and the RIAA!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[filterchild]

Parent comment contains too much funny to still have a score of 1.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[bckrispi]

Still wrong.

It was introduced by a Congressman.

Let me go ahead and repeat that for you, since nobody ever understands that.

A CONGRESSMAN.

The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

Perhaps if you had RTFA, you wouldn't sound like such a twit:

The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[suitepotato]

just when i thought american politicians couln't sink any lower... guys, how on earth can you put up with such a bunch of lying scheming bastards controlling your country? using 'terrorism' as an excuse to do how they please makes me absolutely sick to the bone

All countries are run by "lying scheming bastards". This is one of the many short definitions of the words ruler(s), politician(s), and so on.

Weren't you paying attention in school?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[rk]

Maybe it's not too late to petition the Queen to let us back in.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be the liberals that control the goverment.Those power-grabbing liberals.
Yeah,those bastards.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

I just learned that this guy is, in fact, my representative. I didn't even know I'd moved into the 21st district; this map should explain why.

The district stops at IH 35 and neatly dodges the bluer University district, but runs further north to cover parts of the rich suburb of Cedar Park. The southeast corner of Austin is the poorest area, home to low-cost student housing and ancient buildings that aren't seeing renovation any time soon. (Whereas the southwest corner is the area of new development and suburbanization.) The 21st district also covers the expensive developments near Bee Cave, as well as the lavish riverside estates and McMansion tracts out FM 2244.

Further out in Blanco county, we have some ranch towns with less income but stronger conservative tendencies. I don't know a lot about the demographics on San Antonio, but it looks to me like the district covers suburban areas.

In short, this guy represents rich Austinites, socially conservative farmers and middle class suburbanites. What a happy coincidence.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Tekzel]

Christian utopia

Did anyone else get a horrible sinking feeling in their gut when their eyes landed on this bit? I think I passed out in fear for a second.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Tekzel]

I know I will be flamed for this, but i'm ok with that. I find it helpful for folks with poor spelling and grammar to be very, very brief in what they write. It doesn't take long for my focus to stray from the content of your writing to a game of "hunt the next error". Especially when you make the same gross misspelling twice in a row, thereby making it all the more obvious.

Here's a friendly little piece of advice, you can take it or leave it, my feelings really wont be hurt. There are a lot of free spell checkers out there. For instance: http://www.iespell.com/. If you want people to read your posts, it really isn't hard to learn a few basic grammatical rules and put a decent spell checker to work. If you don't care, please pretend this response never happened.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

That was pretty much how the IRA got their money too

Think quiet-but-quite-open fundraisers in South Boston 'til the late '70s. Man, have the times changed.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[electroniceric]

Although I detest Tom DeLay, I'd call his particular present circumstances more of a garden-variety scandal that the Dems would have engaged in. Jack Abramoff type corruption in concert with Duke Cunningham selling an extraordinary number of defense contracts to Mitchell wade is much more rare - that really only comes around once every 20 years or so. It's closest modern cousin would probably be the Keating Five. I don't think it's fair to compare that to the House Post Office nonsense that proved to be Jim Wright or Torricelli's taking some watches, etc.

What is close to unprecedented is the combination the K Street Project and the extensive blockading of the minority party in the Senate - everything from midnight voting sessions held open only long enough for the leadership to twist the arms of wavering Republicans to commitee meetings. Partly this is possible because parties have lined up so clearly along many political divides, and so each party has fewer outliers in it in general. But it also due in large measure to the combination of the very tight party discipline the Republicans have acheived with the growing predominance of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove scorched-earth tactics of the modern GOP. So is this equivalent to the Democratic excesses of the 90's? Doubtful. It's far more pervasive than that, probably more like Boss Tweed or the Mayor Daley, but at federal level (and hence with more dollars in play).

The basic problem is that most Republicans don't believe in good government, they believe in government getting out of the way. So they don't have a coherent philosophy of how government ought to be set up to do the best job it can. And whether it's individual cynicism or "starve the beast" collective cynicism - imagine how it would work if someone was "starving the beast" at, say, Ford, as a downsizing strategy - it leaves an awful lot of room for hooking up your friends and future business partners.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[evil_tandem]

it's not defection that you are seeing in your stats. it's that the numbers are lying to begin with. just because i'm a registered democrat doesn't mean i viewed the world the same as kerry. as a democrat you have an inherent weakness that you have such a wide base you have to please, where as a republican has a pretty solid set of core values one needs to court. for many democrats kerry had nothing for them that bush didn't.

it's because the only common denominator among all democrats is that they aren't republican. even when democrats control the houses it's pretty rough because you have such a huge range of values. the only way to rise to the top is to be in the middle and court everyone, which makes a platform of "core values" very hard to make work.

you can only think of 1 party spin-off? i could name dozens...

look at hillary clinton. regardless of what anyone says/thinks about her, the woman is very socialist. personally i'm not sure we should make health care the business of the federal government. many democrats feel the same way, yet many others think this is the ultimate utopia. so immediatly it looks like we have this huge schism in the democratic party. the schism is/was always there. the only thing socially i think i have on common with hillary is that we don't think the federal government should be in the business of telling me who i can sleep with. we're in the same party not because our views are so similar, but because we aren't conservative/republican.

given the option of her or a more conservative republican for president i'm not sure which i'd vote for off the top of my head. it's not because of security or whatever you want to call it, it's because hillary is almost as far to the left of my values as republicans are to the right. yet she's in my party.

the thing that really has me scratching my head is the loyalty in the republican party. in the last decade they have made a complete 180 on all the things that used to be considered core values. now they are the big spenders and government can't get big enough or in enough people's lives. do the smaller government proponents really think the federal government needs to get in the act of what constitutes marriage? do small government proponents really sit at home wondering why we don't give more tax dollars to religious charities? is the federal government really the place to tackle public education policies and reform?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

By equality's transivity, yes! (Which means that the drug just got a lot easier to find...)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[kimvette]

That doesn't mean I should not resent half my pay being extorted by the time all taxes/excise fees/user fees/etc. are all tallied up. Why the fuck should I, being single, pick up the slack for couples with 2, 5, 7, or eighty kids? The people who use the most resources pay the least in taxes. That's just disgusting.

So I will continue to call it Taxachusetts, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[ScrewMaster]

Well, even assuming that true piracy (i.e., illegal copies of copyrighted materials being sold for profit) is being used to fund terrorism, what on Earth does that have to do with a thirteen-year-old downloading a song? To answer my own rhetorical question ... nothing whatsoever. It does have to do with stemming the tide of illegal downloading, and it is disingenous at best to smear P2P users en-masse as being supporters of terrorism. Incredible. Just incredible. And what's more incredible, I know people (otherwise intelligent people) that are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. It just makes me want to cry. If there's one thing to remember when dealing with this Administration it is this: when their lips move they are lying.

Why do terrorists do what they do? Well, presumably there are many reasons, but one of them is to change the way the target population thinks, feels and behaves, and they do it by using fear as a strategic weapon. Now, the RIAA/MPAA crowd is also attempting to change the way people behave by using fear (and if you think that legal action doesn't terrify many people as much or more than the threat of being blown up by a terrorist weapon you're wrong.)

I don't know for sure whether actual terrorists use the sale of pirated media to make money, and frankly I don't trust anything this Administration says on the subject. On the other hand, what is certain is that the sale of legitimate copies of music and movies most certainly does fund terrorism. Keep that in mind when you plunk down your hard-earned cash for the latest CD ... you're contributing to a terrorist organization. Sure, they don't blow things up, but they deliberately and with malice aforethought threaten, intimidate, terrify and financially ruin people on the slimmest of evidence for political and financial gain. For that reason alone, I'll never buy another CD from any member of the RIAA.

And if you think I'm being outrageous in comparing a quasi-legal corporate entity to bonafide terrorists, remember this: that's precisely what is being done to anyone with a computer and peer-to-peer software.

Regardless, this has simply gone too far. I can't believe that that Gonzales character has the huevos to stand up and make such claims with an apparently straight face.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[xanalogical]

> The problem is exactly the opposite...Americans are TOO BUSY!

If one isn't outraged enough to do something about it, you aren't really outraged, just inconvenienced. Most Americans are only inconvenienced, and adapt.

> Do you wonder why you see people in the middle east out protesting in the middle of the
> week? It's because they DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO! They don't have jobs!

So that's why the recent immigration protests were so well attended - those people had nothing else to do? I assure many of those people (not only illegals protested BTW) have jobs, and took a cut in income to protest. Many are them are hourly - no work, no pay. Yet still they walked off their jobs and marched.

> It's hard to be politcally active after working 60 hours/week, then dealing with your kids/wife/friends/whatever.

Uh, those busy Americans, if they're so busy working, -do- have vacation days? And some personal days? And maybe even days w/o pay? They could spend some of those to be politically active.

And since when is "dealing with your friends" (not wife/kids) an obligation that overrides your duties as a citizen? And perhaps those people listed can actually get involved as well, and the kids can be taught political activism as part of being a family?

Those in power have those "busy" people right where they want them -- in the office working overtime and in front of the TV.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Hawke666]

In future, please consider using capital letters. It would make your post much easier to read.

Thanks.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Catbeller]

1. Create draconian laws to deal with "terrorism". Suspend the constitution, create secret prisons and torture chambers, kidnap thousands of people. Hooray for us against evil terrorism.

2. Redefine terrorism to whatever pisses the government off.

3. Police state achieved.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[danbuhler]

Well, first of all, we need kids to survive. It only makes sense to promote it or at least help the parents out. I dont know how it is where you are, but here in BC, Canada, me being married, pay WAY MORE taxes than when I was single making the same income.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Some_Llama]

maybe because when you are old and senile and sucking up all of the medicare, my 2-5-7-80 children will be footing your bill?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Some_Llama]

Amen, that's exactly how I feel when i get home...

I look back on the 60's and now I tend to feel that the powers that be saw that people who expanded their minds and had free time tend to protest those things that they see as being wrong, so the powers smartened up and took away both.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Catbeller]

READ. Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez made the terrorism comment when he released a statement supporting the bill. Gonzales = Bush.

If AG_Gonzales NE Bush then WhoTheFuckIsRunningTheWhiteHouse;
endif

Congress is an appendage of Bush in this era. No arguments. Congress is under the neocons' control; the congresscritters are rubberstamping Bushism.

Bush/Cheney/Rove are running Congress, running the courts, gaming the news, making the laws. And through Gonzales, Mr. Torture is Okay and Fuck the Geneva Accords, proponent of the Unitary Executive (President is not subject to the law, President IS the law, and cannot by definition break a law), they have made their wishes known. And that wish is that this law passes, and that people are told IP crime funds terrorists.

If you don't follow any of this, you haven't been paying attention these past five years, have been watching FOX News, or both.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Catbeller]

The fact that the oil companies are gaming the system Enron-style to jack up their profits to 30+ billion dollars a quarter is itself a piece of intellectual property to the person who gathers the evidence for the story.

EVERYTHING written, EVERYTHING imagined can be "intellectual property", a term I loathe.

Including the very facts you need to make sane decisions. Control the spigot of knowledge, and you control the world. There's more going on than just movies and Coca Cola recipes. This is a setup for an authoritarian state with power to control facts via commericial IP laws. The government can just make a phone call to the owner of the "property" and the hammer of the law via the "owners" will shut inconvenient voices up.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[rkanodia]

I was a senior in high school when this happened. I knew many people who were falling all over themselves to brag about the letters. "I got kicked off of Napster by Metallica!" "I got kicked off of Napster by Dr. Dre!" "Oh yeah, well I got kicked off of Napster by Metallica AND Dr. Dre!"

Not exactly 'dogs and firehoses', but I guess every generation has to start somewhere.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[jc42]

To quote, 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

For the benefit of readers outside the US, we should perhaps note that in American political speech, "frankly" is a code word meaning that what follows is an intentional lie. The phrase "quite frankly" means it's a damned lie.

It's sorta the Washington equivalent of "wink, wink; nudge, nudge" for you Monty Python fans.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

yea, i use iespell already. that was checked too. It just does that on my laptop for some reason

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

nahh... it's more then laws. A small company (less then 25 employies) i used to work at got two thirds the salary for one reserve service member who returned after a year or more stay in germany for an entire year. Several people were scared of getting laid off to make room for him but this happened and everyone stayed.

There are several prograhms availible to stop them from displacing the people that stod in for them while they were gone.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

bush != congressman
Bush != republican party
Bush != conservatives
Bush != liberals
Bush == fun to blame everything one.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[cloudmaster]

Actually, several places gave immigrants paid time off to protest. I guess it'd be racist or discriminitory to not pay people who are protesting enforcement of perfectly legitimite laws...

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . and some fucking socialist modded me down. Figures. Oh I'm sorry, I don't mean to resent funding your welfare check! :-p

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mjtaylor24601]

Democracy: Four wolves and a lamb voting on lunch.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Peaceful_Patriot]

You said:

"It was introduced by a Congressman.
Let me go ahead and repeat that for you, since nobody ever understands that.
A CONGRESSMAN...
The reason that "the Bush Administration" gets away with this is because you're looking in the wrong place. This is called "the legislature," and it really hasn't got a damn thing to do with who is the President.

The article said:

"The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America. Smith, a Texas Republican, is the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees intellectual-property law."

So, clearly the Bush Administration's fingerprints are all over this.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mrchaotica]

Do you really believe all of your ancestors came to America "legally"?

If they didn't, then they should have been deported too (I don't discriminate)!

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[pallmall1]

So that's why the recent immigration protests were so well attended - those people had nothing else to do?

They sure weren't working on their tax returns like I was on mine.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mrchaotica]

It's too late -- anyone here illegally has already shown utter contempt for our laws, which is inexcusable for anyone who -- theoretically, at least -- wants to be part of this country.

Revising immigration policy so that everyone who comes here afterwards is legal would be a reasonable solution, but we'd still need to deport all the ones who had broken the law prior to that.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[NitsujTPU]

Yup, the other 20 something replies indicated that as well. Really, all I was trying to say was, everyone focussing on Bush lets congress do whatever they want. All of the replies that I got indicated that they don't really care, they want to blame Bush.

At least you were rational and polite about it :-D

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[AoT]

Nah, we wouldn't have to deport them; as soon as they see us letting in people from other countries legally they would return home and then come back across with all the other people that are getting registered.

But I think the real question is how much an effect it being illegal to cross the border really has on immigration. By this I mean: If we completely took away all border and immigration enforcement what would be the difference in illegal immigration? If we look at filesharing we can see a rough analogy.

File sharing is punished at a rate aproaching zero in the US, and regardless of what you think about the morality of it, the practice of it is wide spread. Now imagine if we were to make filesharing completely legal, but everyone who has files that they DLed before this change has to erase them. If we assume, for the sake of the analogy, that it is possible to enforce this erase requirement then I think it is easy to say that everyone would go along with this.

Shit, I think there are more filesharers than immigrants in this country, lets all get out in the streets.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[AoT]

Where do you live? Because all of the south-western states used to be Mexico.

Or did you forget?

P.S. Not to forgive the atrocious history of the Catholic Church, Spain or Portugal. They were really fucking horrible.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Fulcrum of Evil]

So did you call him out? Perhaps ask him how many people have tried to fly a 747 into the condo building?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mrchaotica]

I think the way to do it would be to have INS deport everyone before such legislation was announced, document the illegals while they did it, and bar them from entering the country even under the new policy for a period of time (say, 2 years or so). The requirement to respect our laws needs to be emphasized.

The filesharing analogy isn't bad, but still seems a bit flawed to me. It differs from the issue of immigration in two key ways: first, in the case of filesharing it's the law that's wrong. Filesharing is (at least for some) an act of civil disobedience. Second, the people breaking the law are already American citizens. I think that gives us license to object to our own laws that non-citizens don't have, and to use a wider variety of tactics to work to correct unjust laws.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[agent_no.82]

People HAVE been saying it, but it strikes the common ear as paranoia.
Have people who think Bush aspires to dictatorship ever considered a marketing department?

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[fbg111]

I really don't understand why people vote for politicians who are bought & sold so easily (and cheaply).

About half don't. Voter turnout in the US ranges from 30% - 60% of all eligible voters. Perhaps that's partly a function of the fact that there are no real alternatives.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[itchy92]

Heh. It didn't seem worth the effort. Normally, I would have, but the management at my condo hates me enough as it is.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Cryssen]

Got the joke, took it as far back as I thought possible to keep it from going any further.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[Anonymous Coward]

>>You make the same mistake everyone makes - assuming the leadership give a shit about Christian morals. Religiously, this country does everything it can to bend over backwards for everyone except Christians.

Nicely Said.

>>Don't make the mistake of thinking that leadership themselves care about a Christian utopia. Just those who control money (and thus control politicians) do.

Those 'Christian' leaders who are going about 'bringing about Christian utopi' in this way, are in fact NON CHRISTIAN at heart (and in practice). Just because the leaders, government or church, claim to hold to Christianity does not make them Christian.

The government of Christ's day was anti-people. (control/power)
Christ was/is/will be pro-people.
Major Christian leaders today are pro-government. (control/power)

('Christian' leaders today are using the governemt to help make peace in Israel because of a beliefe that the middle east must be returned to the Jews in order to bring about armegedden and the coming of Chirst...)

When the Christian (right/left/??) gain control of the laws of this country you will see a time of religious intollerance like this world has never seen.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[mima1895]

It's because America is lazy now. Change requires work, and America is just lazy.--Sad, but true. But it is not just Americans-- when Chavez was fighting the referendum in Venezuela a couple of years ago, a leading political author from Spain had a two page article in one of the leading papers where he outlined the rise of Hitler's paryt in Germany in one column and Chavez's rise in the other column. It was real scary--then Chavez made it a felony to publish articles against the government. The people just sat on their ass and watched things get worse, and worse, and. . . . Bush uses terrorism, Chavez uses the US. Bush has terrorism alerts-- Chavez has US attack alerts .........and both peoples just sit and watch what develops............... With ONE BIG DIFFERENCE-- People in Venezuela tried to get Chavez out and it almost worked--- until Mr. Played-one-football-game-too-many-without-his-helm et Carter showed up and decided the election was "very democratic". So just sit on your asses and watch what happens. Hell, what do I care, I live in Central America anyway.

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[smenor]

Unfortunately, people like that tend not to let the facts get in the way of their arguments.

That doesn't mean I should not resent half my pay being extorted.....

See what I'm saying - "Yeah..... but still...."

BTW - I enjoyed your stuff @ electricstate (Losing Weight has Turned Me Gay :-)

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[0x0000]

I don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know if you're being facetious or not - I'm guessing you are, since you iterate some of my basis below...

Outside of a covert spying program that they belive they had the legal right to do, everythign else imposed has been approved by congress itself.

1. I don't give a fat rats ass what those treasonous thugs "believe they have a right to do" - what they do and do not have the Right to do is defined and parameterized by the same documents that enumerate evey one elses Rights. This is not a "grey area", and those mutherfukkers are no more above the Law than anyone else.
2. If congress was so infallible, there would be no need for Dubya to stack the Supreme Court in his favor - as he has done - to keep himself (and his cronies) from being hanged as the treasonous collaborator / deserter / foreign spy that he is.

It seems like maybe the people behind the sceenes might still be in power but the leaders are changing

So you see at least part of my point? Note that it is the figureheads that will be changed, not the actual leaders - the figureheads aren't actual leaders, they're just actors - the leaders are the ones you don't notice as leaders, since they are the ones who are trained for the job, and know how to avoid notice as leaders (since leaders of despotic regimes often wind up as targets for people oppose despotic regimes).

the people behind the sceenes are the same as those in power for the last fifty or more years

Again you'll get no argument from me on this point - I'm not sure of the exact number of years, but I'm tracing it back to the late 1930's at least - probably goes back further, but I don't have sufficient information to say for sure. I find the idea that it spans more than one human lifetime - much less a generation - is extremely disturbing - it speaks to a cohesive Evil force in the world at large that aligns rather nicely with Christian dogma - so the idea is both plausible and scarifying for simple reasons.

I guess the important thing to do might be "not blaming this on one person because of thier religious tone"

I don't agree that this "not blaming" is important - I think what's important is to identify the root causes and the future outcomes and assign those to whomever represents the ideology in the present time - in reality, Dubya and company really are crooks and thugs, and they really are running a Theocracy under color of "Freedom" and "Democracy". They are wholly dependent on propaganda and "spin doctors" - strategies thought out in far greater detail by persons far more capable than those buffoons who are in the public eye, of course - for the appearance of legitimacy. Furthermore, these thugs and buffoons claim, proclaim, and prozelytize the ideology designed by their Masters without remorse or apology.

They have allowed themselves to be made figureheads and be called "leaders" - they should, imho, be futher made to take responsiblity first for the things they claim are their own actions, then for the things that can be proven in Courts of Law.

So no, I don't think there's any particular value in not assigning blame.

You will find if you look hard enough, It is the result of the majority of politicians over the past several decades.

True enough. I simply choose to focus on the ones who are still following the path outlined for them by whomever/whatever is controlling them. It would be a bit pointless, imo, to berate politicians who are now out of power - certainly we need to know what they did, and they need to be punished for it, but typically the sense of immediacy and urgency is greater when dealing with a sitting despot than with a deposed minion of a despot. To be clear: Just becaus

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[sumdumass]

You agreeing with alot of what i'm saying err we are saying the same things because all i'm saying is that you are corect except I think your spending too much time barking up the wrong tree.

I don't agree that this "not blaming" is important - I think what's important is to identify the root causes and the future outcomes and assign those to whomever represents the ideology in the present time - in reality, Dubya and company really are crooks and thugs, and they really are running a Theocracy under color of "Freedom" and "Democracy". They are wholly dependent on propaganda and "spin doctors" - strategies thought out in far greater detail by persons far more capable than those buffoons who are in the public eye, of course - for the appearance of legitimacy. Furthermore, these thugs and buffoons claim, proclaim, and prozelytize the ideology designed by their Masters without remorse or apology.

They have allowed themselves to be made figureheads and be called "leaders" - they should, imho, be futher made to take responsiblity first for the things they claim are their own actions, then for the things that can be proven in Courts of Law.

I didn't suggest not blaming all together, I suggested not blaming it all on one person. This gives the apears that all the others helping it along are gettign away scott free. PLacing the blame on Dubya is really playing into thier hands. It takes the heat off the rest of the people and clouds the entire issues. I've said it before and i'll say it again, When it apears as if it is just another "bush bashing" or "clinton bashing", it gets dismissed by the regular people who could actualy send a message next election. I think it would be really nice to see enough politicians elected that those "realy in control" lose that control.

I am constrained to point out that Congress per se doesn't stack the courts - it is up to the executive (the President) to appoint judges to the court - congress has some nominal "approval" functionality, but iirc congressional approval of e.g. a Supreme Court nominee is not even required - it's a formality instituted by some one of the presidents. I don't think it's in the Constitution that congress has yea/nay authority over the president's nominations to the courts, is it?

The constitution say with the consent of congress the president shall appoint... This has historicaly be taken to mean that the president picks the person and congress say ok or no way. Congress can actualy stop a person from being seated on the courts, in a cabinate position or becoming an embasitor. In recent years though, congress has wiggled itself into a possition were the president almost has to pick a person that the congress can politicly align with. Instead of looking at a guys record and saying he is qualified then looking at the recemandation comming with them, the canidate has to position thier beliefs to the point if faviors a political stance (abortion, womans equality, gay rights, or whatever else the hot topic is of the day). It shouldn't be this way at all.

While you are correct in the general case, perhap, I continue to address the immediate problem of individuals occupyin the (highest) seats of power within the United States Federal Government without Congressional, Legal, Political, or Civil mandate or authority.

I'm not sure who you are talking about. Four years ago i would asuume you ment Bush but he won the last election without any questions.

These individuals are criminals of the worst and most despised sort, and are openly unapologetic of their crimes. The continue to perpetrate the most grevious and henious indignities both on the People and on the Institutions of the Democtratic Republic, and have made our "Freedom" and "Democracy" a laffingstock and an epithet through-out the civilized world.

Again, i'm not sure we are on the same page. If you are talking about

Re:Thank you Lamar (What an appropriate name)

[0x0000]

I suggested not blaming it all on one person.

I guess my point with this is that I'm not playing to an audience for approval - I'm not trying to convert anyone to a POV - I'm simply typing (in this instance) about a small group of individuals who are both directly to blame themselves for a number of the issues I'm addressing AND they are symbolic of a greater set of issues, which (I think) is what you are talking about. I have no problem at all "bush bashing" or "clinton bashing" or whatever - mostly because the only people who whine about "bashing" are the supporters of the one being bashed who just don't have any plausible explanation about why the person shouldn't be bashed. I see conscession to these sorts of politicially-correct ideas (shouldn't "bush bash" etc) as very simply an agreement not to dissent. Bashing is dissent, and I'm by god dissenting - I see no reason to couch it in other terms, cause I really don't care if the supporters of e.g. Dubya agree with me or not - I actually expect that they will not, since if they agree with me, then they will (obviously) not be who I am "bashing".

In other words, I'm sticking to saying what I mean and meaning what I say.

Four years ago i would asuume you ment Bush but he won the last election without any questions.

The above statement is crap, and gives lie to everything else you've said. Only a completely deluded or criminally mis-informed individual could possibly believe that. If you really believe that, I strongly encourage you to look more closely at what happened in 2004 in the context of e.g. the 2002 congressional elections, etc. Find out why John Kerry (you said you voted for him) rolled over like a bitch despite a) overwhelming evidence vote fraud and b) sufficient campaign warchest funds to pursuse the issue (of vote fraud) realisitically, and you'll have the first couple edge peices of that particular puzzle...

Again, i'm not sure we are on the same page. If you are talking about those behind the scenes, I would totaly agree.

I don't see any reason to delay going after anyone about the things I mentioned - Dubya/Cheney profess that they are culpable - openly. Take them down, and use their convictions to ferret out the information you're looking for (those behind the scenes). As long as you're speaking in vague terms about "there is someone behind the scenes" the situation will continue to worsen, and nothing will be done. That simple reality is a big part of the confidence the Regime has in its own power - they simply say "you can't prove it" and continue on - I say there is already enough evidence in the public sphere to convict these bastards of henious crimes - furthermore, if you feel there are un-named co-conspiritors -well, then, it's pretty well established that amongst criminal (and they *are* criminals), one of the most effective ways to get to the info on the big boss is to prosecute the underlings and get them to talk - I have not said the prosecution should *end* with the Regime, simply that it needs to begin - and SOON.

This sometime makes it apear one sided.

In reality, it is pretty one-sided - and getting more so. I have not heard - in 10 years now - a reasonable, reasoned, realistic, or even plausble defense for any of the more henious crimes of this Regime. That means that, as far as I'm concerned, there is no other side. Simply pointing out - as you have done - that these bastards are just tools of a greater Evil doesn't change that.

I have to go - sorry...

Amerika

[bazmail]

What are you americans going to do about this? You are always bleating on about how free your contry is, but you always seem to let stuff like this happen. What gives? No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard.

Time after time you sit back and watch as newer and wackier laws are passed, each one erodes your freedoms more and more. You guys crack me up.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

but you always seem to let stuff like this happen.

Don't worry. Just wait two years, and the same kind of law will be passed as an EU directive.

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?

Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters. ATM the EU is seriously annoying Microsoft over its overly militant use of IP to squash competition, whereas we all know how it worked out in the US.

I wouldn't count the old EU out just right now.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

that's a pretty constructive response, wait a while & it'll happen to you? You've absolutely hit the nail on the head with your implicit acceptance of the status quo - that you, as the populace of allegedly free nation, are utterly powerless.

Re:Amerika

[hackwrench]

I am an American citizen, born into it, so to speak, and I never say America is free.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

Sorry, where did you get this "information" ?

From article II-77-2 of the constitution.

Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters.

So we'd wish... Officially it's not yet dead, just "on hold". They are waiting a looooong time before doing any referendums in the remaining countries, hoping that the French and Dutch results will be "forgotten" by then, and won't influence these.

If they get 20 (out of 25) countries to vote for, it passes. Since the 2 rejections, several countries have ratified the constitution without much fanfare, usually by Parliament.

The case of Luxembourg is especially noteworthy: despite this country being very pro-European, and despite all major parties campaigning in favor of the constitution, it only passed by a very slim majority...

Re:Amerika

[Jugalator]

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution ... but... it was voted down, as was software patents.

Of course, one can paint future doomsday scenarios, but what's saying the same thing wouldn't happen again? I'd think that since these matters have now been brought up, politicans have been informed enough to vote down these things, that the logical thing should be that these would be even easier voted down in the future. I think EU was at the highest risk of accepting these things when they were first brought up, because at a first glance to uninformed politicians, they may look really good.

Re:Amerika

[bri2000]

I wouldn't. For all its whining about US cultural imperialism when it comes to IP law the EU will, I believe, ultimately always follow the US's lead. Since once it's passed in the US it's much easier for the IP companies to lobby and demand that the EU needs similar measures in the name of "harmonisation" and "a level playing field", and the more Americaphile member's of the EU (like Blair) are lobbied by US officials directly.

Sure, the constitution's dead (for now, I'm sure once the French domestic situation has calmed down a bit they'll get it through somehow) but that doesn't stop our equivalent of the DCMA, the IP directive passed last year being in full force and effect. While the EU may be reeling from the blows of last year it's still very powerful and, because of the lack of democratic accountability, it's far easier for lobbyists to get their own way in Brussels even when individual nations may strongly reject specific proposals.

Re:Amerika

[SpaceballsTheUserNam]

You've got it all wrong. This law is helping to prevent terrorism, thus ensuring our freedom.

Re:Amerika

[lendude]

To paraphrase a Lou Reed lyric:

"...stick a fork in their ass and turn 'em over - they're done"

Re:Amerika

[SillyNickName4me]

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Even if that were true, you may have noticed that they did not manage to get this constitution accepted, not the least because of people voting against it.

We are still waiting for you Americans to actually shoot such an insane law down...

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

.. but... it was voted down,

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

as was software patents.

Yes, but softpats were only voted down after years of huge efforts by the FFII and others. During the same period, we couldn't concentrate on other, similar issues (IP Enforcment, EUCD), which passed. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough resources to fight several battles at once :-(

Re:Amerika

[Mjlner]

"Anyway, the old "new" constitution is dead in the water right now thanks to French and Dutch voters."

Well, yes and no. It's not completely dead yet. We still have the "Good Doggie!"-countries like Finland that are urging the ratification of said constitution, without letting the voters decide. Whereas some countries, like Germany, have come with a wise proposition to only include the most essential rights in the constitution, the government of Finland wants to hear none of it.

I love this country, we follow every EU directive, even the more draconian ones, to the letter, only more so, but when it comes to state monopolies, which are not very popular in the EU, we fight to the death for our rights to uphold them. The reason? We (our government) always need to take the course which is least popular among the Finnish population.

Re:Amerika

[ufoot]

> No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard.
Maybe because no other country in the world makes so much money from activities related to so-called "intellectual property"...

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

The article in question says :

Article II-77 Right to property

1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest.

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.

Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

The constitution is "on hold" because it's pretty much evident that today it would be defeated, at least in the UK, Sweden and Denmark, after the two "no". People have longer memories than individuals, I'm pretty sure the constitution will not pass in its present state.

Mind you I'm of the opinion that even the "old" constitution is many times better than what passes for rules in the present EU.

The main problem is that the constitution is for the most part unreadable. No one can understant what's in there, short of making this undertaking one's career.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

Even if that were true, you may have noticed that they did not manage to get this constitution accepted, not the least because of people voting against it.

They voted against it in two whoopping countries. However, it takes 5 nos to definitely kill the text.

In some countries, the referendum has been put "on hold" waiting for more "favorable" climate (people forgetting why French and Dutch voted against). It is thus important to keep awareness of the issues, in order to prevent a yes-vote by ignorance.

Moreover, if indeed no will prevail, a new text will have to be proposed. In that case, we need to keep awareness as well, in order to make sure that the new text fixes all the issues, rather than only the most glaring ones.

Re:Amerika

[Stellian]

Remember, EU is the place where "Intellectual Property" without restrictions was to be protected by the new constitution on the same level (or rather: above) more usual constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and right to live.

Title II makes no such claims. It simply states: "Intellectual property shall be protected.", towards it's end.
As a programmer, I am certainly aware that the right to live or the right to an education is useless for me without protection of the intelectual property, since I will not aford living or getting that education.
Not even the GPL works without protection of the intelectual property.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
Hardly something I'd say would be offensive.

It is patently offensive (no pun intended), if you compare it with the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:

• it is limited in time
• it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress

Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.

The IP article in the EU constitution paves the road to perpetual copyrights and software patents.

Most other stipulations in the EU constitution have all kinds of exceptions where the rights granted should not apply. Not so intellectual property (which is not even defined! ... and so could conceivably be redefined in the future to include all kinds of corporate rights of which aren't even yet included into today's nightmares...)

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

Actually both the Dutch and French oppositions to the EU proposed constitution were to my mind amazingly mature, reasoned, sensible and thus hard to refute. They predated any societal issues that France has been having recently, and they are not going away. Most established politicians had an incentive for the text to be accepted, and in both countries all the major parties, both ruling and in the opposition, were in favour of the constitution and campained for its adoption. Yet the text was soundly defeated.

The main point of contention was essentially that the EU regulations tend to be overly complex and byzantine. This is not what you want in a constitution, full stop.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

Title II makes no such claims. It simply states: "Intellectual property shall be protected.",

And that is exactly the problem. It simply states. Without any kind of safeguard or limitation. Notice the paragraph just above, about physical property. It has all kinds of exceptions and restrictions where property rights should not apply. Not so intellectual property.

Re:Amerika

[Tim C]

It really depends on how you read it. I read it as "1 people's right to own property shall be protected 2 that includes intellectual property".

Don't forget that while we're not all Disneys or Microsofts or IBMs, we all can and do generate intellectual property.

Re:Amerika

[ArsenneLupin]

It really depends on how you read it.

It should not be read in a vacuum. The drafters of the constitution are scholars, and like all scholars they surely made an inventory of the "state of the art" while writing their text. And the US constitution (along with constitution of other major countries) was certainly part of that "state of the art".

So it seems unbelievable that the absence of the usual limitations (time, purpose) on the intellectual property rights are accidental or an oversight. No, the drafters know that in the US much debate around the extension of copyright terms and scope (Sony Bono, Betamax, ...) centered around these two restriction. So they "learned their lesson" and made sure they avoided similar "problems" in Europe by using different text.

Well except that these "problems" are only "problems" for the IP industry, and not for the people. The people should stay aware that the drafters of the constitution didn't defend the people's interest but the industry's, and vote accordingly.

Re:Amerika

[TheRaven64]

softpats were only voted down after years of huge efforts by the FFII

My MEP is an active member of the FFII, and she's got my vote next time around. Anyone else who wants software patents to stay dead should find a candidate with similar views and vote for them.

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

I think you are deluding yourself if you think the US article has any teeth.

The EU paragraph doesn't say *how* the IP shall be protected, I'll grant you that, however the corresponding paragraph in the US constitution, while nicer on the outside, has been shown in effect to be just empty words.

Software patents in particular in the US have not been shown to foster progress, and copyrights on the other hand have infinite terms for all intents and purposes, so the ifs and buts serve strictly no purpose. If you start quaking in fear because some sentence leaves the door potentially open to some invented evil, soon your only option is to live in a cavern for fear of your own shadow.

Recall that the EU software patents are still illegal. The "offending" broad sentence in the EU constitution is not a blank check to suddenly making them legal and never would have been. The constitution should be a simple text defining broad principles. No one in their right mind would like IP rights not to be protected. The EU constitution says that they shall be, and leaves it to the democratically elected institutions to work out the details. Potentially these can change with time. In my opinion this is how it should be.

I'll remind you that last year these democratically elected EU institutions worked extremely well to defeat a remarkably well orchestrated attempt by lobby groups to impose US-style software patents in Europe. There were enough alert people to cry foul on all the dirty tricks and ATM the lobbyists are licking their wounds. They'll be back, but for the moment I'm not convinced they will necessarily win.

I'll take debate and a functioning democracy anytime over nicely worded sentences in arbitrary constitutions. Supposedly the old USSR constitution was a model of enlightened principles. Look how it turned out. It didn't prevent the gulag.

Re:Amerika

[shenanigans]

It's because most americans have very strongly ingrained hopes and optimisms regarding their country. A sort of implied attitude is "We survived Vietnam, we survived watergate, we will survive Irak and Bush, nothing REALLY bad is going to happen."

In these kind stories you always see a lot of comments along the line of "oh those crooked politicians" and "Bush is the worst president ever", and similar when discussing the DMCA, Irak, the patriot act, the budged deficits, TIA, gitmo, etc. But I never (or seldom) see any discussion of the long term ramifications of these things (just "they are bad"), and litte (realistic) discussion of the future. Ask yourself, where is America in 20 years?

Perhaps most americans just have no reference point in history to relate these event to. Perhaps it's because most americans have never experienced fascism and oppression in their life time (or their grand parents life time) like most of Europe has. Perhaps they believe that the US economy will always prevail in the end. Or perhaps most americans just think the whole world is in a backslide, while in reality it is for the most part just the USA. And that might actually be a harder pill to swallow. I don't know.

Re:Amerika

[rmstar]

They voted against it in two whoopping countries. However, it takes 5 nos to definitely kill the text.

Technically you are right, of course, but without france in the mix, it gets a very tough proposition. Voting was halted because if at the end there were less than 5 noes, you have a rather big problem without a reasonable solution. Even if the text had "passed" by that measure, it would still not have been ratified by france, so essenially france has to leave the EU, or the text has to be dumped anyway.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

we all can and do generate intellectual property

You mean "thinking"... you big fat Newspeak mouthpiece.

Re:Amerika

[Bloke down the pub]

You note that the US text severly limits scope of intellectual property:
it is limited in time
it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress

It does. But nobody seems to take any notice of it, which is why people are able to patent business processes, naturally ocurring organisms and the wheel.

Both safeguards are lacking from the EU constitution. The sentence about Intellectual property is incredibly short and blunt, without any ifs and buts.

I agree it doesn't say they're limited. But it doesn't say they're unlimited either. In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

No we don't. We all genarate information. Whether it's remotely valid to consider it property is another matter. It's not, as far as I'm concerned. The justification for physical property is that we can't both have something scarce. Information is not scarce, it's freely copyable. There is no justification for making it "property" that isn't just assuming the result.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but we don't need to do it under the guise of "preventing terrorism".

Re:Amerika

[AaronLawrence]

Don't get distracted. The world is made up of more than just the US and the EU. Further, just because Europe does something stupid doesn't make it OK for the US, "home of the free".

Re:Amerika

[Eljas]

At least here in Finland, we call them "Immaterial Property" rights. I think it sounds less like double talk even being the oxymoron it is.

Re:Amerika

[Golden Section]

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

Most EU countries didn't have a referendum on it. Most other countries wouldn't let their citizens' view influence the politicians on their vote. A colossal exposure of the wide gap between the views of politicians and the views of voters.

Re:Amerika

[xSauronx]

"[What are you americans going to do about this? Time after time you sit back and watch as newer and wackier laws are passed]"

nothing, because most of us dont actually watch what laws are passed to start with?

Re:Amerika

[Garrett Fox]

Amerika No other country in the world is as repressive in this regard. Oct(31)=Dec(25)=> Halloween=Christmas => XMas is pagan festival=> God doesn't exist. I'm not sure which of these lines is the silliest!

Re:Amerika

[jcr]

it should only be upheld if it helps foster progress

Unfortunately, this is not a dependent clause. It's a stated intention of the purpose of granting patents and copyrights, but it doesn't subject them to a test of whether they do in fact promote progress.

-jcr

Re:Amerika

[Angostura]

they'll get it through somehow

Oh yes, because the Brits are really going to vote for it.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they could start by going here:

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/FormCheck.asp

and by making articulate and reasonable arguments against this legislation. Make it clear where your votes will and won't go and why.

They could also try crying. That helps a lot.

Re:Amerika

[aussie_a]

Here's a question: Is it better then what the current countries have already? If not, then it doesn't really matter. Currently the countries can say "Copyrights are now unlimited" and there's no reason (except for a possible uproar of the people) for them not to.

Re:Amerika

[Xeth]

That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.

The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans just don't give a shit anymore. Look at other countries: Within the last few years, you've got the Orange Revolution, pro- & anti-Chavez rallies in Venezuela, massive political protests & voting abstentions in Thailand that brought down Thaksin, people protesting in Nepal (despite a pretty good chance that they'll get shot), and on and on and on. And it's not just people in developing nations who've had it: Canada dumped their old prime minister because of corruption. I know for a fact I'm missing tons more. As Bush the younger might say, the French strike and protest "at the whim of a hat". Brussels had a rally the other day. 80,000 people gathered in the capital to protest the murder of one guy who refused to give his MP3 player to some muggers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4936990.stm That was about ONE GUY. Americans have become completely apathetic. But it doesn't matter anyway. The few protests they've actually had recently (against the war in Iraq and the xenophobic HR4437 bill) were ignored by their government anyway. American democracy is dead and the rest of the country's political and economic system is probably not far behind.

Re:Amerika

[955301]

Personally, I'm working on political tracking software which summarizes the decisions made by a representative for the lay-person. It retrieves information about bills and resolutions and tells you what your politician voted. Look at the bill, decide if you like it or not, grade it. Then, at the end of the politicians term, print a report which tells you whether or not to vote for them.

Sound good? Care to help?

Re:Amerika

[zerocool^]

I feel powerless.

I'm a USian, I know there are going to be a number of other rants in this thread about political power and how you don't undertand politics and how they're trying, but I can do nothing, and it's depressing and demoralizing. People who have been paying attention for the past 3 years can verify.

We live alternatingly in fear, releif, and anger.
Fear that someone will harm us. Relief that it doesn't happen. Anger when we realize that 14 (at last count) people you went to highschool with never came home from the desert alive.
Fear that they're taking more rights away. Relief that they didn't. Anger when we realize that the laws already on the books are pretty restrictive.

I don't know what to do, and it is depressing. People I had been friends with for years I can no longer talk to because of this divided political climate. Groups of friends, brought together by a non-related common interest are divided down the left-right voting spectrum. It's hard to describe if you're not experiencing it.

When you add that together with the fact that the 51% in power seem to care less than nothing about what the other 49% of us have to say, and that we are looked down upon as unpatriotic, it's very scary. Most police officers and military personel are republicans. The military because the republicans fund their actions, the Police because... I dunno. Authoritarianism seems to be the republican line lately. Whatever. But, you're more likely to get pulled over if you have a John Kerry bumper sticker left on your car, I do know that. If you've got one of those yellow "support our troops", it's like the unwritten sign that you're also a republican and your own kind won't mess with you.

What do you do when the people in power and the people in positions of authority above you think you're an unpatriotic, drug-addicted, welfare loving cretin?

You say we always let stuff like this happen. I say... what can we do? I've almost given up. My voice doesn't matter.

~W

Re:Amerika

[HeroreV]

Oh yeah?! Well you fund terrorism! So take that!

Re:Amerika

[Greyfox]

It really doesn't matter what we do at this point does it? If we tie up innovation to the degree everyone's worried about, it'll make it that much easier for the Chinese and the Indians to overtake us. Our problem solving atttiude was really the only thing we had going for us, and it seems to me that the last really nifty thing we did was the Apollo moonshot.

My prediction is that the American economy will eventually collapse and the whole thing will end up being owned by Chinese businessmen. Ironically this event would mean that the Communists won after all.

Re:Amerika

[init100]

Not even the GPL works without protection of the intelectual property.

I have two things to say about this statement:

• The GPL depends on copyright, but not trade secrets or patents, for its enforcement, so please be more specific and avoid the use of the catch-all phrase "Intellectual Property".
• It is argued that without copyright protection, the GPL would not be necessary, since nothing would protect proprietary software from being copied, just as nothing would protect free software from being ripped off by proprietary software vendors. I'm not sure that I agree with this position though.

Re:Amerika

[BeeRockxs]

Whereas some countries, like Germany, have come with a wise proposition to only include the most essential rights in the constitution, the government of Finland wants to hear none of it.
Uh, not quite. The german parliament has ratified the constitution.

Re:Amerika

[masdog]

Sounds like a great idea, but will the politicians listen?

Re:Amerika

[JWW]

We've been up and we've been down before. I'll throw out the reverse of this. What makes you think things won't change?

Where America is in 20 years is still up for debate. There are things, like this, that don't look like they're getting better, and other things that are improving, or things that will improve in the next 20 years. Sure there's always still the possibility that everything will go completely to hell, but for reference points from History, America's already been through some of that too. Theres the Civil War, Great Depression, to name a couple. And rights in the country, while some may be in decline, have at other points in history been worse. We don't have internment camps for Arab-Americans like we did for the Japanese in World War II. Don't even get started on Guantanmo Bay, its order of magnitudes smaller.

There is good and bad in all times. The good old days may not be as good as they seem, and the future's not always as bright as it looks. One thing that comforts some Americans is that in our system no one person can run the country for more than 8 years. Bush will not be President in 3 years, and I think the term limit on the President is a great thing for making sure the country adapts to change and is run from different viewpoints. 20 years of Bush would be bad and so would have 20 years of Clinton running the country.

One reason however horrible leglislation like this gets brought up is because the damn leglislators are often elected for what seem like lifetime terms. I'm sure there are some in support of this bill who really do know what its impact will be and that its not a good deal for the people who will vote for it anyway because they know their reelection is a lock. One of these days they will #$%@^ with peoples computers or living rooms one time to many and will not win their seat back. I really really hope that that happens. Theres nothing however, we can do about the administration but hope that they don't get this pushed through before its their time to go.

Re:Amerika

[schon]

most americans have never experienced fascism and oppression in their life time

Uh, yeah, right.

The problem isn't that they have never experienced fascism and opression, it's that they've been brainwashed into thinking that it's not happening.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say they have only been shown to be empty words because the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret them that way, not because in and of themselves they were empty. It is not the fault of the authors of the Constitution that the Supreme Court chose to effectively ignore the rather clear mandate contained here:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The time must be limited and securing that time (having the government back it up with force) requires that the exclusive right (to authors and inventors) promotes the progress of science and useful arts. It is obvious that re-extending the limited time after the authorship or invention has already taken place does nothing to promote the progress of science or useful arts. If anything, it has the opposite effect. So, the words are only empty because the Supreme Court has chosen to make them empty, not because they were written that way.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll remind you that last year these democratically elected EU institutions worked extremely well to defeat a remarkably well orchestrated attempt by lobby groups to impose US-style software patents in Europe."

As someone deeply involved in that particular battle, I can say that was a damn close one. Despite the popular protest against it, we nearly lost that battle and mind you, it wasn't only American companies who were actively pushing for software patents, but also (big) EU ones, like, for example, SAP.

Re:Amerika

[Anonymous Coward]

"A marshal noblity and a stuborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, is the only defense for a free constitution against the ambitions of princes." -- Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (quoted from memory, so maybe not dead on.)

Re:Amerika

[955301]

They don't have to... if a critical mass of people end up with an easy, logical way to decide if their rep's actions don't match their speeches, it won't be something they can ignore and stay in office.

Re:Amerika

[Fallingcow]

The history of the US is a great example of how The People can destroy a perfectly good republic.

Re:Amerika

[mrchaotica]

What is offensive about it is the very fact that it defines ideas as property! Ideas are not property; they are fundamentally different because property is based on the principle of scarcity. Ideas are not scarce -- once one is thought of, it inherently belongs to all of humanity.

If you have an apple and you give it to someone else, you don't have it anymore. The other person has gained, and you have lost. On the other hand, if you have an idea and you give it to someone else, you still have it also and you have both gained because it's extremely likely that the other person will then come up with another idea based on it.

This is, in fact, the entire mechanism by which the human race progresses!

The writers of the US Constitution realized this -- that's why they explicitly stated that the purpose of copyrights and patents is "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Copyrights and patents are time-limited in the US because they're not a Right conferred to the creator, but are instead merely a courtesy awarded for the purposes of encouraging more creation. A good way to think of it is that the creator leases the monopoly rights from the People, paying for it by the act of creation itself. Not that if such a system didn't exist, the idea would just immediately become Public Domain -- exclusive rights to an idea is not a Natural Right.

In contrast, some Europeans somehow believe that ideas are a natural right (even though I disproved that at the beginning of the post), that creators somehow deserve an entitlement for their creation, and -- most importantly -- that this entitlement is more important than the progess of society and the health of the Public Domain. Apparently if they had their way, we'd all be forced to wear blinders and earplugs in fear that we might see or hear something created by someone else, and thereby infringe on their "property."

This whole situation makes me sick. I mean, it pisses me off that anyone could not realize this to begin with, but it's even worse nowadays because of the particular circumstances. By that I mean that the reason this is becoming such a big issue is due to the Internet. It was explicitly designed to be this wonderful communication medium that would greatly enhance the human race intellectually. In fact, the system that became the Internet (called NLS (for oNLine System)) was created at SAIL by a project called Augment whose stated goal was to augment human intelligence. It was this great thing embodying the hopeful spirt of the '60s. Once you realize this, you must see how appalling it is that the second the sharks in the entertainment industry noticed the technology's world-changing potential that they immediately started working to kill it, to protect their greed and shortsightedness.

That is why the EU's "Intellectual property shall be protected" clause is not just "patently offensive," but is downright evil and wrong!

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

Hello AC, please take the time to make an account so that you can see the replies.

Of course it wasn't a battle of the US companies trying to impose their thinking on Europeans, most large software-based companies in Europe were also in favour of US-style patents, but that doesn't make them right.

Yes the battle was hard, but the EU parliament voted 648 to 14 *AGAINST* software patents. This is not a close battle, this was like a complete hammering. The pro-patents lobby tried to get in via the side doors using all the dirty tricks in and out of the book, but that simply didn't work. If it had it would have meant absolute mayhem. Moreover, the "rapporteur" on the issue was that rare thing, a political first-class mind who really understood the issue and made life very hard for the lobbyists. Of course there were the thousands upon thousands of activists who tried to educate everybody about the issue. Eventually it worked.

If you have been involved in it, congratulations ! very well done work.

From the point of view of the lobbyists I'm sure they found the battle very hard as well. In fact I'm positive they completely panicked at some point, when the EU very very nearly passed a directive which would have made US-style software patents impossible in Europe, imposing patents on inventions "with software" but not "software-based". This would have been a terrible disaster for the lobbyists. They themselves very nearly lost on all front. That's why I don't think they'll try again shortly, for fear of losing all again.

Re:Amerika

[HuguesT]

Intellectual property is *not* evil and wrong. On the contrary. The line in the EU constitution is not saying "IP shall be protected forever", you are the one in fear of this situation.

What is missing in you reply is the realisation that original ideas are in fact extremely scarce. How many original ideas have you had in your life? Myself, very very few, if any.

Patents and copyrights (trademark as well) intentions are to make sure the originators of original ideas are protected and rewarded. In a world with no IP protection of any kind, only rich companies will be allowed to thrive. In a world where anyone can easily obtained IP protection, one can truly live by our wits.

I've seen little startup come up with a bunch of what I thought were very original and worthy ideas get gutted by larger companies, simply because they couldn't protect them adequatly. As soon as one has shown something to be possible in theory, it is often the case that a large company has the resources to put this something in practice and make millions, whereas you, the originator of the idea, are left with nothing. At least with working patents, these companies would be forced to reward you.

Re:Amerika

[Josh Hiles]

I couldn't agree more, but Rome only made it a few centuries why should we be any different? Because we could've been? I scoff at your silly idealism!

The definition of terrorism

[scsirob]

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is? Terrorism is spreading fear by inflicing selective pain to force a decision. This kind of bill does exactly that. It inflicts pain on small businesses trying to make a living, and forcing everyone to pay up to the big companies and patent/IP leeches. Probably the same leeches that sponsor this senator..

Let me guess, everyone opposing this bill will be labelled as 'unpatriotic', 'pro-terrorism' etc?!?

Re:The definition of terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you not say that copyright infringement is not terrorism? Skilled artists such as Britney Spears have to live on the street because they can't afford proper housing! Sony are merely trying to manage consumers' digital rights and you boycott them, mock them and label them as 'untrustworthy'. And you claim that they're the terrorists!

Re:The definition of terrorism

[helioquake]

The word "Terroism" became such a convenient word to use as a wild card in order to gain voters' attention toward a congress person.

Why would that work? It's not that the politicians forget what it means, I don't think. It is more likely that the voters are just becoming dumber and stupider when it comes to what "terrorism" means.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[DigiShaman]

The *real* definition of terrorism is Islamic fascism. Of course, speaking this truth would be politically incorrect. As such, the term "terrorism" has been molded and melded into various issues by the politicos in office in order to maintain power.

Don't worry; it will get worse...much worse after Iran detonates an atomic bomb over Israel.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[linvir]

Not true at all: terrorism can also be found in Colombia and Africa. I suppose that in America, though, the image they're invoking is "those scary towelly-heads and their suicide bombs".

But Bush certainly does include Colombia in his War on Terror®, in conjunction with the War on Drugs®. Because the Drugs® fund the Terror®, by being sold to Innocent Americans®, Mr. Bush sends Freedom Planes® to spray the drugs with Justice Juice®. It just never makes US news, because apparently the only Latin American matter of any importance is Mexican immigrants.

It's interesting that you think that the Iran stuff will descend into a War on Terror® issue. Are things really that bad?

Re:The definition of terrorism

[NickFortune]

The *real* definition of terrorism is Islamic fascism.

Interesting. The OED defines terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation in persuit of political objectives.

I personally find that definition superior, since it doesn't tie the practice to any particular relihgous faith or form of government,

Re:The definition of terrorism

[SillyNickName4me]

Why would that work? It's not that the politicians forget what it means, I don't think. It is more likely that the voters are just becoming dumber and stupider when it comes to what "terrorism" means.

It just works untill they used it a few times too often... Don't worry tho, they'll find a replacement.. always did.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[will_die]

By your definition any boss is a terrorist, do this work or you will be fired; being fired would sure bring me pain and is a fear I want to advoid.
How would this bill effect small business? Unless you define small business as the person selling copies of DVD/CD on the street corner.

BTW legal definition of terrorism in the US is "The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Re:The definition of terrorism

[aadvancedGIR]

No, you are wrong, a terrorist is "anyone who is against us and is financially or military inferior to us".
RIAA (or congressmen to a certain extend) have a lot of money and power, so they cannot be terrorists.

Terrorism is just a matter of point of view.
In the eighties, when trained and funded by the CIA to kill russian soldiers, Bin Laden was neither a terrorist nor an "unlawful combatant", he was an ally.
in the fourties, a lot of terrorist groups were fighting agaisnst the nazis in France and other occupied countries and despite half of them being communist, the USA helped them.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[chabotc]

For crying out loud, has the daily brain-washing you are forced to go thru turned your brain into pulp?

Terrorism has no connections to any religion, how you could say that the 'real definition ...', is beyond me! Very shocking to see this is how 'people think' now-a-days.

FYI terrorism is:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

By your definition the old IRA in ireland were not 'terrorists' because they were catholic and not islamic. The PLA were not terrorist because they were maxistic, and not islamic, the seperation movement in spain is not terroristic, because their not islamic ... Sheesh what corruption of the world view!

Almost any fanatic organisation that creates the feeling of 'we are a family' and 'they are the bad guys' is able to coerce its members into performing 'terrorist acts', wether the believes they stand for are political, religious or sociological.

You make it sound like its something 'new', while the world has known terrorism for as many decades as we have international laws about what constitutes 'legal warfare'.

Your right about one thing .. it will get worse, as long as people buy into this hate-mongering thought control that politicians fire into the unsuspecting crowds to win votes and distract the people from scrutinizing their actions.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[jcr]

The word "Terroism" became such a convenient word to use as a wild card in order to gain voters' attention toward a congress person.

At the same time, it seems that the media scrupulously avoid using the word "terrorist" to describe actual terrorists. If I hear about Hamas or Al-Queda "militants" one more time, I'm going to hurl.

-jcr

Re:The definition of terrorism

[BrynM]

The *real* definition of terrorism is Islamic fascism.

Wow. The Provisional Irish Republican Army was a bunch of Catholic Islamic fascists. And the KKK was a bunch of Protestant Christian Islamic fascists. I didn't know that acts of violence make someone an Islamic fascist. That means that this list can be narrowed down quite a bit. Thanks for enlightening us. There I was thinking that fanatics were the cause of terrorism. Turns out it's fascists - Muslim ones to boot. Wow. Boy will the skinheads be pissed when they find out they're muslims.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[caluml]

More to the point, to people really think about the word terror? Terror is stark, absolute, disabling fear. Like a man rushing at you with a knife while you're in a dead-end corner with no way to defend yourself.
When was the last time you experienced it. I don't think I've ever experienced it. And I certainly don't worry about a few little religious extremists with bombs. Shiit. I thank the IRA for desensitising the UK from the fear of bombs - if we'd got in a flap everytime innocent people were blown up, we'd never have got anything done in the last 30 years.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[stony3k]

One of the most successful terrorist organizations out there is the LTTE. They pioneered most of the techniques used by Islamic Jihadists today. They assassinated the head of state (or former head of state) of not one but two countries (and many more people).

Just spend 5 minutes searching for news about the LTTE and you will realize where you are wrong - terrorism has nothing to do with religion, and more to do with power.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is?

Not at all. They know exactly what terrorism is -- its the scare tactic they use to push their own agenda. They're not about to forget that.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[DigiShaman]

Terrorism has no connections to any religion

Don't be a fucking idiot! Start doing some research on the current state of Islam and you might learn a few things or two. Start off with this link for starters....you lazy bum.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49865

Re:The definition of terrorism

[glesga_kiss]

You sir are the idiot. As other posters point out terrorism predates recent Islamic Terrorism. Hell, the British actually used the word "terrorise" in many mission briefings back in the day, when it was used to keep locals in check around the empire. Not paying your taxes? We'll level the village so the next village over doesn't get any ideas. Winston Churchill ordered the Iraqi Kurds to be gassed out of existance, but the technology wasn't ready at the time. The USA exists BECAUSE someone fought back.

And the IRA have existed for a VERY long time. White Catholic extremeists who targeted shopping malls and pubs, as well as assasinations and random street riots. The ONLY difference is that they didn't do the suicide all that often prefering to use what is now known in the media as IED's. They wanted their whole region to be Catholic (as opposed to Prodestant, BOTH CHRISTIANS FFS!!), and for all non-catholics to leave. This hate goes back for a very long time, and is of course mutual on both sides.

You really need to get your head out your ass.

PS, the article you linked...quite the funny. I could link you far worse, ever hear the suggestion that "we should just turn Iraq into a huge parking lot"? (implying nuking the region). I heard that MANY times over the past years, sometimes from people in positions of power and responsibility. Not some asshats in the street as you linked to. What exactly is your point here? You are a poster-child for the proof that propaganda works.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[Danny Rathjens]

forcing everyone to pay up to the big companies and patent/IP leeches. Probably the same leeches that sponsor this senator..

Not "probably", "definately": http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp ?CID=N00001811&cycle=2004

Re:The definition of terrorism

[idsofmarch]

Then what was the IRA doing? Or the Basque separatists? What about Pol Pot? Terrorism is merely a tactic that has been used by numerous groups throughout modern history. Islamic Facists use Terrorism, but the two are not inherently the same.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[idsofmarch]

This from the guy who can't parse the difference between a tactic and a religion. Islamic Facists useterrorism as a tactic. Terrorism is a means, and Islam's only contribution to the annals of terrorism is the use of suicide bombing--although suicide attacks are as old as Rome and as new as the Kamikaze. The current state of Islam alternates between an apocolyptic world view and a peaceful one and this swing is accerbated by the region's political and economic states.

While these two things are becoming symbiotic as other groups abandon terrorism for fear of becoming related to the various IF groups such as Al Qaeda, they are not always related. Terrorism is a tactic, a grotesque practice that has been used by the Romans, the Assassins, the Mongols, the British, and Germans. Frightening a populace used to be common-place, and killing civilians was sometimes the goal, rather than a side-affect.

Go back and read some history, pay particular attention to the use of terror, biological warfare, and propaganda by Genghiz Khan for one.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[DigiShaman]

Terrorism = Islamic Facist as far as I'm concerned. It's the same shit, different day. Don't insult me your petty semantics.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[idsofmarch]

Waving my point away with 'semantics' doesn't make it any less true, your determination to conflate the two without any understanding about the differences between an act and a group is not only hopeless but ignorant of how the English language works.

Think damnit.

Think.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[hobbit]

No, no, you've made a mistake. What you're describing is "Shock and Awe". Nothing to do with terrorism. No Siree Bob.

Re:The definition of terrorism

[hobbit]

In other news, the real definition of "Trolled" is "something that You Have just Been".

Fund terrorism?

[reldruH]

Why is it that every time a politician wants to get something passed that's obviously not going to be good, they do it because it 'funds terrorism'? Next thing you know politicians are going to fund some study saying that open source funds terrorism.

Oh, wait...

Re:Fund terrorism?

[plankrwf]

Well, obviously open source is going to help terrorits:
imagine all the extra time they need not spend on system administration:
obviously they would have more time actually planning terroristic attacks!

Would be a thought though: give all the Al Quaida's of this world the newest of newest of computers
with all the newest propriotory software, just to see them fail as a terroristic
club seeing that they spend all their time actually getting their systems up and running.
We would see newsitems like:
ThisJustIn: Bin Laden proclaims next suicide hit to occur moments after Vista finally released.

Roel

Re:Fund terrorism?

[wrmrxxx]

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. They don't blame terrorism every time - sometimes they blame child porn instead.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[Alarash]

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this. Intellectual Property Protection Act doesn't sound like a bad idea. It's a good idea to protect intellectual property, too bad we know the IP is used and abused by big companies. I don't see the need for a bill, though, since there are already laws in place

As for the IP crimes are funding terrorism, duh. I'd like to know how downloading an anti-virus and downloading a crack is funding terrorism. Are all these .ru websites with their porn ads ran by terrorists? And don't get me started with "Open Source invites terrorism". Just because you know how something is made doesn't allow you to bypass its protection. I can see the code of GPG, it doesn't mean I can crack a GPG-encrypted file in less than a few million years.

Last but not least, drug financing terrorism. Well, it sort of does (or did anyway). Drug is the best way to make money with little risks (for the bosses anyway), given the low production cost, and huge street price. Margins are the largest in the world. So yeah, I guess some of the investments of terrorist groups are in there. But hey, big new. If you want to cut down a lot of this market, make the major illegal "drug", the marijuana, legal. It's not like you can't find any if you want to. It'll also lower crime rate, give the governments a new product to tax a,d increase the quality of the product. And it won't turn your youth to potheads ; look at Netherlands, there are actually less people smoking pots there than in countries where it's illegal.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[mwvdlee]

Yes, but either child porn causes terrorism or terrorism causes child porn, so they obviously lead to the same thing.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US funded the Taliban and trained al-qaeda and suddenly they act as if terorism is a bad thing?

The CIA promoted terrorism, US foreign policy promoted terrorism and when the tards in the White(wash)house have made amends for that, there's a chance we can talk about non-tangible assets.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Why is it that every time a politician wants to get something passed that's obviously not going to be good, they do it because it 'funds terrorism'?

Why is it they never outlaw trading in oil?

Re:Fund terrorism?

[jcr]

imagine all the extra time they need not spend on system administration

Sure, but will they use that time to attack more people, or tweak their kernel and drivers for suicide geek cred?

-jcr

Re:Fund terrorism?

[ArsenneLupin]

there are actually less people smoking pots there than in countries where it's illegal.

Hehe, guess where those country's citizens are buying their pot? In a Europe without borders, it's tough to make sure that the pot stays in the Netherlands...

Re:Fund terrorism?

[Alarash]

In a Europe without borders, it's tough to make sure that the pot stays in the Netherlands...

There might be no official customs border, customs do keep very close eye on the borders of the Netherlands. When you are in the north of France, you see a lot of cars stopped by customs that patrol the highway leading to the Netherlands.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Wasn't this comment meant to be Funny and not Insightful? Either the mod is on crack or I am, 'cause I fail to see the link between child porn and terrorism. To me, terrorism may lead more to zoophilia since Bin Laden and his friends must only have sheeps and goatses to get pleasure with during their retirement in middle east landscape :). Their beards are used as dupes for wool in the lover's parade.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[Foobar of Borg]

ThisJustIn: Bin Laden proclaims next suicide hit to occur moments after Vista finally released.

So that's why he hasn't been more effective! If he had just been running Linux, he could have a Beowulf cluster of suicide bombers.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[compro01]

The US funded the Taliban and trained al-qaeda and suddenly they act as if terorism is a bad thing?

The CIA promoted terrorism, US foreign policy promoted terrorism and when the tards in the White(wash)house have made amends for that, there's a chance we can talk about non-tangible assets.


yes, but terrorism is only evil if it is against them, regardless of any reasons.

Re:Fund terrorism?

[powerlord]

ThisJustIn: Bin Laden proclaims next suicide hit to occur moments after Vista finally released.

So that's why he hasn't been more effective! If he had just been running Linux, he could have a Beowulf cluster of suicide bombers.

He actually had tried it, but unfortunately things got messy when there was a driver panic.

Just one name...

[Intosi]

I'll give you just one name to remember: McCarthy.

Re:Just one name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about overrated moderations. This one takes the fucking cake.

I bet you could've been given position as co-admin of the site if you said Hitler instead of McCarthy, I mean that's an even bigger name to drop into the pool of hyperbole, Slappy McAsscheeks.

Re:Just one name...

[clackerd]

who's getting-black listed here? mccarthyism doesn't have anything to do with this. he had a select list of do-badders. bush is saying anyone who disagrees with him supports terrorism. these are two seperate situations.

Re:Just one name...

[Guuge]

The original poster is referring to the Red Scare, which is similar to the modern fascination with terrorism. McCarthy symbolizes the Red Scare by taking fearmongering to an extreme.

give me example

[mapkinase]

IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion? Any free-swappping IRA members?

Re:give me example

[Kjella]

Does anybody remember a case that even remotely supports that assertion?

Nope, and even if you did the causality is really spurious. Real IP crime, by which I don't mean filesharing but counterfeit goods sold for profit, is a way to earn money. Terrorism is as far as I can tell a money sink, it costs money. Even if you find some case somewhere that says "Pirate funded terrorism", is it more common than "Regular worker funded terrorism out of his paycheck" or "Pirate funded luxurious lifestyle"? I think not.

Re:give me example

[steve_l]

given how songs by the Wolfe Tones are a ubiquitous part of IRA propaganda, you'd probably find them forcing copies of "the men behind the wire" onto the iPods or phones of teenagers who werent currently involved in the cause.

they have been known to do
  -major bank robberies, big enough to force the replacment of one of the Ulster bank notes.
  -petrol smuggling, via an oil bunker near crossmaglen with access from both sides of the border
  -drug dealing. One advantage the IRA have in that industry is the ability to enforce deals. Nobody doublecrosses a represenative of the PIRA and gets away with it,

Now, someone the IRA killed for crossing them, "the general", a criminal from Dublin did actually do something innovative: he invented a whole new use for stolen art. He nicked a painting worth many millions and used it as collateral in drug deals. Nobody could understand why the picture hadnt surfaced or been resold, but it was because its published worth was used to fund drug purchases.

So: fine art funds drugs, maybe terrorism

Re:give me example

[MosesJones]

Any free-swappping IRA members?

The Crying Game has some pretty serious swapping going on by an IRA member.

Maybe this is what Gonzales is worried about, MP3 file swapping money going to fund terrorists gender swapping operations.

Re:give me example

[will_die]

It took Google all of .56 seconds to find a bunch of them.
Including The links between intellectual property crime and terrorist financing from Interpol.

Re:give me example

[mapkinase]

Thank you for finding this. Did you also actually read the link you provided?

Citing from your link:

Specific examples:
Northern Ireland:

It is unknown how much of the money generated by these counterfeiting operations goes to terrorist groups and how much is retained as criminal profit.

No examples.
Kosovo

It is suspected that funds generated from IPC benefit both criminal organizations and extremist groups.

No examples.
Chechen separatists. Russian officials = unreliable source.
North African radical fundamentalists terrorists in Europe.

Sympathizers and militants of these groups may engage in a range of criminal activity including IPC.

And whole bunch of similar generic handwaving.
Al-Qaeda.

The investigation into a shipment of fake goods from Dubai to Copenhagen, Denmark, suggests that al-Qaeda may have indirectly obtained financing through counterfeit goods.

Basically every software pirate in any Arabic country by definition is an al-Qaeda supporter. (a) he is a counterfieter = bad guy. (b) he is an Arab (which is bad per se) (c) bad + Arab = al-Qaeda.

Hizbullah. Again, modality of language speaks for itself.

Main source of any "terrorist" activity are sympathisers as, by the way, correctly pointed out in the cited Interpol report. Any activity that involves undetected cash could be used. If you want to suppress funding of any illegal activity you have to go to the main root: shadow economy. Every business should be transparent. Countries should adopt rigorous independent auditing procedures for the business operating from their territory.

I suspect that intellectual property rights violations are very minor portion of the support of illegal activities.

Best way to stop RIAA, MPAA and others is very simple: boycott. Do not buy and do not use what they are selling. It will lead to two results (a) you will be no longer a criminal (b) RIAA, etc will have to change.

Re:give me example

[Anonymous Coward]

If I do not pay for the movies and Music I am downloading, how am I funding terrorism?

Re:give me example

[Foobar of Borg]

Gonzales: Quite frankly, we need to put a stop to terrorist gender-swapping operation, for the children.

Re:give me example

[Karhgath]

That's not even the point. That article is mostly talking about COUNTERFEITS products being sold. Clothes, furnitures, etc. What does this have to do with the DMCA and ISP and so forth? Absolutely nothing. These proposed laws doesn't even tackled the issues raised in that article. If youTHEN take the article apart like you did, you see that most of it is conjecture, however, it is actually belivable. However, downloading movies and mp3s on the net funds terrorism? Yeah right.

Re:give me example

[???]

Besides which, the article provided examples that almost exclusively looked at counterfeit consumer goods (cigarettes, fashion, shampoo,...), certainly not matters that the mentioned act deals with. The above-mentioned counterfeiting is illegal due to trademakr infringement. The act deals exclusively with copyright infringement.

Re:give me example

[mapkinase]

I assumed that they are bringing only relevant counterfeit (music, software, movies)

Re:give me example

[AnyoneEB]

Actually, there was an article in U.S. News a few months ago about terrorist orginiazations and traditional organized crime starting to more often be the same people because the terrorists need to get funding somehow. One of those activities is selling pirate materials. On the other hand, simply downloading the material and not paying for it is clearly not giving anyone any money; certainly not any terrorists. Also, although some pirated goods are definitely being sold to support terrorism, it would be difficult to determine how much (.1%? 1%? 10%? 90%? big difference).

Terrorism!

[kestasjk]

How can I put this in a way politicians will understand?

Misinformed articles fund terrorism!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[hackwrench]

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick. Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

More benefits

[plankrwf]

And there are even more benefits to the new bill: not only it is good against terrorism,
it also helps against child pornography.

Oh, and against overweight.

Roel

No more...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm done buying all major movies and cd's. I'm still hooked on tv for my sports games, but it's becoming increasingly easy to just go to a local bar and watch them.

Of course, I'll probably have to start paying when someone else patents my liver.

Charlie McCarthy, great puppet...

[hackwrench]

Oh, you mean that senator guy? Sorry, everytime I bring up McCarthy to anyone in my general area, if they think of anything, it's that puppet.

Since 9/11

[Silver Sloth]

anyone trying to pass a contraversial bill uses the spectre of terror to stifle dissent. The relevant quote is

During a speech in November, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorsed the idea and said at the time that he would send Congress draft legislation. Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

What's being suggested is that MP3 downloaders are directly responsible for suicide bombings! We know how rediculous this is but...

Re:Since 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

China supporters more like it.
The American trade deficit is soaring, as this IP bullshit is causing everything to be made and imported from elsewhere. The Cost of jobs lost exceeds those elusive 'royalties', and is proven by the deteriating trade position, and we won't mention equitable income distribution. Do we need lamers pandering to special interest groups to back inefficient producers?
Relative to Enron, any percieved damage should also be proportional to any treatment metered out to the 'top end'.
It's a crock, and the proposors should be 'audited', and treated to their own medicine.

Re:Since 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

This is kind of funny because mp3 leeches generally don't pay for their leeching. So no money is exchanged. So tell me again how this activity which doesn't exchange money funds terrorism...

Re:Since 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I should have known downloading Celine Dion music was a BAD idea. See, I download that shit and then some rag head blows up a bus in Tel Aviv!!!!

Those two things are OBVIOUSLY connected. If you download music, Jews die. No wonder the RIAA is upset. ;)

Trying to copy will be a crime?

[octopus72]

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[tmossman]

Exactly. And her sentence? According to TFA, "such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."

Meanwhile, the average federal manslaughter sentence is just under three years.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[Loconut1389]

If you want someone's IP, its a lower sentence to kill them and steal their identity.

Not that I think manslaughter or murder people should be out in less time, but 10 years for copying 'something' (disk/code/whatever) is assinine.

Our justice system is definitely screwed up. Unfortunately, not every crime falls into their little box of prescribed outcomes. Murders get out sooner than hackers, etc. I am happy to live in America, since it could be much worse elsewhere, but at the same time, I frown at our legal system- especially with regards to technology.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[lorelorn]

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.

Well of course that's not what would happen. I mean, come on.

What actually happens is that armed NSA agents bust her door down, hand her over to the military, and ship that terrorist bitch to Guatanamo!

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[simon_clarkstone]

So, Betty tries to copy a borrowed blu-ray disc which triggers a player device to phones home and a day later police knocks on her door.

Ah, no, you don't understand this bill, clearly. Arresting everyone who breaks these laws would be too expensive. Most of the time, you just record it and don't do anything. Then, when everyone is a criminal, you have arbitrary powers of arrest, which are the best thing to stop Terrorists. The best bit is that it is totally legal, because they're criminals.

This post brought to you by my paranoia.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[Pieroxy]

I am happy to live in America, since it could be much worse elsewhere

Frankly, I don't know anymore. With the DMCA, the Patriot Act and all the crap that deep-pockets are trying to get in (and they can, they already did!) I am frankly more and more skeptical over the close future (say, in the next ~10 years) and frankly pessimistic over that period.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, no, you don't understand this bill, clearly. Arresting everyone who breaks these laws would be too expensive. Most of the time, you just record it and don't do anything. Then, when everyone is a criminal, you have arbitrary powers of arrest, which are the best thing to stop Terrorists. The best bit is that it is totally legal, because they're criminals. "

the power to arrest people on demand as the law says there all guilty
so its up to the govenment to decide who to arrest

all the people that don't vote for them ?!!!

jails full no problem , put them under house arrest , electronicly tag them and remove there rights to vote why suspected terrorist activaties

sounds like the sort of terror that they want you to live under

so in a way the IP voilation is funding terrorism
and its your own athoraties who are the terrorists it is funding
and there not happy that there losing money from the current laws
so there just forcing the point

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[cammoblammo]

Hmm. Looks like they'll have to increase the terms for murder and manslaughter then. We don't want terrorists to start getting ideas...

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally own about 250 legal DVD's. I've also made copies of about as many rentals, most of which we've only watched once (and never watched the rentals). I've never transmitted, shared, or even loaned any of those DVD's (even my legal ones), and yet I could theoretically do 2,500 years in prison for that? Jailtime aside, the fines for such an offense could be in the millions? I haven't taken business from anyone. Who have I really hurt? If anything, I helped the rental company.

I could shoot down a plane and do less time.

Something seems terribly wrong with that.

Re:Trying to copy will be a crime?

[Foobar of Borg]

Hmm. Looks like they'll have to increase the terms for murder and manslaughter then. We don't want terrorists to start getting ideas...

So, what you are basically saying is that this law, quite frankly, funds terrorism activities?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Because when your only choices are between two guys that can be bought and sold so cheaply, that's what you pick.

Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

Voter turnout is low for this among other reasons.

Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy. People need to understand that you do not have to get your party voted in to make a difference

Say you're a libertarian (I'm not), you feel that there is no point voting as your candidate will never get elected, but if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.

Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

" Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage...."

You decide your economy will be 'knowledge' based, rather than making and selling things.
You create a bunch of artificial rights, that concentrate money in the hands of a few companies and remove them from everyone else.
But it doesn't work, your economy becomes uncompetitive, runs up a huge trade deficit. The companies become fat and lazy and the world doesn't buy their shit products.
Your currency can't sustain it and starts to fall.
You have to grab assets, oil! Iraq here we come, oil can save us.
But there isn't enough oil in Iraq and they don't elect the leader you chose for them.
What can you do to make this knowledge based economy work? Try bigger penalties, more spying on the population, 10 years in prison for minor infringement. Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[WindBourne]

Force through treaties on trade partners, desparate measures are called for to prevent the USA economy from collapsing the way the Soviet Union did when it spent too much money.

Yes, lots of similiarites. USSR was actually bankrupted in the 70's by Nixon and Carter. Reagan did nor bury USSR, but kept them going by restoring such things as grain trading. What is interesting about this, is that the argument can be made that had we allowed the USSR to fall in early 1981, then it would have been very bloody (perhaps for us). But Reagan's massive giveaway to USSR allowed them to survivie while decaying slowly.

I have wondered if that is what is happening to us. Basically, China and Middle east are propping up Regan and now Bush's outrageous deficts (all of Poppa Bush's and Clinton's efforts was wiped out). Sooner or later, China will have the other nations dependant on them and we will be in the way. At that time, I suspect that all the funding will be pulled and we will tumble as hard as USSR or will elect to start a war.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to grab assets, oil! Iraq here we come, oil can save us.

You make the fundamental mistake of believing that going to Iraq was to get the oil, for the benefit of America.

Considering the disruption, and the record high prices, I would suggest that instead, the invasion had the "bonus objective" of disrupting the oil supply so that oil barons in the US would get more money for the same amount of oil that they already produce. Given the President's history, shafting two countries to help his friends is very possible.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[pinkocommie]

Wasnt nixon a conservative? Thought he said carter and nixon (i'm not sure either way, havent read up on it)

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

And when all of the oil's gone, the world's leading supplier of biodiesel will be?

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Oblio]

If the original poster has any links discussing this theory, I would be interested in seeing them. That "Regan bankrupted the USSR" meme seems strong, and honestly, plausable. But I'm always interested in doing some armchair history theorizing. :)

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact is, reagan did NOT bankrupt them. He played no real role in all this. They were bankrupted in the 70's. Reagan kept them alive by removing the grain embargo and restoring much of the trade that Nixon and Carter took off. BTW, I did not give near enough credit to another who took down the USSR; Gorby, himself. Many within russia "blame" him for losing the war. In the end, he simply opened up the books and that was enough to bring it down.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[WindBourne]

Well, wikipedia is based more upon the facts rather than political rhetoric. go down to the section of "Problems of economic planning" that talks about the USSR economy during the 50's, 60's, and 70's. This is based on documents that have been obtained as well as information gleaned from the time. The country bankrupted itself due to its command economy, but that was in the 60's and 70s, not in the 80's. The 80's was a time of trying to save itself. forunately, Gorby came along rather than another Brezhnev or Andropov, who would have rather gone out with a bang, so to speak.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The truth is probably in the middle somewhere.... death by 1,000 cuts.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to be generally assumed in the financial markets that the US will no longer be the economic world leader by about 2030-2040. The US is now entering a period of decline, like the British Empire.

The problem is the now obvious tendency of the US to start wars for internal political reasons. I suspect that as America becomes more powerless in the economic world we will see more military actions in a vain attempt to boost America's image of itself. These will be expensive - no-one else will fund them, so I suspect we will see pretty blatent attempts to seize natural resources in an attempt to stave off financial ruin.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[marcosdumay]

To make it short: I can see no safe way for the United States to go down.

And that bothers me. But probably you'll just ignore Brazil, or buy its government somehow. Either way changes almost nothing, so it doesn`t bother me that much.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[WindBourne]

Well, I would rather not see us go down. We do not need to. The problem is that our current politicians are corrupt and think only of themselves, rather than what is good for the nation.

In particular, this nation has several long term needs that we seem to ignore. Our deficit will crush us and prevent us from being able to change our path. Since Carter, none of the presidents have pushed to get us back to low-costs energy. In fact, Reagan/Poppa Bush/Clinton took near a laissez faire approach to our energy needs, but W. has actually pushed us hard core onto oil. For the last 4 years, he has basically pushed the idea of "cheap" oil which encourages consumers to move towards ineffieicent use of oil. Worse, his tax cuts have been geared towards pushing oil. Even his budgets cut alternative/nuke energy research, while increasing oil research. Yet, this is a dead-end for us. It can go nowhere. Since America has high labour costs, our only out is too have low-energy costs. That is impossible to obtain from oil. So we have to be nuke and alternative based to allow us to move to cheap manufactuering (lower labour, more automation).

The real answer is that W. is killing what alternatives we have for the future. He has the same vision of America that he has of Iraq. Basically, ignore the facts and logic reasoning and simply push the rose-color glasses. What is amazing is the he has learned nothing for the 2 companies that he bankrupted nor what he has done to Iraq.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea has been in the same trouble as the USSR forever, but they are still there. It isn't about bank account, but rather the institution. The USSR let plenty of their citizens die off before because they didn't have food. They fell (or hung on) for difference reasons.

Perhaps you should review the Great Depression and see how nation and economy aren't the same thing. Make sure you look at more than just the US.

Re:Knowledge based economy

[marcosdumay]

Just to clarify, in case you or someone else misunderstood: I don`t want the US to go down. Because there is no need for people to go bad, because there is nothing to gain and lots of economical problems, and because it isn`t safe.

But you are going down, and that is not only since Bush's administration (but Bush made it faster). And it is very hard for you to get up again.

Bought by Red Hat?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

Why is Red Hat buying politicians to expand the DMCA? Aren't they supposed to be the good guys?

Re:Bought by Red Hat?

[Lucractius]

Red $hat want to be the new microsoft... based on a wonderful world of linux interoperability where its THEIR stuff that works with anything ... and its cause everyone else makes it so for them...

I avoid Red $hat like the plauge it is... my loathing for it as a distribution of linux is placed only second behind Debian and their rift between reality, GNU only my ass ill take my open source and complile however i want... under any licence i want...

*proud Gentoo user*

Would it not be more cost effective

[Anonymous Coward]

... to just execute everyone who knows the differnce between the back and front of a monitor? Then we can finally realise the glorious offshoring of everything technical.

Re:Would it not be more cost effective

[quintesse]

The Khmer Rouge tried that and it didn't work for them either.

Re:Amerika - Why was the parent modded down?

[Mjlner]

For crying out loud!!! This guy points out that American freedom of speech is going through dire straits. And what do Slashdot moderators do? Mod him down, ie. silence him. That exactly proves how right he is. Do you really think that you somehow improve freedom of speech by silencing the voices pointing out that your first amendment rights are in deep trouble???

Throw my mom in jail!

[dotmax]

So i can have my mom sent off to camp exwray for the pages upon pages of Neil Boortz Fair Tax crap she's been transcribing?? Woohoo!!

Re:Throw my mom in jail!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then who will bring food to your cag^H^H^Hbasement?

Anybody else upset.

[Anonymous Coward]

That Red Hat is on the board of directors of some
organisation (SIAA) that supports this bill. I know
I will now be recommending any other linux vendor for
enterprise support.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[symbolic]

I find it rather ironic that Redhat would come within a mile of such a fetid mess. I'm also surprised (and quite saddened) that Sun Microsystems is involved.

Support http://www.ipaction.org/ - it might be one of the only practical ways to get something done about this kind of nonsense.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun being there is no surprise, they've been simultaneously trying to love us and kill us for years, now. RedHat though, they need to do something about that, pronto.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[azhrei_fje]

Wrong acronym for the organization. Instead, it's SIIA (Software Information & Industry Association), but you're right -- Mark Webbink from RedHat is the chairman of the board! Time for me to write some letters and make a phone call or two...

http://www.siia.net/membership/board.asp

Re:Anybody else upset.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not so surprising since they just *released* a pile of fetid mess called Fedora Core 5, which breaks programs left and right.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[PetriBORG]

If Redhat and Sun are really a part of this group then we can do better then boycot type actions. Redhat and Sun are part of the techies, they will respond to us. We just need to let them know what their group is doing in their name... I'd pull the facts to gether for a good old slashdoting but I'm out in like 10 mins...

So someone please pull the facts to gether so we can make a meaningful statement to these tech companies.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[pongo000]

Would you be so kind as to point us to where you found this endorsement by the SIAA? I've not seen any such endorsement on the SIAA site. I'm not accusing you of spreading FUD, but I am extremely interested in verifying for myself that Red Hat, Sun, etc. are actively supporting this bill.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[init100]

I've not seen any such endorsement on the SIAA site. I'm not accusing you of spreading FUD, but I am extremely interested in verifying for myself that Red Hat, Sun, etc. are actively supporting this bill.

It surely seems to be true:

• The article mentions SIIA halfway down the page.
• The SIIA board membership page lists Mark Webbink as the chair of the board.

So it certainly seems like it. I think that phone calls to everyone I know that uses RHEL would be in order.

Re:Anybody else upset.

[pongo000]

Thanks for the confirmation...suprisingly, nothing on the SIIA site about this (munged up the link earlier).

Re:Anybody else upset.

[mr_burns]

Yeah, I've been meaning to move my Asterisk box off of Red Hat for a while. Now this is definitely bumped up to the top of the to-do list. If they're crossing over to the dark side of the copyright/DMCA force, they're fired as far as vendors for my business. I encourage people to do the same.

MOD PARENT UP!!

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't usualy do this, but he is 100% correct. When are we going to stand up to this? Our forfathers did not fight and die for this!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[hackwrench]

major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian

What part of "The major parties sell themselves cheaply" don't you understand?

Say you're a libertarian

The nonvoters generally belong to no political leaning, not libertarian, not green, not anything, and the political system is so messed up, as far as anyone can tell, even the minor political parties will sell themselves cheaply.

Now computers will be illegal

[Bomarc]

From the article:

"Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. "

Now one can not make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess computers, as they are the primary tool for anticircumvention. (Copyright infringement). I've always wanted to sell software somewhere, available for download. If someone isn't authorized to download it (and does), contact MS and tell them that they are selling software that violates the DMCA, (by selling software the circumvents copy protection) and to stop selling all copies of Windows.

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[grimJester]

Don't worry. Trusted Computing will be out soon, and then you can legally own a computer again.

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't worry. Trusted Computing will be out soon, and then you can legally own a computer again"

and anyone who owns a old computer will be a terroist / criminal ?

so since most older computers are refurbished and resold to the poor

is that a way of making the poor and less well of outcasts
or a way of denying them the right to use technology

or ensureing that you have to have a system with drm
and pay for the right to use software / media that you own by silly
drm server subscriptions
and taking part in the drm monitoring of what you are doing ????

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[MooUK]

It's a way of making yet more money for the greedy monopolistic coroporations (note that a company can be monopolistic whilst not being in a true monopoly).

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[MSZ]

Own? No, unTrustworthy Computing removes a key part of the "ownership" concept - control, as you won't be in control of "your" computer. Thus, you won't really own it.

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[jeffasselin]

You think that's bad? That will make BRAINS illegal. Not that politicians or *AA members care since they don't have those.

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[marcosdumay]

It is a way to enforce DRM. That means that the poor will not have access to information at all, not just technology.

Re:Now computers will be illegal

[runderwo]

Smith is clearly confused. Anticircumvention tools would be copy protection tools. Isn't it great to know that the person pushing the bill has no idea what he is talking about in terms of the nomenclature?

Just apply the death penalty and be done with it..

[Joce640k]

Why pussy around with incremental steps in copyright law? We all know where it's heading...

last of accurate inf. comes from....... lou dobbs?

[Anonymous Coward]

yikes almighty. is there anything left worth keeping? kudos to mr. dobbs anyway.

meanwhile: the same corepirate nazi felons are STILL running US DOWn?

what a surprise? like corn passing through a bird's butt?

all they want is... everything. at what cost to US? not a pretty picture at all. quite infactdead from our viewpoint.

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

They've got the army, we don't

[hackwrench]

The second amendment is useless and completely ignored. Also, different segments of society write other segments of society off, speaking as one who has been written off.

The mental health profession in the USA is mainly to keep people who have been written off preoccupied. Once I refused to let them keep me preoccupied, they refused to have anything to do with me.

I wonder how long before...

[Joce640k]

"Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction."

I wonder how long before the first "Laptop computer bought at government auction was full of mp3 files" story appears...

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or are people, better yet, politicians forgetting what terrorism really is?

People often forget what terrorism really is: Useful for politicians.

But politicians never forget.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Znork]

You guys really need to get rid of the winner takes all system and get proportional representation. The vulnerability and failings of two-party democratic systems have become obvious; it's damn cheap to buy two candidates, and the purchasers know they wont have to buy anyone else.

The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[Zog The Undeniable]

Please explain how downloading a .torrent funds anyone at all.

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[ronanbear]

1 Rip collection of CDs and DVDs
2 Upload torrents to botnet
3 ???
4 Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[kripkenstein]

Well, I think their argument as a whole is bullshit, but it's pretty obvious what they would reply here. People download the torrent, some of them click on the links in the "IMPORTANT! READ THIS!" file included, and get their machine hijacked for profit (botted, adware, whatever).

The reason I call bullshit is that, until I see proof otherwise, I would assume that the money made off this would go to anything - organized crime, lone hackers, who knows. It is up to them to prove a connection to terrorism. But meanwhile they'll just keep making stuff up.

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[Duds]

That doesn't. It has been proved that one of the methods that crime syndicates do use to fund themselves is SELLING pirate DVDs.

Although as a proportion you're probably talking roughly on the level of "number of SUVs that have ever seen anything rockier than a slightly muddy road"

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[dbIII]

Please explain how downloading a .torrent funds anyone at all.

It's the thin end of the wedge. Today you're using a .torrent to download a Japanese fansub, but soon you'll sink to the depravity of downloading .terrorent files as part of a distributed global conspiracy to sell Micky Mouse child pornography (in defiance of copyright!) to pay for bags of nails to pack around explosives in suicide bombs.

It's just like the pornographic music I tell you - only it's more insidious because you don't have to buy a pornograph to play it.

The War Against Terror is sinking to new irrelevant lows - it's not just about picking on schoolgirls who wear headscarves anymore.

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[The_Mr_Flibble]

That's easy.

You download a torrent therefore not giving money to Big x corp
and because big x corps tax bill is going to be less they're not going to give as much to the government so they don't have as much money to fight terrorism therefore you would be funding terrorism.

(I am asumming that big x corp hasn't found/paid for some tax loophole that would allow it to pay the government a fraction of what it should.)

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[discerr]

My Jeep supports terrorists!!

Re:The old chestnut about funding terrorism

[Zog The Undeniable]

I am asumming that big x corp hasn't found/paid for some tax loophole that would allow it to pay the government a fraction of what it should.)

Now you're just being silly.

Bloody bull

[jer2eydevil88]

I'm sick... literally.... another ignorant government attempt to stop progressive technology from being created.... I want every representative to actually be forced to use a locked down drm enforced PC where they have to request permission to do anything from sending email to rebooting...

Re:Bloody bull

[Anonymous Coward]

I want them slowly lowered into a meat grinder while someone injects cement right directly into their cold, black hearts and then I want the remains lit ablaze and put out with donkey piss - televised on every channel and brodcast on every radio frequency, of course, as an example to the populace that politics as usual won't be tolerated in the future.

These people dont have sense of proportion

[unity100]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10. People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[RPoet]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

And if you do it again after you get out, you get 20 new years.

Tell me again how the U.S. is not a fascist regime?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[ag0ny]

People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress or legal services. It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.

They're taking advantage of this, and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, other than informing and educating as many people as you can. Do you think it's a coincidence that the education budget in the US is being cut?

I pity you Americans. Your country is going down the drain.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[ArsenneLupin]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Solution: kill the man who saw you steal that 20 bucks worth of software, if you think you have a 50% chance of not getting caught.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[aadvancedGIR]

...Be french in USA and use your right not to incriminate yourself for something you weren't even suspected of and risk death penalty.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Thats about right... What? You actually thought a life meant anything in this country? Life is a fucking commodity to these corporatist.

You're only worth what you can generate in income for these guys. If you die? Big fucking deal... if you cost them $20 dollars... you fucked up big time.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Mordaximus]

Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Ha, wrong! Steal it, and you get a minor charge like maybe shoplifting, or theft under $x. Copy it, and you get 10 years. The obvious solution is to stop copying software, and just steal it off of the store shelves.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[kaeru]

Well last week in Malaysia, a US government sponsored IPR enforcement roundtable had a presentation from the MPA the local equivalent of the MPAA.

Since the "value" of pirated IP was higher than that of narcotics, they stated that crime lords are moving into piracy industry from narcotics. They then put up a slide that put side by side figures showing that the punishment of IP theft was not a strong enough deterrent as compared to narcotics. As some of you may know, drug trafficking here in South East Asia carries a mandatory death sentence.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[unity100]

u.s. may not be a fascist regime, however it is clear that the current crowd in power in u.s. is turning it to one step by step

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[aralin]

You have just managed to define the basic problem of democracy and why it is not sustainable in the long run. Congratulations. None of the political systems are better or worse for they all allow for exploitation of those who don't have or don't know by those who do. Feeling somehow safe just because you are living in a democratic country is major foolishness.

What more, democracy is even more dangerous than some other forms, since you will always find more than half in numbers of those who don't know or don't have in your population to exploit so you can force whatever you want onto the population as a whole.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[someone300]

EFF or some other organisation that is trying to fight for the rights of US citizens need to get a good amount of airtime and marketing to try and educate the masses on what allowing these laws will do, and get everyone to oppose it so that they wouldn't dare to pass it.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

IMO the US represents more of a variation on the classic french monarchy. An almighty king who needs a group of nobility to help keep his power on the nation. Except that the king is replaced by an "elected" president and a bunch of "elected" members of parliament and various others. The nobility in this case are all those rich enough to buy their own politicians.

So what we need to do is to raise the funds to buy ("rent" might be a more correct term) our own politicians. So we can buy our own laws.
Or we could hire the A-team, which may be a more economic plan.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[sn00ker]

People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress

But if you did that, Mark Twain's comment wouldn't be nearly as funny - "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[scaryjohn]

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it.

I wasn't alive back in the 60's, but the Congressman from my hometown basically invented the un-germane rider. And now everyone does it. Back in the Gingrich days, they tried to stop riders to big appropriations bills, but I guess either the initiative failed or people found a loophole. Anyway, maybe our legislators need to pull a page from this playbook. Imagine a "Safeguarding Liberty for Our Children Act" that, y'know, pushes back on stuff like USAPATRIOT. I mean, it'll result in the Anti-Terrorism Drought Relief Act of 2442... but it looks like we're headed down that road anyway.

Now if only we had some legislators of our own.

Well, I guess we have Boucher... and it only takes one to introduce a bill. But you need more than that to get it passed.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Foobar of Borg]

Or we could hire the A-team, which may be a more economic plan.

No, I'm afraid they've already bought the A-Team. Soon, Mr. T will be coming out with an ad saying, "I pity the fool that supports terrorists!"

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Ilex]

EFF or some other organisation that is trying to fight for the rights of US citizens need to get a good amount of airtime and marketing

I agree but the problem is the people who own the airtime are the big media cartels. The very people the EFF oppose. There is no way Big Media Tm is going to give airtime to the EFF.

I've actually watched a BBC News Night interview where the EFF was talking about the ElcomSoft / Sklyarov DMCA fiasco. The interview was cut short after someone killed the satalite feed to the EFF.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

I pity you Americans. Your country is going down the drain.

Ah, yes, thank you. That's just what we need. The pity of some effette European who is blind to just how far down the shitter their own continent is.

Your position is easy to understand though. You can get worked up and mouthy on other countries problems- things you can't effect- and feel like you're doing something worthwhile. Of course, creating lame 'pity' posts on the internet are much easier than straightening your own country out, isn't it?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[dfenstrate]

What more, democracy is even more dangerous than some other forms, since you will always find more than half in numbers of those who don't know or don't have in your population to exploit so you can force whatever you want onto the population as a whole.

Democracy is a horrible form of government, with the sole benefit being all other forms of government are much, much worse.

The last thing any country in the world needs is to be ruled by an individual or a group that fancies themselves 'enlightened', 'intellectual' or 'anointed' for leadership. Such people are inevitably no better at anything than anyone else, they just have an unwarrantedly high opinion of themselves.

I'll take my chances with Democratic/Republic type governments, thanks. As a group, they have undisputably outperformed any other nation with a non-democratic government in pretty much every category that exists. Sure, the soviets made a good run of it, but they ultimately collapsed, didn't they?

And if you dare claim they would have succeeded if not for the US, if the US could bury them and not the other way around, that proves my point further.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[iminplaya]

It is apparent that many of the 'lawmakers' do not have any tint of the sense of 'proportionality'.

Of course they do. They just don't apply it here. Right now they are looking into the insterests of the growing private prison industry, where much of your new "affordable" labor will come from. This way they can say that they are bringing jobs back to America. As you can see, China will be setting the new world standard on civil rights, not the U.S. They long since abdicated their role as the standard bearers of freedom. Bush's reaction to the heckler of the Chinese president shows that he's embarrassed, ashamed of public displays of free expression and dissent. Most Americans probably are, also. Lou Dobbs had it right when he said, "And remember, there's a reason President Hu met with business leaders in Seattle first. He obviously knows who's really in charge of this country."

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're kidding yourself if you think the US won't ultimately collapse as well, don't you ?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[dfenstrate]

One can hope, and fight against a forseeable collapse. What else is there to do?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[dghcasp]

Kill a man, you get 20 years in jail. 'Steal' 20 bucks worth of software, you get 10.

Okay, now you're just fear-mongering. I rather doubt that any judge would impose the maximum sentence of ten years for $20 worth of software.

But following your example, there could be an interesting effect on tort law. If you got 10 years for $20 of software, and 20 for murder, then the effective value of a human life is $40. Throw that back in the face of a tort judgement like the $8m for coffee that was too hot at McDonalds.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Shajenko42]

Your position is easy to understand though. You can get worked up and mouthy on other countries problems- things you can't effect- and feel like you're doing something worthwhile.

Hmmm... I can't help but think there's some sort of response this should generate. Something about a pot and a kettle...

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Sj0]

Start learning Mandarin.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Sj0]

My country's in great shape; We've had a balanced federal budget for over a decade, we're experiencing massive growth, and we're the largest provider of crude oil to the United States in the world.

And your country is going down this tubes. I pity you guys.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[roman_mir]

Kill a man, get 20 years - this law is only there, because it makes the politicians look good to the rest of the population

Illegally distribute (or downloa) some mp3s, get 10 years - now this law is useful to the politician, because the copyright holder firms will provide funding (bribe) this politician.

Bribes are more personal and more immediately useful than looking good for some population.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Frozen Void]

That is abstract crime.Nothing is stolen from the vendor.You make a copy,maybe share to others,use it.
Now equate that with murder?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[jafac]

Back in the Gingrich days, they tried to stop riders to big appropriations bills, but I guess either the initiative failed or people found a loophole.

It's called (or WAS called) the "Line Item Veto".

Clinton never exercised it - but the fact that he HAD that power apparently had a tremendous impact.

Then the Supreme Court tossed it out as unconstitutional, in 2000.

GWB is on record as sharing that view, (that the LIV was unconstitutional), and applauded the decision.

GWB is also on record (within the past 6 months or so IIRC) of making statements to the effect that he'd like to see that power restored. (gee - unshackled congressional porkfest got yer deficit problems up?). See? He's a flip-flopper.

It sounds to me as if we need a balanced-budget amendment, with a rider that the president also gets the LIV. Fuck the SCOTUS.

And the rediculous thing is - for any lame riders, if the measure really needs to get passed, it can always be resubmitted as a separate bill. But then that would force Congress to actually read and vote on the item separately. So basically, the whole necessity for the LIV is based on the fact that congressfolk won't do their fucking jobs and show some spine.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[cpt kangarooski]

A line item veto would seriously upset the balance of power within the government. Right now, the President has to either accept or reject what Congress gives him as a whole. If he can pick and choose, then he's likely to exercise this power to favor only his own political allies. At least now groups within Congress can make agreements amongst themselves in order to get things done.

Besides which, concentrating power is dangerous. I'd rather have power spread out amongst the members of Congress than putting it all in one man.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[cpt kangarooski]

Meh. Mark Twain was a copyright maximalist. He would have loved this bill, because, with regard to copyright, he was an ass.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Bananas]

Wrong. They're smart and know very well what they're doing. The problem are the uninformed, uneducated masses who rush to vote for them as soon as any proposed new law has either "terrorism" or "children" attached to it. They're taking advantage of this, and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, other than informing and educating as many people as you can. Do you think it's a coincidence that the education budget in the US is being cut?

No, I don't. I grew up in the Reagan Years and watched as education was repeatedly cut over and over again to make way for defense spending. What we are experiencing now with Bush isn't new, it's old; it's just a continuation of the same policies, almost by the same people.

Frankly, the group of people in the current government are following a plan that has been described and layed out for many many years. The American occupation of Iraq is simply one in a series of numerous steps that are followed in a long checklist of things that these people feel need to happen to them soon. The end-game is not quite clear but we are more than half-way though it now; the permanent airbases in Iraq should be an indicator to anyone that there's more to this than meets the eye.

I pity you Americans. Your country is going down the drain.

Not all of us are sleepwalkers. Some of us are awake. But it's becoming more and more dangerous to do anything else other than to pretend to sleep. Those who are unfortunately making alot of noise right now will simply be marked for future reference (in a morbid way, I'm curious as to how that will play out - will they simply be rounded up quietly, vans being filled with people at 3am?). The rest of us - those who are keeping quiet - are making plans to leave. Know of some kind countries that allow American immigrants without alot of hassle?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

How do those Oil Reserves look?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a "Safeguarding Liberty for Our Children Act" that, y'know, pushes back on stuff like USAPATRIOT.

It would never pass. SLOCA? That doesn't spell anything. No cutsey acronym, no bill passage.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Grishnakh]

The rest of us - those who are keeping quiet - are making plans to leave. Know of some kind countries that allow American immigrants without alot of hassle?

Good question. Here's some ideas:

Australia and New Zealand - hard to immigrate to because of anti-immigration laws. But you should be able to get in with a big bankroll, or a tech job lined up. They're English-speaking, which is a big plus, and not too different from American culture. Also very underpopulated, which is nice if you want to live in the boonies. However, they (esp. Australia) seem to be America's lapdog currently, passing a lot of the same stupid laws.

Mexico - lots of American expatriates in the southern part, esp. Mexico City. Probably more a retirement destination, since there aren't exactly a lot of jobs or business opportunities there due to the terrible economy. It used to be that you couldn't own land there as a non-Mexican, although I think this may have changed recently. You'll have to learn Spanish, however.

Costa Rica - there's a lot of American companies setting up shop down there, and it seems to be much more stable than other Central American countries and have a decent economy unlike Mexico. I don't know much else, except you'll have to learn Spanish here as well.

Brazil - seems to be a rising economic power. Lots of land, growing economy. You'll have to learn Portuguese.

Canada - great place to live by most accounts, though people complain about the long waits for healthcare. Standard of living is high, though cost of living is high too. It's horribly cold in the east and central portions, but British Columbia is nice and fairly mild (and also more expensive). However, a HUGE problem with Canada is that its biggest trading partner is the USA; about 85% of its exports go there. So if the US economy collapses, the Canadian economy will go right along with it unless they fix this problem. Another big plus: you don't have to learn another language unless you move to Quebec, where you'd do well to learn French.

Various Western European countries - you'll have to learn other languages unless you go to the UK. I'm not sure how feasible immigration is however; I know your money doesn't go nearly as far there, and you can probably forget about owning a house.

Eastern Europe: you'd definitely have to learn a new language or two, but the cost of living is probably very low here.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

That gives me an idea: kill the retard that passed that bill in the first place, and I'll reimburse you with two free legit copies of Windows XP.

Any takers? Anyone want to raise me on that offer?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[aralin]

Democracy is a horrible form of government, with the sole benefit being all other forms of government are much, much worse.

I didn't say that there are any forms of government currently in effect that would be better than representative democracy.

The last thing any country in the world needs is to be ruled by an individual or a group that fancies themselves 'enlightened', 'intellectual' or 'anointed' for leadership. Such people are inevitably no better at anything than anyone else, they just have an unwarrantedly high opinion of themselves.

Oh, so you are describing again what I think is wrong with democracy, where the group you describe are the elected representatives.

I'll take my chances with Democratic/Republic type governments, thanks. As a group, they have undisputably outperformed any other nation with a non-democratic government in pretty much every category that exists. Sure, the soviets made a good run of it, but they ultimately collapsed, didn't they?

Actually, that is not true. The autoritative meritocracy that is currently rulling China under the guise of "communist party" is outperforming all the current democractic governments for some reason, including the government of India, which had a very lucky draw with some good leaders.

And if you want to claim anything about US success, let me remind you that all China needs to do to kill US economy is to put all the US dollars they hold in circulation all at once.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

Better solution: Kill those who propose to make "stealing" $20 worth of software worth 10 years of jail time

/knockknockKNOCK
//Er, gotta go...bye!

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[alphakappa]

I pity you Americans too - not because the rest of the world is better (most of it is worse), but because you have such a great country that you are hell bent on ruining. Everything that makes you 'different' such as freedom of speech and personal rights are being taken away right under your nose and you can't stop it. If this is the trend, then how different will the United States be from so many other countries that have governments and societies that are currently looked down upon for their backwardness? Will you still be able to say with pride that you are an American?

I am not saying this in an condescending or sarcastic tone. I'm saying this with the concern of a person who loves the United States for all its good qualities and dislikes the path it is following now.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[jafac]

I'd rather have power spread out amongst the members of Congress than putting it all in one man.

I'd rather have the power myself, and with all of my fellow citizens. But since we all can't be congressmen (who has the time?) we select representatives to do it for us. The problem is - these fuckers won't do their jobs.

Do I necessarily want to mess with the balance of powers between congress and the white house? No, not really - but the alternative seems to be letting them borrow and spend amounts with as many zeroes as they can cram onto a sheet of paper. How can we reign them in? They seem immune to any voter feedback, and they seem to only answer to those who get them elected: ie. large corporate donors.

Surely you wouldn't suggest campaign finance limits?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[dfenstrate]

Oh, so you are describing again what I think is wrong with democracy, where the group you describe are the elected representatives.
Yeah, but we can get rid of them under our system when we tire of them. Besides, in the US we all think our politicians are scum anyway, which I think is a healthy attitude to have. IIRC, in England they actually refer to their politicians as 'their betters' with no irony. England is a country of Buearocracy run amok if there ever was one.

The autoritative meritocracy that is currently rulling China under the guise of "communist party" is outperforming all the current democractic governments for some reason, including the government of India, which had a very lucky draw with some good leaders.

It's true their growth has been tremendous the past decade or so, but we'll see how long that trend lasts long term. I suspect their authoritarinism may hit a wall in national development at some point. Only time will tell.

And if you want to claim anything about US success, let me remind you that all China needs to do to kill US economy is to put all the US dollars they hold in circulation all at once.

If they do that, they devalue the dollar, correct? That means our goods become much cheaper and hence other countries are more likely to buy them. Moreover, imports become very expensive for the US, meaning we'll buy less from overseas.... including China.

It's a double edged sword, and no country can screw us without screwing themselves economically.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Sj0]

Second largest in the world. Besides that, we've got a thriving economy based on industry, technology, minerals, and more -- a highly diverse, modern economy.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[cpt kangarooski]

I'd rather have the power myself, and with all of my fellow citizens. But since we all can't be congressmen (who has the time?) we select representatives to do it for us. The problem is - these fuckers won't do their jobs.

I agree, but that's why we need to select better fuckers.

No, not really - but the alternative seems to be letting them borrow and spend amounts with as many zeroes as they can cram onto a sheet of paper. How can we reign them in?

What makes you think a President would be any better? Bush evidently can't spell 'veto' much less use his veto power, and Congress is dominated by his own party.

Surely you wouldn't suggest campaign finance limits?

No, that would violate the First Amendment. I think that there is a big problem with all this, but we haven't found a good solution yet. And we also need to remember that we will probably never have all that good a government. I'd rather have late trains than a Mussolini.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Anonymous Coward]

And a Conservative government -- albeit with weak control in Parliament -- which is determined to take Canada the same way that the conservative President of the USA is taking your southern neighbor. Congratulations!

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[Sj0]

You've made a common mistake: You see, our government is made up of Canadians. Their government is made up of Americans.

This is of critical importance; Also important is the fact that much of the country will crucify the conservatives if they mess up our dozen years of surpluses. Finally, the Progressive Conservatives in Ontario proved that Canadian conservatives have the ability to govern without destroying anything.

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[laughingcoyote]

No, that would violate the First Amendment.

I'm as strong a believer in the First Amendment as you'll ever hope to meet, but maybe you can explain something to me? Because so far sure in the hell no one's been able to.

If I slip a few bucks to a cop, a customs official, a safety inspector, a judge, a member of a jury, a prosecutor, an IRS auditor, or pretty much any other public official I can conceive of, in order to "convince them to see my point of view", I am not "exercising my First Amendment rights"-I am passing a bribe, an action which should be and rightfully is illegal.

What's different about doing it when a Congressman is on the receiving end? What is it about that that moves it from "bribe" to "free speech with zeroes at the end"?

Re:These people dont have sense of proportion

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, elected officials differ from the ones you listed, in that pretty much the entire point of electing them is to have people in office that support your point of view. Many non-elected officials (such as federal judges) are not elected, in no small part, to isolate them from political concerns. We want them to act objectively, rather than in response to the wishes of the public.

Furthermore, the context of an election is different from that of simple bribery. If I want candidate A to be elected, in a race between A and B, then a major factor will be getting A's name and position out there so that people can make an informed decision. This generally takes money. You need money to print campaign literature, to finance travel, to pay non-volunteering staff, to rent office space, to buy ad time on radio or tv, etc. Trade in kind (e.g. free goods or services) are basically equivalents to the money that would otherwise be spent on them. Without money, the candidate won't be able to afford to engage in all that much speech.

While I could, as a supporter of candidate A, spend my own money, I may not have enough to pay for much. Furthermore, if each supporter uses the amount he'd otherwise contribute, it may not be used in an effective manner due to a lack of coordination between the numerous, often amateur, supporters. The most effective way for them to help their candidate is to let the candidate, who probably is the most informed as to the status and needs of his campaign, use the money directly. E.g. if candidate A feels that his campaign would best be served by getting a TV ad, he isn't being helped much if a thousand supporters each make $20 worth of xeroxes and put them up on telephone poles, especially if his supporters are geographically concentrated and would just be preaching to the choir.

Finally of course, giving money to someone can operate in a speech function all by itself. If I support candidate A, one way of my demonstrating this support is to donate money to his campaign. It's an expression of my support.

The best answer, I think, is to not regulate campaign spending, and to allow anonymous donations (since there's an important place in politics for anonymity), but to require as much disclosure as possible, and possibly to require the donations to be exhausted by the end of the campaign. This, I hope, would tend to divide campaign contributions, which are meant to be spent to get people into office, from bribes, which are meant to go directly into the pockets of the people in office.

It's never going to be perfect, but then, that tends to come with freedom. I don't like Illinois Nazis, but since I believe in free speech, I'm stuck with them.

Communists - terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirates are moving up in the world. Going from communists to terrorists.

Everything against the benefit of the few

[omeg]

It seems that according to the US government, everything that opposes the benefit of the few is ultimately one of the many forms of terrorism. This is the regime that the people you voted for are upholding. It bothers me that they can get away with it, but I guess that it's not possible for America to start using a pluriform multi-party system which I firmly believe would help keep the amount of insane propositions like this one at bay, like it effectively does in the Netherlands.

I guess that at this point there is not much pouting is going to do to help!

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[quintesse]

I agree, but it must be a moderately multi-party system, not the mess that Italy is in for example. 2 coalitions, one of 10 parties and one of 16! How they hell do they ever get anything done? :-)

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[rock_climbing_guy]

If you think our 2 party system is going anywhere anytime soon, you're insane. We don't have a voting system now that would allow 3rd parties to participate more precisely because the Demopublicans want to protect their power.

To be totally honest, I did vote for President Bush on the premise that a Republican leader might not blow away my tax money as quickly as a Democrat would, but I've been dissappointed. Quite frankly, I'm pissed off as hell about this law - I hope it never even gets a vote. I only hope that common sense prevails one of these days. It keeps looking more and more like the war on drugs, making criminals out of many American citizens who are not harming anyone.

Ah yes, over here in Hawaii where I'm writing this, it is now 12 AM. Thank you, slashdot, for giving me some nasty shit to sleep on.

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[Anonymous Coward]

>How they hell do they ever get anything done?

They don't. But that's a good thing.

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[Anonymous Coward]

>ike it effectively does in the Netherlands

But it doesn't. The so called pluriformity is very superficial and never a hindrance to idiotic laws.

Which is why we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. The decisions were made before any parliamentary discussion and the opposition parties only did a bit proforma protesting. At least 50% of the people were against but nearly all the parties agreed anyway.

Or the morphing of the SN into the BSN the first being the social/fiscal number with all sorts of privacy restrictions and the second being exactly the same number with all restrictions removed.

Or the passport having gained a different kind of photograph to make computerized facial recognition easier, about a year before the whole thing is even going to be discussed in parliament.

Retention laws on internet traffic, more phonetaps than the US.

Or the special judges to handle traffic violations caught on gatso's. (you're guilty! See if you can prove otherwise; no, we won't hand over any information that might lett you of)

Oh and when a prosecutor (Tonino) gets caught with childpron on his computer, it's not his fault and certainly no reason for prosecution. Different laws for different people, after all he's a good man doing a tough job.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Netherlands is simply better at sweeping all nastiness under the rug. That we're not a banana republic has to do with the climate, the real one, not the political.

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I support going to Afghanistan, since that is a legitimate and neccessary part of the 'war on terror' in my eyes, as long as we can keep any terrorists we find and not hand them over to the US.

Re:Everything against the benefit of the few

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that was a silly thing to do. Voting for Bush thinking he'd spend less money?

It's been showen over and over again that Republican administrations spend more money than the Democrats. The Republicans claim to be against "big government" but the fact is, government has "grown" more under them than anyone else. And that was long before Bush came into power.

What the Republicans want is control. People always accuse liberals of trying to control their lives, but the Republicans are the ones who actually do it. Look at all the laws they're pushing through to control us. They want to be able to control every little facet of our lives.

Let's see.. Republicans: Want to control our entire lives.

Democrats: Want to give us all free health care and an education.

Gee, who should you be most worried about? I'd much rather see my tax dollars wasted helping people than taking away my rights! Under Bush we're ceasing to be a free country. Bush and his crew don't believe in freedom, they believe in the all mighty dollar, and they believe that those with the most bling should be in control of everything. Everything!! hell pretty soon they'll be telling you when and where you're allowed to take a crap!

How to control the populace

[Bushcat]

1) Write laws that will catch everyone sometime.
2) Trawl for lawbreakers at your leisure.
3) Pick 'em up when it's suitable.
Someone needs a whack with a cluestick. It's not the way to run a (decent) country.

Re:How to control the populace

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed...
4) Profit!!!!111

Re:How to control the populace

[penguinoid]

Sometimes a cluestick isn't enough. A giant foam cluebat or a clue-by-four may be more appropriate for this situation.

Re:How to control the populace

[AFCArchvile]

Or, to summarize in one word: Fear.

We already live in a country where law enforcement personnel become conditioned into packs of jackbooted thugs. Now, with laws being passed that define a greater percent of the population as criminal, those thugs will have even more cannon fodder, and more money squeezed out of the innocent as well as the truly guilty.

One line from a National Geographic article on Tiananmen Square comes to mind (paraphrasing because I can't find the text): "For every one person executed... thousands were scared into silence." Fear. This is the goal of the Bush administration, and effectively of every government that ever existed and ever will exist. They assume that respect for the law is dead, so their goal now is to govern on fear alone.

Joseph McCarthy is easy to remember

[donscarletti]

Oh, you mean that senator guy? Sorry, every time I bring up McCarthy to anyone in my general area, if they think of anything, it's that puppet.

His name is easy to remember. It is a well known fact that at least half of all known evil historical figures have been called Joseph. For example, there is McCarthy and Stalin who terrorized both superpowers with witch-hunts, Dr Josef Mengele who vivisected Jews and Dr Joseph Goebbels who took care of Nazi Germany's propaganda campaign. I have heard it speculated that Gengis Kahn had his friends call him "Joseph" when he sacked Beijing and that Caligula was born "Gaius Josephius Caesar Germanicus" before changing his name to take people by surprise. Ok, maybe I just made those last two up.

The new order

[suv4x4]

Don't buy food or equipment, don't use services or entertainment, don't invest in a business or an idea. Collect all you make and bribe your local politician. The only sane way you can be sure your money won't support terrorism.

Scare Tactics

[zaguar]

OH NOES!! TEH TEROORISTS IS COMING!!!one1! WITH PIRATED DVD'S

Sorry about that, but this is going too far. Terrorism and child pornography are bad, yes, but attempts to prevent them are not worth the loss of our rights. In the other story about this kind of thing, I forgot who said it, but it went something like this - "Terrorism and Child Porn are the root passwords to the constitution". It's a sad time for the land of the free.

Re:Scare Tactics

[BrynM]

OH NOES!! TEH TEROORISTS IS COMING!!!one1! WITH PIRATED DVD'S

It's worse than you know. They're coming on PONIES. Freekin' TERRORISTS ON PONIES! PINK PONIES! Be afraid.... you will be killed if you giggle at them.

Re:Scare Tactics

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got it!
We'll fund a study which shows that combatting child pornography supports terrorism, and similarly, combatting terrorism helps child pornographers.
We'll have the politicians in an infinite loop of rhetoric in no time!

Re:Scare Tactics

[Trouvist]

It's not much of a home of the brave anymore, either.

Re:Scare Tactics

[init100]

Terrorism and child pornography are bad, yes, but attempts to prevent them are not worth the loss of our rights.

<sarcasm>
So you support the terrorists and child pornographers then?
</sarcasm>

Re:Scare Tactics

[Maximilio]

Terrorism is the new Communism. Catch-all scare tactic for fearmongers.

RIAA and copyright protection

[Jugalator]

It would be interesting to see how far RIAA is willing to go with penalties for copyright infrigement. They're in favor of this one, sure, but how would media be protected if they wrote the laws, and how would the penalties look like? Only after knowing this would one truly know how disconnected they are from reality and proportional penalties to crimes.

Re:RIAA and copyright protection

[rock_climbing_guy]

Wow, your comment reminds me of the question about big-government politicians. If they think that "the rich" don't pay enough taxes, how much taxes do they think would be appropriate? How big should the federal budget be?

Re:RIAA and copyright protection

[The_Mr_Flibble]

I think that that is an interesting question.

On the one hand the need to actually prove guilt would be required before they could starting handing out their lawsuits to "recover" lost revenue.

But on the other hand it may eliminate copyright infringment and the riaa would have nothing left to blame their lackluster sales on.

What causes terrorism

[Shohat]

Not IP , or child porn , lack of prayer or homosexuals .
WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .
So how about the WMI&RFP restriction Act ?

Re:What causes terrorism

[Flyboy Connor]

WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .

From the point of view of a European, "Warmongering Idiots" and "Religious Fundamentalist Psychos" are great descriptions of the current Bush administration.

Hmmm...

Re:What causes terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism

I know I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to the news lately, but when did Bush declare war on himself?

Re:What causes terrorism

[kfg]

WarMongering Idiots on one side and Religious Fundamentalist Psychos on the other cause terrorism .

How do you tell them apart?

KFG

Re:What causes terrorism

[sethstorm]

Maybe he didnt declare war on himself, but we do get close with declaring war on his own people with financial means. Besides, how else do you make a readily manipulated populace if you dont take away their financial threat as well as remove the means to meaningful post-secondary education to escape it?

Re:What causes terrorism

[jafac]

Religious Fundamentalist Psychos is a thricely-redundant term.

Say it with me folks..

[Anonymous Coward]

HAIL THE LEADER! VICTORY! WELFARE!

Actually, that's an understatement because a regime like the one hitler envisioned could only dream of bullshit like this.

If this gets passed and now that people are finding out the extent of howmuch they're being screwed over, there's going to be a lot of violence when masses of people start getting arrested and thrown in jail and all of their belongings being taken by the government/corporations as "evidence" against them and then being drained of all financial resources.

Instead of debtors prisons, it's going to be "IP theft" prisons that will start popping up all over.
This country is at an end. The government has failed us, democracy is dead. simple as that.
Think bush is going out in 2008? hell no. why do you think he's so unconcerned with his dropping approval rating? he's gonna pull a fast one in '08, or is going to do as much damage as possible before he gets kicked out.

Next election, vote independent. not libertarian either. Independent actually lets you choose officials instead of parties. ...well if there is a next election... which I do have serious doubts there will be one.

The idiots and greedy assholes have won. there are too many of them in power, and since most of their power is protected by terrorism and anti-terrorism measures, laws like this will continue until there are no laws, just punishments based personal likes and dislikes and against dissent of any type.

Australians, Canadians, British, Europeans, and Indians; don't think you're safe either. You all do trade with us and the groups who support this have interests in your countries as well, meaning you all will have similar laws in place soon as well, plus with australia, you have to follow any copyright laws we create because of the FTA.

The era of freedom is over. As in history, freedom only lasts so long until those in power see it as no longer necessary to their interests. again will be centuries of worldwide oppression and slavery.

Re:Say it with me folks..

[ringo74]

The most terrible thing is that you are absolutely right. The US was the first country to develop modern democracy, and you are now just the first to slip into a new era of obscurantism and oppression. The rest of the world will follow. Here comes a new era where free (as in unrestricted) knowledge is forbidden, where unaligned research or discoveries are crimes and their authors endure hallucinatingly high penalties. One upon a time these people were accused of "wizardry" and "unfaithfulness", now they will be known as "IP thieves" and "infringers".

I remember that when I read 1984 for the first time, those ubiquotous screens vomiting nonstop propaganda that could not be turned off (and attempting doing so constitued a crime) seemed to me as a rather lame attempt at cheap horror effect in an otherwise brilliant book. Now this law introduces exactly that, and it's not stopping there. This whole idea of punishing "copyright violation attempts" regardless of actual result or success is the last stop before punishing thoughtcrime, and the only reason we don't have the latter is just because the technology is not yet ready.

These are sad times, and it's hard to keep any hope. But trying to do so is our duty. Trying desperately to find some optimism, I'd say these are agonic spasms of a dying hysterical benemoth. Just like Hitler became agressive beyond any limit as his Reich was collapsing, these so-called "owners" of the so-called "IP" know their time is over. The development of the Internet is the next Industrial Revolution, and they are desperately fighting for survival, just like the oil lamp industry tried anything and everything to prevent the development of electricity. There is a story about a city in Germany in the early 20th century, where the City Council passed a bill against electric light for a number of reasons, including the fact that it would be a harm to people's health (it would facilitate traffic and outdoor life, thereby exposing people to bacteria and diseases), that it would be anti-patriotic (there would be no difference between an illuminated national celebration and an ordinary night) and anti-Christian (God decided that night shall be dark). I don't remember which city that was, but the story is true.

(Un)fortunately, the politicians forget that what creates jobs and economic growth are mostly SMBs and young, innovative companies, not the **AA and the few clients of lobbying firms. Implement laws like this, and you'll throw the whole US economy (and, by extension, the economy of the Western world) into an abyss. Our societies will be washed from the IP-lawyers, politicians and their customers. The sooner it happens, the better.

By the way: IANAL, but doesn't the US constitution say something like a government who does not act in the people's best interest ("government by the people, for the people") is illegitimate and should be thrown away? Is there (theoretically) a possibility to attack such insane laws from this angle?

Re:Say it with me folks..

[BalanceOfJudgement]

If by "attack" you mean by exercising my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, then yep.

Imagine the apocalyptic image of millions of dead Americans who took up arms against a rising dictatorial regime. I don't think even the worst of the worst could stomach it.

Re:Say it with me folks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine the apocalyptic image of millions of dead Americans who took up arms against a rising dictatorial regime. I don't think even the worst of the worst could stomach it.

A full on rebellion and the hysterical attempt to suppress it would gut and destroy this country. And that's assuming that the tyrants won. So provoking one would kinda be a lose-lose situation for them. One hopes that they are smart enough to realize this.

Bin Laden

[sikandril]

So I guess this is how Bin Laden made all his money, selling burned dvd's of "rush hour 2" at the Kuwaiti main bazaar...

This is a low-brow, ignorant argument made by an ignoramus for an audience of compliant sheep. Quite frankly it taints the credibility of the American legislative system. Could you please tell me what is exactly going on in Congress? Too much Viagra? Too little connection with reality?

Re:Bin Laden

[Anonymous Coward]

No this isn't it.

Bin laden's terrorist learned to fly using a pirated version of Microsoft Flight Similator.

That's making them terrorists: not paying a license.
I'm wondering if you still could classify them as terrorists if they bought all there software licenses?

Re:Bin Laden

[PhxBlue]

Quite frankly it taints the credibility of the American legislative system.

You're presuming the American legislative system still has credibility. I don't think I could say it has, at least not since 2001.

This is a low-brow, ignorant argument made by an ignoramus for an audience of compliant sheep.

Which is exactly why it will work.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[quintesse]

I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!! (By your example, 1% the first year, 3% the third, except that elections are only once every 4 years, so it would take 40 years to get up to at least 10%, I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW)

Translation of bill:

[stunt_penguin]

Copyright violation doubleplus-ungood. Seek maximum punishment.

All these Josephs, who can keep track...

[hackwrench]

...now if his name had been Charlie.

Also, in America, they're so hopped up on Joseph being the father of Jesus and Joseph, the guy that brought Israel into Egypt in the first place, both of which is thought of as good things, that they want to forget any bad people with the name "Joseph".

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm sorry, but 1% or 1.2% is not going to make a dent in the conviction of the larger parties. As long as you don't get up to double digits you ARE throwing your vote away. But I don't see anyone waiting 40 years to get there!!

What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote.

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

I know nobody who is willing to wait that long when things need to change NOW

And by voting for either major party NOW, they guarantee that there will be no significant changes EVER.

string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Savage-Rabbit]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? Marijuana = terrorism?

<rant>
They are simply sticking with what worked in the hysteric political climate of the recent past when all you needed to do to get a law passed was prefix the words 'anti terrorist' to every occurrence of the word 'legislation' and where you only had to accuse annoying groups of people of having 'links to Al Quaeda' or having 'Islamist sympathies' (Incidentally, what does that make the US based Christian fundamentalists? Christianists!?!) to ensure you could declare open season on them. This is probably just an attempt to see how far you can take this tactic. Fortunately people are getting wise to the ploy, it is only unfortunate it has taken so long.
</rant>

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[hey!]

You, sir, have a pre-9/11 mentality.

In case anyone is wondering, that was a compliment.

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Lucractius]

*seconds the compliment*

time people realised that "post-911" is the biggest pile of garbage ... we are experiencing not some kind of ungodly "terrorist age" ... its an age where big fat goverment thinks it can keep pissing people off... and thats whats causing the terrorism... address the cause not treat the symptoms people

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[DerGeist]

Offtopic, I know, but I wanted to point out that "Islamist" isn't just a word we made up to describe a follower of Islam, it's the actual accepted term for a fundamentalist Muslim.

It comes from Islamism, describing a fundamentalist Islamic revival movement characterized by a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran and application of Islamic ideals to all aspects of life. Islamist, then, is the term for a fundamentalist follower of Islam. Today it is used as an almost derogatory phrase, though, thanks to popularization and use from the current administration.

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[A.Gideon]

I don't see where anyone here has mentioned that Gonzales has made the news recently a couple of times with ideas that seem designed to annoy people already opposed to the Bush Administration but which might pull along the weak-minded simpletons such as those blaming Iraq for the 2001/9/11 attack (see here for another example).

In other words, this looks designed to distract opponents and raise those approval ratings fast approaching the negative. I smell Rove in this.

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be terribly young, naive, or both. There's nothing particularly unique about this type of "hysteria" in any nation's history during periods of war. You need only look at our own post WWII. For all the evils of McCarthyism, the Red Scare was very real and many subversives were undermining the very fabric of our Democracy within it. There were more real threats discovered and thwarted than those abused from that heightened frenzy, and not directly by his hands alone either, but by Congress at large in co-operation with, yes, all levels of the Executive Branch.

When the evil subsides and the terrorist threat lessens, you can go back to your regularly scheduled program of "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Civil Liberties and the Constitution itself has always flexed and bent during such times, and promptly flattened back into form shortly thereafter. Grow up already...

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Savage-Rabbit]

It comes from Islamism, describing a fundamentalist Islamic revival movement characterized by a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran and application of Islamic ideals to all aspects of life. Islamist, then, is the term for a fundamentalist follower of Islam. Today it is used as an almost derogatory phrase, though, thanks to popularization and use from the current administration.

I agree, I recently saw an interview with a high ranking Turkish politician (a woman and a secular moslem) who objected to the use of the word 'Islamist' by a reporter, firstly since it is silly and secondly because it makes it very easy to draw the false conclusion that Islamism=Islam thus leading many non moslem people, who often are non to familiar with Islam for various reasons, to believe that all moslems are militant fundamentalists which is in no way true. Bin Laden and his ilk are a small minority which, although they enjoy a certain amount of hero worship among a limited community of Islamic fundamentalists and other religio-political extremists, are viewed as a bunch of murdering crackpots by most other muslims. It should be kept in mind that Al Quaeda and friends, seem to make no distinction between what they consider to be 'unworthy'/'heretical' moslems and the hated 'Christian Westerners'/'Crusaders' and kill both with equal relish (I am an agnostic European Westerner from a Christian culture myself). Basically I fail to see why the good old and un-ambivalent term 'militant Islamic fundamentalist' had to be replaced with 'Islamist' which is much more generic and seems designed to give rise to confusion among the uninformed.

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[doublem]

Fortunately people are getting wise to the ploy, it is only unfortunate it has taken so long.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Oh, that's a good one.

Har! HA! HO!

Stop, stop, I can't take much more.

No one's gotten wise to the ploy. Bush's numbers are low because we're still in Iraq long after the infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo shoot.

If he declared victory this week and pulled the troops out his number would shoot through the roof again. And you know what, they'd stay there unless FOX news started covering the destruction and violence going on after we left.

By and large, the people who were fooled before are still fooled now. They're just tired of war.

Re:string annoyingPeople=terrorist;

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Bin Laden and his ilk are a small minority which, although they enjoy a certain amount of hero worship among a limited community of Islamic fundamentalists and other religio-political extremists, are viewed as a bunch of murdering crackpots by most other muslims.

Murdering crackpots they may be, but they speak the truth and remind the larger community of the blood on our hands. If we hadn't screwed up the region so badly in the past century, they wouldn't have so much to bitch about.

Right question:

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like.
I wonder if the Bush Administration cares.

answer: not as long as they can keep getting away with it.

Why not just get it over and done with...

[Kjella]

...and introdouce this "justice" system and get it over with. Five years, ten years, death penalty... Seems to me that Congress had watch too much TNG and think that'll make the world happy and crime-free.

First age long prison sentences, then "convicted felon", "sex offender"... I'm sure it won't be long before they invent a "pirate registry" too. I read in the recent discussion about kiddie porn about a woman who had been convicted at 10 for "molesting" her younger siblings and had to stay on the sex offenders' registry until she was 37. I call that "fucked for life", why not put a horrified little ten year old girl in the chair while you're at it.

There's always been a good principle in law enforcement that the penalty should fit the crime. In the US, it seems to me that the current idea is "Ok so we got a million criminals and only catch hundred, but we're going to make up for it by making those hundred pay for it." as if that would make things just. That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law. Because you can't reach those you want to reach, you lash out at those few you can. That still doesn't make it just for those that get away nor for those that get caught.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not justice, that is simply revenge, even if it's incorporated in law.

The US justice system has long been a tool for revenge; just look at the death penalty. It's value as a deterrent has long been discredited, which belies it's true purpose--to make true patriotic god-fearing folk feel nice.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Aceticon]

In the US, power is currently in the hands of the moral descendants of the same religious groups that were burning witches in the 18th century.

It's hardly a surprise that criminalizing "morally deviant" (whose moral?) behaviours and "payback justice" are all the rage around there.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[init100]

Ok so we got a million criminals and only catch hundred, but we're going to make up for it by making those hundred pay for it.

And by the way, let's make up for it by letting those that don't even have a computer, let alone an internet connection, pay. And as usual, the RIAA is leading the way.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[penguinoid]

The US justice system has long been a tool for revenge; just look at the death penalty.

What's wrong with the death penalty for the worst offenders? Some people deserve to die, IMNSHO. What worries me is that "life in prison" is not considered a death (by old age) penalty, so it is much too easy.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Abcd1234]

What's wrong with the death penalty for the worst offenders? Some people deserve to die, IMNSHO.

Thus proving the GP's point that the US justice system, and the death penalty in particular, exists to dole out revenge, plain and simple. You may not want to call it that because "revenge" is an ugly word, but that is the simple truth of the matter.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[powerlord]

"

What's wrong with the death penalty for the worst offenders? Some people deserve to die, IMNSHO.

Thus proving the GP's point that the US justice system, and the death penalty in particular, exists to dole out revenge, plain and simple. You may not want to call it that because "revenge" is an ugly word, but that is the simple truth of the matter.

"

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm in favor of the death penalty but against using it.

Most murderers might be innocent, they might reform, or they might be slime, for all I know. The crime may have been a singular occurence, a tragic accident, something beyond their control, or performed in the heat of the moment. In any event, for the opportunity to NOT kill an innocent person, it makes sense for the state to take on the responsibility to feed and house an inmate.

On the other hand, very rarely (less rarely than I'd like), there are truly agregeous individuals who decide that the value of anothers life is of no consequence to them. The chance that they might reform, while certainly existing, is far from overwhelming. Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals? Why should guards be forced to risk their lives to deal with such individuals? Why should those who view others lives, repeatedly, and consistently as having no value, be treated any differently?

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Grishnakh]

Actually, people in the US used to have a very different view of this. Back in the 1700s, during Colonial days, prisons didn't exist because the normal view was that life in prison was a cruel and unusual punishment. Jails (Gaols) existed, but only to keep people until their trial. After the trial, punishment was carried out swiftly, be it branding, locking up in the stocks, or execution. No one spent years rotting in a cell, going slowly insane or turning into an even more hardened criminal.

So while you may call it "revenge", it can also be argued that a death sentence is actually better than a long prison term, depending on your point of view.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Abcd1234]

Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals? Why should guards be forced to risk their lives to deal with such individuals? Why should those who view others lives, repeatedly, and consistently as having no value, be treated any differently?

Simple. Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large. Alternatively, I would argue that the existence of the death penalty demeans the society, as, collectively, those people are saying that a human life is subject to the whims of a jury.

Too wishy-washy? How 'bout the fact that wrongful convictions have occured many times, and in recent history, no less, despite the existence of high tech forensic tools, etc. Are you willing to bet the life of an innocent human being in order to save a few dollars?

But wait, that's the best part. It doesn't save any money. Combine the cost of the actual execution with the cost of the appeals process, housing the individual on death row, etc, and guess what? It costs as much, if not more, than it does to simply imprison the person for life.

But that's not all! The death penalty isn't even handed down consistently. Racial minorities are far more likely to get the death penalty than a caucasian individual. Which only furthers the point that, when it comes down to it, humans are flawed and shouldn't be allowed to determine who lives and who dies.

Finally, the death penalty doesn't actually deter crime. The US, despite the existence of the death penalty, has higher violent crime rates than most other developed nations. So, if it doesn't work, why bother?

And yet support of the death penalty persists. Despite the fact that it doesn't deter crime. Despite the fact that it's expensive. Despite the risks of killing innocent individuals thanks to wrongful convictions. Despite the fact that it's morally reprehensible. And why? Revenge. Which brings us back to the original point.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[AK Marc]

Why should society bare the burden of feeding and housing such individuals?

Well, for one, the cost to execute them (under the current system) is greater than housing them securely until they expire naturally (under the current system). So, if you are worried about the burden on society, you should be fighting against the death penalty. The extra automatic appeals and legal fees associated with such a sentence negates the cost savings of terminating their stay in prison earlier than natural.

But, if you just want the ability to exact revenge, then you should be all for the death penalty.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Back in the 1700s"

The fact you need to go back that far in time to justify something should tell you something.
The death sentence is barbaric. It's continued use is a testimate to our own incompetence.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[deserttrail]

Upfront disclaimer: I do NOT support the death penalty because, as you pointed out, I do not believe that it provides any deterrent sufficiently greater than life in prison.

Because, if an individual does not have the moral right to kill, then neither does society at large.

The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense. If I have reasonable cause to believe that my life is being threaten, I may use lethal force in response. One could argue that if an individual has this right then society also has this right.

In the case of a serial killer, one could argue that executing this person is society "protecting" itself (including prison guards and other inmates if this person were merely incarcerated). This argument in not enough to persuade me as I think incarceration does sufficiently protect society from this person, but I believe that it is valid enough to negate the sentence above.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[hobbit]

Alternatively, I would argue that the existence of the death penalty demeans the society, as, collectively, those people are saying that a human life is subject to the whims of a jury.

Whereas many thousands of human lives are subject to the whims of just a single individual, simply because they happen to live on top of a rapidly-diminishing pool of oil.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Abcd1234]

The problem with this statement is that an individual DOES have the moral right to kill under certain circumstances, namely: self-defense.

You're absolutely right. If my person is in immediate danger, I have the right to defend myself. The problem is, this analogy doesn't hold for society at large, at least not in this scenario.

The death penalty is more analogous to me tracking down a convicted pedophile who's living in my area and shooting them. In both cases, there is a perceived *potential* threat, but no actual immediate threat, and in order to eliminate it, the individual is killed. And guess what, if I did that, my actions would be amoral and illegal. The same can be said for capital punishment.

Your analogy is more applicable to a society at war (in particular, a war in response to a threatening action by another nation). But, of course, that's not what we're discussing here.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[deserttrail]

Actually, I'd say it was more analogous to tracking down said pedophile and molesting him. The death penalty, at least in this country, is an "eye for an eye" type of punishment.

The line between "potential" threat and "actual" threat is blurry at best. When does that man approaching me with a knife transition from potential to actual threat? Is the fact that he has a knife threatening enough? Or do I wait until he makes some threatening gesture? What if his first threatening gesture is to plunge the knife into my gut? When should I react with deadly force to protect myself? A serial killer who has murdered several people could conceivably be thought of as a man who has just slashed at society with a knife. If a man slashed a knife at you, would you use deadly force against him to protect yourself? Or would you attempt to subdue him with non-lethal force because he only has the *potential* to take another swipe at you?

I'm not saying that it's right to execute people. My views are quite the opposite. It's just that when you make such huge generalizations, such as applying individual rights to "society," it opens the door to many interpretations. I agree with everything else you said in your prior post. It's just that, in my mind, that one statement didn't hold up and that has a tendancy to weaken the whole argument.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[Grishnakh]

The fact you need to go back that far in time to justify something should tell you something. The death sentence is barbaric. It's continued use is a testimate to our own incompetence.

The death sentence is barbaric? And putting someone in prison for their whole life, where they get raped by their cellmates on a regular basis, is not?

Also, why is it barbaric to give a human a lethal injection (where they basically go to sleep and don't wake up), but when an animal is suffering, it's considered humane to give it the exact same drugs to euthanize it, rather than allowing it to live in pain?

Honestly, I really don't see your logic here.

And what makes you think we're much more advanced now than we were in the 1700s? "...our own incompetence"? If anything, we're less competent now than we were in the 1700s. Look at the way people wrote back then, and how they write now. Back then, people had much larger vocabularies and far better command of the English language (both in England and in its colony here) than they do today. You can see this in any Shakespeare play; the level of the language in those is far beyond what most people today are capable of comprehending, yet back then his plays were considered rather plebian.

Don't make the assumption that just because we have advanced technology that we're really all that "advanced". The way I see it, we're really not any more enlightened than people were in Roman times, and in some ways, we've regressed.

Re:Why not just get it over and done with...

[powerlord]

My problem might be (under the current system).

The "extra automatic appeals and legal fees", artifacts of the current system, might be the issue also.

Do you believe that a person who has committed multiple mass murders should be put to death?

If you do then the question isn't wether people should be put to death, but rather for what reasons, and what proof is considered acceptable.

If you do not then I applaud your conviction that either we have no obligation to play g-d, or else that man has infinate ability to change.

There are cases where people commit truly violent crimes that defy most rational peoples minds. I feel sorry for those whose mental state put them into that situation. I even regret thier actions, and regret the response I feel is approriate in those cases. If there was an equivalent of "eternal banishment" that could be visited in place of death, I would be all for it. I just am unconvined that such a thing is feasible.

In light of that, I do not believe that they should be removed from society by the surest and quickest means available.

Acutally, already happening

[WindBourne]

The dems are under pressure from the Greens. And the republicans have started defecting to the libertarian party trying to bring their neocon POV to the party. All during the 90's, I never heard anybody say that the party has to be anti-choice, but now, there are many trying to push that and a number of neo-con issues. I am guessing that it is a attempt to do to us what they did to the republicans.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[TheRaven64]

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters. If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform gives a republican/democrat candidate the chance to gain that 1-2% who voted libertarian last time, then it can win them the election.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[hackwrench]

Voting at all guarantees that there will be no change ever. We need a war here peoples, or a shuffling of feet, a constitutional convention, a nationial strike, or something. Pretending that the current way of doing things is in any way legitimate is what results in there being no change ever. Casting a vote is just pretend.

Re:Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That is not an obvious conclusion. The obvious conclusion - at least to any reasonable adult - is that the only way to change is long and slow - that voting for 3rd parties for a few decades is the only thing that can make a difference.

Re:Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[WinterSolstice]

Happened to the Whigs you know.

Them third-party folks came out of nowhere :D

(No, I won't link it - look it up. Get a civics lesson).

-WS

Re:Which leads to the obvious conclusion...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this for a scenario:

Americans are so apathetic that it will take some condition that truly affects them to cause them to consider reform. In the case of the US, it seems pretty clear that this will be a collapse of the Dollar and a hundred million or so Americans becoming unemployed. Our military can only prop up our currency for so long, and eventually there'll be a drastic correction. America becomes a third-world country and the federal government collapses as states leave the union to form new and smaller countries. Some states, like California, will divide and become two smaller countries (oh how we norcals would love to shed our southern brethren, and I'm sure the socals would welcome being rid of us as well), some states will go it alone and other states will band together to become large enough to be their own country. Then once the dust settles and people come to their senses, they'll realize that the EU was a smart idea and the formerly united states needs a small entity which controls only those things that work better as the scale increases (currency, border control, etc).

Yeah, a lot of this is the overly dramatic stuff that mostly makes its way into post-apocalyptic sci-fi movies/tv, but there's really no denying that the economy is going to hell in a handbasket at an alarming rate. We're going to have to repay this debt eventually, or at least the interest on the debt, and there's only three ways to do that...1) cut back what we spend (yeah, like that'll ever happen), 2) use military to steal it from some other country (which Bush has so ably demonstrated usually costs more than you get in return), or 3) make dollars less valuable (inflation is great when you owe people money). I'm guessing we'll choose 3 since the only thing more common in Americans than apathy is short-sightedness.

Even the "Native Americans" immigrated here...

[hackwrench]

from Asia, so they say. There is a process of naturalization, where the immigrants begin to adopt the values of the nation they live in. This is actually a two way street. Too many immigrants and the nation begins to resemble the values of the immigrants more than the other way around, and that makes it harder for those who are already here.

advanced tools?

[esmrg]

FTA:

Permits wiretaps in investigations of copyright crimes, trade secret theft and economic espionage. It would establish a new copyright unit inside the FBI and budgets $20 million on topics including creating "advanced tools of forensic science to investigate" copyright crimes.

Advanced tools of forensic science. Interesting. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the case of the internet, but doesn't this mean large scale data collection of server logs and creation of profiling tools to anaylze them? With millions of users and billions of transfers on the web a day, this makes for a large undertaking. So naturally they will develop profiles for 'suspects' using a list of key words or filenames relevant to piracy, music, movies, anti-war, anti-bush, or whatever they want. What bugs me is this -- it seems really probable for the system to profile a majority of net users as violators - whether they are innocent or guilty.
Seriously, is there still a constitution?

kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[Quirk]

It's not about Intellectual Property rights. It's not about Patents. It's not about copyrights. It's not about Digital Rights Management.

It's a tax grab.The government has found a way to create taxable value by fiat. The value of currency in modern capitalist states is by fiat. The creation of value by way of IP and Patents and DRM is by legislation, by fiat.

Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax, in Canada in the 80's the Conservatives introduced the GST. In America the federal government has created taxable value in IP. Remeber the /. article last week about a merger wherein the parties are underinvestigation because they undervalued the IP?

You can argue about civil liberties and the government will join in happy to count the number of angles dancing on the head of a pin.

When I was in grade school during summmer vacation I had to put in 2 weeks working on my grandparents farm. I was told it would build character. It build muscle mass if nothing else. One summer on the farm my uncle decided to butcher a pig. That side of the family is pioneer stock and has farmed the same area for 7 generations. They can make anything they need, including good German sausage. I'd never seen an animal butchered. The pig was tied to corral posts by 3 legs. One rear leg was left free. My uncle slit the pigs jugular and the pig kept kicking his one rear leg, obligingly pumping his blood out. The fuss being kicked up about the laws and civil liberties is the pig's back leg kicking furiously. The tax income is the blood.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[Fat Idiot]

Small point. While there is much to despise Thatcher for, this isnt one. VAT was introduced in the UK in 1973 as a replacement for sales tax. At that time Thatcher was education secretary. She didnt become PM till 79.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[GrahamCox]

Maggy Thatcher introduced Value Added Tax

Errr... nope. VAT came in in 1973, long before Her Maggiesty.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[???]

Interesting thought... I would argue that the issue is not taxation at all, but molly-coddling of an industry that keeps the current-account deficit from being recognized as a truly disastrous occurrence. IP-related areas are one of the few areas where the US trade balance is still on the export side. This is about keeping the world's eyes off of the mismanagement of economic and monetary policy in the United States.

Re:kill the pig! kill the pig! kill the pig!

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Just another reason for people to create things with open source.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Pieroxy]

If throwing some libertarian policies into their platform

You should read:

If throwing some libertarian policies into their campaign (and throwing it away just after)

but,but...

[way2trivial]

that is what we have in our legislative body...

Re:but,but...

[zsau]

You misunderstand. Your legislative bodies are elected in a series of smaller winner-takes-all elections. In a proportional election, the proportion of the Representatives from one party would correspond to the proportion of votes for that party in the election; so if the vote went 40% Republican, 30% Democrat, 10% Libertarian, 10% Greens, 10% various independents,* distributed equally across the whole country, then you'd get approximately 40% Republicans, 30% Democrats, 10% Libertarians, 10% Greens, 10% various independents elected to the House of Reps. By contrast, that same election under the current First-Past-the-Post winner-takes-all system America has, you'd get 100% Republicans.

I think before this could be applied to America, you'd either need to significantly increase the size of your House of Representatives (so that states like South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming had at least three or four Representatives), or abandon voting by state (which might not actually be any harder to abandon than the first-past-the-post system you have).

* Obviously that you can have independents in a proportional system means I've simplified --- but you can probably read up more on it yourself if you're interested.

Re:but,but...

[smchris]

I think before this could be applied to America, you'd either need to significantly increase the size of your House of Representatives (so that states like South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming had at least three or four Representatives), or abandon voting by state (which might not actually be any harder to abandon than the first-past-the-post system you have).

I vote for abandoning voting by state for federal positions.

If anything, the sparsely-populated and usually "red" states already have far more power than they should. A handful of midwestern "red" states together have fewer people than New York City yet they get two senators each.

My my my

[OctaviusIII]

Don't forget, this little sonuvabitch bill still has to pass.

Do it yourself

[hackwrench]

If you beg for it, you will get nothing.

Re:Do it yourself

[SillyNickName4me]

So you suggest what? we go in and remove the US government to install a more sane one? Sounds like a plan... not a very realistic one tho... not to mention that such things seldom work out well in the end.

AG is legitimizing terrorism ?

[S3D]

Do Alberto Gonzales realize that equalizing IP voilation to terrorism funding he in fact making terrorism funding looking like a minor offence in public opinion ?

I can't beleive this

[AlgorithMan]

this must be a joke
I just can't beleive that someone is actually stupid enough to think that intellectual property violations have ANYTHING to do with terrorism... This level of stupidity is just impossible!... noone can be THAT dumb!

Re:I can't beleive this

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Have you met this guy? http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/

One good example

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Ross Perot got a small fraction of the vote but suddenly everyone cared about the deficit (his pet issue) and we eventually got a balanced budget.

Re:One good example

[a_nonamiss]

Ross Perot got a small fraction of the vote

Don't kid yourself. Perot stood a real chance of winning the election in 1992. He took himself out of real consideration by dropping out of the race, then getting back in.

Re:One good example

[NormalVisual]

19% isn't a "small fraction", particularly in light of the power that the two major parties wield.

Re:One good example

[RandomPrecision]

Well hell, I guess I'll vote for him again, in this coming election.

Who's with me?

Re:One good example

[dada21]

Psst. The budget was never balanced. He stole from Social Security to pay for the continued growth of government, and worked with Greenspan to print more dollars than ever -- a hidden tax on the average American.

Re:One good example

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to know we've got our priorities straight now...two boys kissing each other is much more important than all those numbers and pie charts...

Re:One good example

[schneidafunk]

He's also attributed to drawing enough would-be republicans to sway the election to Clinton.

Re:One good example

[SonicSpike]

Well, Perot forced the other two parties to discuss fiscal policy using hard numbers and figures. Otherwise they would've just done what they normally do and that is quick emotional soundbites which lack depth or logic which are simply emotional feel-good statements. Compare those campaigns to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

Our two-party collusive system fallacy in this country is really a shame and a detrement to our democratic-republic.

Crime & Punishment

[Venner]

>>Solution: kill the man who saw you steal that 20 bucks worth of software, if you think you have a 50% chance of not getting caught.

Although that sounds funny, I'd like to point out that is exactly what happened during the Dark Ages. The classic example was when stealing bread was punishable by death, rather than the desired effect of deterring crime, the murder rate increased dramatically. If you might die for stealing, you might as well kill the person too and decrease your chance of getting caught.

Punishments have to fit the crime or they serve no valid purpose.

Re:Crime & Punishment

[deimtee]

Funny or not, it is the correct answer according to game theory.

Re:Crime & Punishment

[alienmole]

Another factor is that it's much harder to be convicted of murder than many other crimes, unless you were really stupid about it or can't afford a decent lawyer. You're much better off being guilty of a good murder than of, say, tax evasion that has a chance of being discovered.

Re:Crime & Punishment

[Garse Janacek]

Exactly. It bothers me when people excuse these ridiculous punishments under the justification of "Well, if you choose to break the law then you can't complain about the punishment." Yes you can. A just society should always have punishments appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the crime.

An example of this principle that is often misunderstood in modern times is the Old Testament rule of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This phrase is associated with brutality and revenge, but actually it is a limit on the severity of punishments that for its time (and for most times and places since then, unfortunately) was quite merciful. It explicitly rules out the example you give of executing someone for stealing bread, or even for stealing something much more expensive. By this standard, the penalty for "stealing" copyrighted material should be comparable to the value of the material stolen. The law right now is so far beyond that it's scary.

And there are the other objectors who say "Yes, but if the penalty was that minor then it wouldn't be enough of a disincentive to copyright violators" -- but the primary purpose of just laws is not to serve as a disincentive to bad behavior (let alone that more severe punishments doesn't even correlate directly with less crime, as in your example). Even if, by instituting an instant death sentence for copyright violation, we were able to lower copyright violation to 1% of its current levels, this would not be acceptable, because death is not a proportionate punishment for that crime. Similarly, 10 years in prison, though a good deal more lenient than death, is grossly disproportionate to the offense that will yield it.

Does such a punishment deter crime? Not as much as you'd think. But who cares? The point is that it is an immoral punishment. The ends do not justify the means. People should be punished because of the wrongs that they committed, not as an example to scare other people out of misbehaving. People who break laws are still people, not some "criminal" class that becomes subhuman and is therefore unworthy of justice. And "justice" doesn't just mean "bad things happen to people who break laws." It should mean that those who break laws will receive a punishment appropriate to their specific actions, and it is poor sympathy for fellow human beings to ignore what happens to them because "they broke the law, so they had it coming."

Alright, rant over for now... suffice to say... I agree with you ;)

Re:Crime & Punishment

[theguywhosaid]

I dont know about you, but I saw that on the history channel recently. That channel rocks.

The Lamar song

[Anonymous Coward]

Lamar Lamar duck?

"Reasonable adult"

[hackwrench]

I have yet to encounter such a creature. In order for true changes to occur, you can't beg politicians to make them, you'll get nothing. You have to do it yourself.

Re:"Reasonable adult"

[Fred_A]

You misunderstood the way this works, you're not supposed to beg politicians, you're supposed to pay politicians.

Don't they teach you anything at school anymore ?

Re:"Reasonable adult"

[AoT]

Yeah, they teach us the way politics really works, not some fluffy bunny, happy go lucky bullshit.

Re:"Reasonable adult"

[Rakarra]

"Reasonable adult"

I have yet to encounter such a creature.

Yeah, good luck getting people to take part in your revolution.

Oh NO! I'm a Terrorist?

[PenguinBoyDave]

I once borrowed a copy of Windows 98. I suddenly feel just like Bin Laden. Oh the HUMANITY!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Aglassis]

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away

It is slightly more complicated than that. Many people use their vote to vote *against* a certain candidate that they don't like. If you are going to do that, you have to vote for the opposition candidate who is most likely to win if you want your vote to have any effect.

Personally, I prefer instant runoff voting, because it never forces you to use your vote against a candidate. You just get to pick your priorities. It doesn't have much political support because it essentially undermines the two-party system and makes it *much* easier for a third party to gain power. But there are some local areas that are using it, so hopefully it will catch on.

NYC streets

[gatzke]

There are tons of people on the streets of NYC sellng bootleg videos, watches, purses, and crappy sunglasses.

I have heard that a lot of that sketchy money goes to support terrorism.

It seems like they should be able to just arrest these guys using traditional laws, if that were the case.

Pity

[hackwrench]

Yeah well, not enough to help us escape to other countries and rebuild our lives... Oh, I forgot, the other countries are as bad off as we are. This whole forsaken planet is... well, it's forsaken! Everyone is one step away at being at each other's throats... no, that would be an improvement!

Re:Pity

[ag0ny]

You're damn right about that. The whole world is following the US's steps, only years (or months) behind. Would this be the start of the end of capitalism?

Re:Pity

[dfenstrate]

Would this be the start of the end of capitalism?

No.

Because there is no viable alternative.

European style soft socialism is only sustainable in small, highly homogenous cultures were everyone knows the rules and tremendous social pressure is exerted not to abuse them. That's the case for a handful of countries in Europe.

The rest are being bled to death by socialism, suffocating taxes because of payouts to free riders, dragging along stagnant economies and dying off because they can't be bothered to reproduce enough to simply replace themselves.

The US has just started down the path that European countries have barrelled down, and hopefully we can learn from their folly before it's too late.

Re:Pity

[Maltheus]

Exactly. If there were a viable alternative, a country that won't follow us down the drain when our economy finally goes under, I'd be living there already.

Life imitating art?

[fishfinger]

With all these laws being introduced, it's looking more and more like the government regimes of films like 'The Running Man' where media and governments are in bed with each other!

Re:Life imitating art?

[Adam Hazzlebank]

OMG!!11 I really hope the world turns into the plot of "The Running Man" that would be sweet...

So...

[lagerbottom]

The money I didn't pay to download crappy top 40 songs for my stolen ipod funds terrorism!?! OMFG, I never realized all that non-money did that! Brb, gotta go buy a Britney Spears album for god and country!

You've failed at civics and reading comprehension

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, works for the Department of Justice, in other words, The President. You may remember him as the assclown who, thanks to cronism, was nominated and subsequently approved by the REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE. You may also note from the chapters you didn't get to in your civics lesson, that the President, is generally at the head of their policital party. Call it a perk of the most powerful office in the land. So, yes, it is his fucking fault. He, through his personally dictated policy and those individuals who serve at HIS PLEASURE, equates the RIAA mistakenly subpeoning grandmothers, those without computers, the dead and children with rooting out terrorism.

Is Bush every asshole? No. He's just their King, and Soveriegn. When HIS Attorney General equates burning a copy of a cd for you car, or a friends car to "helping the terrorists win", Bush is making that equivocation. He is bemoaning the limits of his power to give any shitty idea that might occure to his shiftless, cancerous cronies the force of law.

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Alberto Gonzales is a terrorist. He, along with congress, the senate, and our president are terrorizing our own people with fear and nonsense.

I suppose they couldnt have said "Intellectual property laws are to protect our children from child pornography and sexual predators", without making folks say "You're a fucking tool Albert"

So logically, its terrorists who are benefiting from copyright infringement.

How many want to bet that The Bush girls have illegal tunes on their ipod, or have used the old napster in their lifetime? How many want to bet that if ever caught, they would not be subject to the same laws that you and i would.

Alberto can go fuck his mother for all i care. This countries just about done.

Vote for a fucking third party candidate dam it!

It's not too difficult to figure out, you know...

[babbling]

I also find that argument extremely irritating. It's based on the "one person can't make a difference" philosophy, which is also wrong since every person DOES make a small difference.

Suppose there were three political parties. A is extremely evil, B is mildly evil, and C are the "good guys", but A and B have been raking in most of the votes for decades. The population knows that A and B are evil and that C is good, but in past elections, C has never come close to winning. Who should the population vote for?

If you follow the philosophy that "one person can't make a difference", then B will end up getting voted in, despite the entire population wanting C.
If everyone votes for the political party that best represents their interests, C will get voted in, despite each person only making a "small difference".

It's not that fucking hard to figure it out!

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

http://www.majorityleader.gov/

Roll this in the pages of your civics book and smoke it. It was obviously written by someone who didn't know a whole lot about the topic.

If thats terrorism, then i support terrorists!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm starting to wonder who the real terrorists are, and who the real freedom fighters are. William Wallace was a terrorist.

Re:If thats terrorism, then i support terrorists!

[Anonymous Coward]

By and large, Wallace attacked English soldiers, although admittedly he didn't have any official authority to do so. Attacking civilians is where I'd put the line.

Everybody does it ...

[nosfucious]

Every "special interest" has a shopping list of things that they want. They just need the right opportunity/cash to get them done. The legislation is already written and just waiting for a "sponsor".

A few short examples:
Accounting firms want more regulations: The opportunity: Enron/Worldcom. Result: Sarbanes-Oxley act.
Security apparatus want more laws: The opportunity: Drugs (originally), now 911: Result: War on drugs, PATRIOT act.
Petroluem interests: The opportunity: Iraq (and in the future, Iran): Result: Gulf War 2.

Don't be surprised that it happens, don't be surprised that it's happening this week. Just follow the money trail.

Re:Everybody does it ...

[davcrock]

Accounting firms do not want more regulation. Why? Look at Arthur Anderson's self implosion. Big Four are already streched entirely too thin.

Re:Everybody does it ...

[nosfucious]

Accounting firms are not too thin.

The other big firms picked up most of the refugees from AA. They're even MORE profitable now with the extra regulations and auditing required, post Sarbanes-Oxley.

The division I work for, not even in the US, but for a US company, has two internal audits a year, plus a bigger, external audit. The other three divisions based here, now have two external audits a year. Compliance and regulation costs went up 5 to 10 fold (depending upon department) as a direct result of SOX. In this case the major beneficiary is PWC.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[qmaqdk]

> Say you're a libertarian (I'm not), you feel...

Notice the detail above. It's almost as if you're a social outcast if you're a libertarian, and you have to explicitly denounce yourself in order to just touch the subject. I think this is one of the reasons for the "two party" problem of the US.

Trying to tell us something?

[arafel]

I like the way Slashdot carefully arranged "New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame" and "Social Networking From Your Cell" next to each other. I had to read it twice before I realised it was a story about phones...

Re:Trying to tell us something?

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't the only one to think that

Re:Trying to tell us something?

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. i had to do a double-take when i read that.

It's easier than shaking down Indian casinos

[SlappyBastard]

Cause, let's face it: the GOP is nothing but a fucking money racket.

The GOP is dedicated to grabbing every non-member of the 1% by the ankles and seeing what falls out of their pockets.

The upside? At least this isn't as bad as the shit they did on behalf of Jack Abramoff.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_200 5_08_07.php#006266/

Wait a second! Yes it is!

The recording industry is largely run by the mafia anyhow. So... It's just the same as the Indian gaming scandal.

I'm no big fan of either political party, but the Republicans are bad news.

Corruption-wise, this is the ugliest America has been since the end of the 19th Century.

We are 'the people' !

[unity100]

Well, how many people there are filesharing in the world ? 500-600 million ? In u.s. ? 1-2 Million ?

is it so that these 'corporate interests' and their henchmen are so low in iq to understand that THESE people are 'the people' concept that are mentioned in the declaration of independence, human rights declaration and such ?

Dont they just get the fact that WE are the voters ? Who can vote them outta office/power ? eh ?

Or are we just too passive and easily suppressable to hold on to our rights ?

Re:We are 'the people' !

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Not if your a convicted felon you can't ;)

Re:We are 'the people' !

[novado]

"We are the people" is true, but you're NOT the RIGHT kind of people.
All this conversation above omits to recognise that these CORPORATIONS, blood-thirsty vampires that they may be, are OWNED by shareholders. It's the shareholders requirement for the corporation to do absolutely fucking anything to make that extra buck that drives such legislation.
You ordered a "public stock marketplace", and you got a serving a psychosis on the side.
If you don't want these corporations promoting legislation to increase profits, then you must FIRST remove all corporation-funded political activity. Pretty hard, that one.
"The people" , the stockholders, have issued their commands to make more money, fuck the competition, ignore the environment, and that's why you the "little" people are getting screwed.
I believe Captain Flightsuit is promoting: The Ownership Society.
Go buy yourself a piece of the action, and fuck your neighbour over too. Each to their own, that's the modern capitalist society of today.

This Law promotes Terrorism

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA against suspected file sharers are an act of terrorism. Demanding payment under the threat of a lawsuit, just because your underage child downloaded music is simply a shakedown. This law will make it much easier and less costly for the RIAA to extort the single mothers, because they don't have to sue any longer - they just threaten to call the cops. That's a pretty efficient process, and greatly increases the cost-to-income ratio. Enough to afford to buy.... Say.... A congressman.

So how do you stop this? Perhaps all the Slashdot readers in Texas could:

1. Call and ask his staff why he wants to send single moms to jail?

2. Then call your local news station and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

3. Then call your local newspaper and ask why he wants to send single moms to jail?

Let's see if there's a Slashdot effect on the local media. Three phone calls is all it takes.

http://lamarsmith.house.gov/

Call Rep. Smith at (202) 225-4236

If you're willing to bitch about it, how about makeing one or more phone calls?

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[MadJo]

It seems to me that the actions of the RIAA against suspected file sharers are an act of terrorism. Demanding payment under the threat of a lawsuit, just because your underage child downloaded music without using a computer is simply a shakedown.

So, fixed it for ya.

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares about single mothers, they are damn whores! Whores that raise their children to become homosexual rapists and other sorts of criminals!

By the way, has anyone seen my torch? I lost it here somewhere...

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[miller56]

Another way to get your voice heard--send an email to the committee that is going to take up the bill:

http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3

Have it folks, let your voice be heard instead of just ranting and bitching!

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[keyne9]

Better yet, ask him why child molesters are given less time in jail than his proprosed incarceration for IP infringers.

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[Ngwenya]

Alternatively, ask the media - "Why does Rep. Smith like child molesters more than he likes average Americans? After all - he wants the average American downloading music tracks to be in prison for longer?"

Of course it's unfair - but this bill is so out of proportion that it actually ranks as "evil". Unfair questions are justified by the threat. And why should a Brit care about this - because of the magic of policy laundering, the EU will be pushed to bang people up for 12 years.

We really may get to the stage where P2P gets you the death penalty.

--Ng

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[verisof]

Sorry, I responded earlier before I read this particular response.

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=18389 0&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=151905 06

Please read some more information about how we can raise public awareness on this issue. Let's not blow this one off, guys! THIS one is too important.

Re:This Law promotes Terrorism

[saintlupus]

Did you notice who else is on that committee? The Honorable Weiner.

Heh.

--saint

elmo goes to dc!

[JimXugle]

Sounds like Lamar is just a puppet... can't function without a hand up his ass.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[killjoe]

Forget the vote. Work for real change like an end to winner take all, instant runoff (or whatever else rocks your boat) something like that. We are never going to have a more represtitive form of govt like the parliments in the rest of the world but we can at least work to make the third party candidates matter but getting rid of the black and white voting.

And so it begins...

[ArbiterOne]

Here we go. Under current law, Section 1201 of the law generally prohibits distributing or trafficking in any software or hardware that can be used to bypass copy-protection devices. Smith's measure would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else. Like debuggers?

Re:And so it begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

And our shift keys

Re:And so it begins...

[14erCleaner]

Does the proposed law really forbid "anticircumvention tools"?

also at editor and publisher

[tinkerton]

Editor and publisher was also up in arms about this bill. See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/sh optalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002384406

Re:It's not too difficult to figure out, you know.

[grmoc]

You're making the assumption that the voters are well-enough informed to make the decision to vote for C.

I'm not at all certain that is the case, and if it isn't the case, then C will not get elected.
If C will not get elected, it is in your best interest to vote for the candidate who is still likely to win, and is least evil.
Remember: in this example, C -cannot- win because the people may not even know about C.

They do take a "test" of sorts.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People should be made pass an iq test before being admitted into congress..."

While not an IQ test, they are made to take a test of sorts. It's called an oath. They only pass this because they cheat. Upon entering office they know they have no intention of doing as the constitution dictates. They don't want to anger the people who are bankrolling them into office. It's the ultimate quid pro quo giving more power and wealth to the officials and those who put them in power, while ultimately reducing the people to destitude. Anyone with half a brain would agree that securing copyrights, "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors..." shouldn't mean for 99 years or whatever it is now.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

From TFA

[Xaositecte]

The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration

To think that the Bush Administration doesn't have any input in the legislation members of the repulican party put forth is laughable. As always, it's difficult to say exactly how much of the writing of this draft was Lamar's, and how much was of someone in the Bush Administration, but the article implies Lamar just put his signature on it to introduce it into congress.

Re:From TFA

[MindStalker]

Most likly it was actually someone in the RIAA or MPAA. The Bush administration probably approved it as well. But I doupt the president or his men sit around and think up new copyright law..

Re:From TFA

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Most likly it was actually someone in the RIAA or MPAA. The Bush administration probably approved it as well. But I doupt the president or his men sit around and think up new copyright law..

Why not? Actually, it's entirely possible that it was the RIAA, but this is the sort of power grab that Bush's administration likes too.

From Wikipedia...

[babbling]

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29 July 1883 - 28 April 1945) led Italy from 1922 to 1943. He created a Fascist state through the use of state terror and propaganda. Using his charisma, total control of the media, and intimidation of political rivals, he disassembled the existing democratic government system.

... sound familiar?

Re:From Wikipedia...

[lovebyte]

Very familiar, especially the charisma part.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[Kjella]

You're not going to make the people see. The people are far too caught up in the one-party state/dictatorship to see that it is not a requirement. It does not matter how many bi-partisan power grabs the government makes, as long as they get their bread and circus through elections it does not matter. Even if the choice makes as little sense as the Drazi fighting over purple vs green in Babylon 5, people will think they have a choice. That democtacy is in charge, and the problem is just the "dumb masses". I'm not saying we're there yet, but I don't think people would notice until they were already living in a facist state.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[HerbieStone]

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (29 July 1883 - 28 April 1945) led Italy from 1922 to 1943. He created a Fascist state through the use of state terror and propaganda. Using his charisma, total control of the media, and intimidation of political rivals, he disassembled the existing democratic government system.

... sound familiar?

Well, then we are all save. Since Bush clearly lacks charisma...

;)

Re:From Wikipedia...

[whathappenedtomonday]

Well, then we are all save. Since Bush clearly lacks charisma...

I know .. hope you are being sarcastic. Yet, here's how safe we really are:

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even o

Re:From Wikipedia...

[maxume]

Bush isn't all that charismatic...

Re:From Wikipedia...

[optimus2861]

Oh please. Here's another quote for you:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Been repealed?

Nope.

Yeah, Bush is really far down that road to being the next Mussolini.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[rjfan]

No, your quote says "Using his charisma, total control of the media, and intimidation of political rivals"..... Bush has none of these...

Re:From Wikipedia...

[yabos]

Bush is just a puppet though. He doesn't really control everything like you are led to believe. You really think stuff like this would stop after a new president is elected?

Re:From Wikipedia...

[DerGeist]

He's not "Doctor" Lawrence Britt, he's just Lawrence Britt. He is not a political scientist, he's a writer.

He's a member of the Council for Secular Humanism and the article is available online . The article in question is from Volume 23, Number 2 of the Free Inquiry Magazine.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, just that he's no political scientist and you shouldn't just swallow his views because they're scary. There's a good chance he's just fear-mongering as well.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Wikipedia wouldn't stoop down to using hyperbolic POV phrases such as "state terror". I'm hardly a fan of Mussolini but I prefer historical accounts to be objective, not vindictively biased. Its sorta like how Bush protrayed Saddam Hussein to drum up popular support. Its unethical and biased.

This is why I don't like Wikipedia. This sort of example appears quite frequently throughout.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[houghi]

That is '+5 scary'.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[LearnToSpell]

Undoing mods to post this, but oh well...

He has a Ph.D. in political science, making him, yes, both a doctor and a political scientist.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, thank you for your baseless claim! Please feel free to die.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[LearnToSpell]

Or maybe not. Stupid Google. I hate flamebait issues like this where you can't tell anything true. And stupid /., so I can't take back a post that makes me look like an IDIOT in PUBLIC. /me sobs.

AND like, I lost half my mods. They were really really good mods too. It's kind of a bummer.

Well, he either has a Ph.D. or he's an ex-chemical company executive. You decide. I'm gonna go drink myself into oblivion.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[marcosdumay]

Why characteristic number 5 (sexism)? I can see the correlation, but I can`t see any causal relation between it and facism, and can`t see why they come toghether.

-----
Just an unhappy citizen in a plutoclacy trying to understand your facism :(

Re:From Wikipedia...

[whathappenedtomonday]

Why characteristic number 5 (sexism)?

I guess that's a rather historical correlation. Woman had a completely different role in the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. There's some debate on whether fascism is per se an anti-feminist movement.

I came across this definition here, and I will post it at every given opportunity. Not because I believe it is the truth or is scientific or anything. Just because it makes me think - hard. It scares the hell out of me, too. Please pass it on as you see fit. DerGeist posted more better links.

It's not so much about whether you agree or find that certain aspects of it do not apply here (now). It's about seeing a bigger picture instead of just a red herring.

To quote some /. sig: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:From Wikipedia...

[Anonymous Coward]

>You decide. I'm gonna go drink myself into oblivion.

I think, you deserve some serious credit for your sig link! :)
Does it really matter if he has a PhD, anyway?

Re:From Wikipedia...

[DerGeist]

Haha -- don't take it so seriously. You got modded up to +5 and I got modded down as a result. People believed you because you sounded confident. Whether you were right or wrong didn't matter.

It's a powerful tool, use it well.

Hello dear friend!

[nietsch]

The whole Season is greeting you my friend.
My name is Khalid Osama Obasha, I am the sone of sultan Ibrahmei II, of the mokassar sultanate. Last year he was murdered in a coup by maoist rebels, which threw our country in a bloody civil war. I believe our problems can be help you secure a better position if you choose to help solve our problems.
Just send a small navy cruiser to our coast, and we will make sure it is moderately attacke by the insurgents. This will give you the excuse to attack the headquarers of the insurgenst, conveniently located in the Al-ibrahmei Akhbar mosque. This will generate enough media coverage off all these ant-american terrorist sentiments in the world. If you wish we can also use our police forces to uncover some terrorist counterfeiting rings or whatever your media requires.
In return, we ask you to supply us with better arms to crush our opposition.
If you still have some doubts, may we remind you that we produce 2% of the worlds oilproducts, so any dissidents in your country can easily blame it on the oil while you guy secure your power.

How much more will we take?

[keraneuology]

Is it just me or does his photo not look like Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels after receiving permission to go to the bathroom?

This guy needs to go away now. How about setting up a de-elect Lamar Smith fund to buy campaign ads in his home district to clearly point out just how much of a slug this guy is? If he is dead-set on affecting people around the country then he deserves to play with a national election. TV ads with photos of Cape Cod (where he really lives)and of the Hollywood sign with a voiceover along the lines of "he lives in Cape Cod and represents Hollywood. What has Rep Lamar Smith done for you lately?" He's kind of in the sticks so local newspaper and radio ads should be fairly cheap. Anybody in?

minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists???

[layer3switch]

If someone is downloading copyrighted material for free (after all, stealing is to get it for free, no?), how the fuck in the world does that fund anyone?

[-] profit = [+] fund criminals/terrorists ???
What mathmatically challenged Zeus's anus hair thought of that idiotic formula?

Shit like this should be on Al-jazeera.

*note to self: Hack voting machines and elect Nader and show those politicians what real terror looks like. :^O

Re:minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists???

[metternich]

This is one of your classic example's of lying through a half truth. Criminal Organizations can make profit by violating IP law, by selling bootleg DVDs, knock-offs of Designer Brands, etc. It's possible that some organizations with connections to Terror are doing this. The fact the you can download movies off the internet, however, reduces the market for Bootlegs, thus reducing potential terrorist revenues. Therefore, by sharing IP you are in fact helping win the War on Terror. However, if the criminal penelties for that increase, less people will share, torrents will be come less effective, and more people will buy bootlegs.

Re:minus profit == fund criminals/terrorists???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a fairly simple equation, and it's one that the likes of the RIAA have been using for years to drive their business policy:

(1): All people who are not turing over all of their money are criminals who must be punished.
(2): Criminals are the same as terrorists. GWB says so.
(3): Not turning over your money means you will have more money available to you.
(4): (1)+(2) means that (3) is giving money to terrorists.

The bonus of this is of course, that we will now have legally mandated excessive consumerism, just like in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

What's the motive? Gimme an answer

[Cicero382]

It's beginning to look like the US government is *really* starting to lose it. And the UK gov doesn't seem too far behind (I'm English). I now live in Italy where we have our own fair share of stupid legislation (possibly more!) But there's one significant difference: If we think a law is really stupid - we ignore it - and so do the police (and, more importantly, their Mums and Dads).

My point is (OK, maybe a bit off topic); is it the law itself that's the problem, or the ability/willingness to enforce it? We're looking at motives, here.

WHY is this and other legislation being put forward? Obviously, it's nothing to do with the stemming of terrorism. Obviously the AG is getting involved for photo-ops and the like and probably hasn't a clue what it's all about. And, equally obviously, it hasn't a cat-in-hell's chance of making any significant difference to the problem it's supposed to address.

So the *ability* to enforce angle doesn't look so good. The very best they can expect is that they'll trawl up a few impoverished souls to throw to the wolves. The big operators will continue as before - and, anyway, there are plenty of existing laws to deal with their activities already.

That leaves *willingness* to enforce. Well, there is a cultural difference between here and the US. But it surely can't be that wide - and I thought the Yanks were a belligerent lot when it came to their rights. Sure, you're always going to get some jobsworth who will follow the rule book no matter how absurd it seems (suing grannies for grandkids' downloads springs to mind here)but the *entire* law enforcement community can't be stupid, can they? For the sake of argument (and peace of mind) let us assume "Nah!"

So, we come back to the actual law itself. If one accepts the previous points about ability/willingness to enforce, one has to ask what the hell is the law for?

I'd *really* like to know.

(Dons tin foil hat and hides under table).

Re:It's not too difficult to figure out, you know.

[babbling]

Suppose SOME of the population is informed about C, though. It is better to let A or B win with 60% of the votes than to let B win with close to 100% because this way C has a better chance in the next election. This is the way change works.

Even if you vote C and they don't get elected, the vote still made a difference because more people will see C as a viable option for the next election. If no one votes C, no one ever will, and that is undesirable for democracy.

penalties

[Anonymous Coward]

so if someone can get 10 years for copying an mp3
are the "wise" kids going to twig on that if they go down the street
and mug people , then use the money to go to the shop and buy the mp3's

as that carries a lesser penalty so therefor must be more socialy acceptable

mod parent rubbish

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Unfortunately, it was only voted down in two whoopping countries. It passed in almost all others.

What exactly is a whooping country? Anyway the way I read it in the papers at the time, these were the first countries where it was put up for referendum. After they failed to accept it, there was no point in continuing. It most certainly did not pass in all other countries.

/. lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's our lobbyists? Consider the amount of people who use slashdot, I think we should form our own party... the /. party :p

On a slightly less evil line of thought than the topic, if the idiots who come up with these laws started getting large isp bills because of a large amount of traffic... do you think they might decide it wasn't quite worth it to go after these insane laws? :>

Further...

[CptnHarlock]

In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters.

This is an interesting observation which both amuses and depresses me. One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way. Also in Europe we are seing the same tendencies (last Italian election Berlusconi vs Prodi).

Tha answer is that if you give a large group of people two very similar choices, like for example in te Pepsi/Coke chalanges, you end up very close to 50/50 ratios. If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat - the results are way, way higher. So the "choice" we're given is not a real choice, it's more of a farce and an excuse to call the system a democracy. Thare is a nice saying for this in Swedish: "It's like choosing between Plague and Cholera".

What does this tell us then?
<SARCASM> That two-party politics (USA) is 100% improved one-party politics (USSR)!! </SARCASM>

Cheers... :|

Re:Further...

[hswerdfe]

just to play devils advocate...you don't really have just a 50/50 split

you have more of a 49/49/1/1 split.
where the 1 is ususally the 3rd party candidate.
that would be your "rotten rat" that nobody wants.

but really what you are missing in the states is the distribution of votes
30/25/20/15/10..you know some thing like that ...
then a way to make all the vote count in the distribution of power.
like a proportional representation system...or something crazy like that

Re:Further...

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know why it ends up like that?

It's because the parties will do whatever it takes to win regardless of what they actually believe. So if you are 40% to the other guy's 60% three years out from the election, you taking actions to gain a share of the vote. Whatever that may be.

These people just want power. So they take money from corporations to gain that extra %, they pander to the politics of fear for that extra %, they do all the ugly things to hit the other guy's vote, character assasination etc.

Think about it, the people who want to become elected are the people who WANT that power. The other problem specific to the people's the United States of America is your electoral college system. Because Prodi only defeated that facist in italy because he formed a group of smaller parties. And that fascist was only in place because he had smaller parties supporting him.

And if you object to my calling him a fascist, go read up on what happened to the protesters at the Genoa G8, look me in the eye, and tell me that's even remotely something resembling democracy. Yeah, that's right. I thought so. You can't.

Thankfully though, the italians are unlikely to ever to rise to empire again, last attempt we crushed without breaking a sweat (the germans are another matter...).

What is a danger to us all is America. You Americans need to change that electoral college system, it should be just simply a demand of all the minor parties:

"Democrats, we will tell our voters to vote for you on the condition you introduce preferential/instant run-off voting in that term."

Do it. We outside can't, and it's dangerous for all of us.

Re:Further...

[4of12]

If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat

The fundamental problem is that a rotten rat with a sufficiently large advertising budget and good packaging can still be chosen by more people than a pizza.

The free enterprise system is powerful and efficient, but nothing about it guarantees that we will always receive complete and accurate information.

Pardon my cynicism, but I've been eating a steady diet of rotten rats for decades.

Re:Further...

[LunaticTippy]

The US actually has a 60/19/19/1/1 split.

The big winner are people who don't vote. They sure didn't throw their vote away! My big question, if such an overwhelming majority don't want any government, why do we have one? Why are we governed by a small minority of the populace?

No matter who we vote for, the government wins.

Re:Further...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a leader came in and said vote for me, and you'll never have to vote again everything will be taken care of you just do whatever I tell you. Is this what your asking for? You get a new leader whenever the old one dies of old age or coup? Trust me, this will happen. It will happen due to attitudes like yours combined with voter apathy. (The system is teh sux I vote for nobody because I'm so smart!) If you are so fed up with the system DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! STOP WHINING ABOUT IT! DOn't give me this I can't make a difference crap you make me sick. The right to choose your leader is one most of the world DOESNT GET. You keep complaining about the Bush Administration, how do you think it would be if he was in FOR LIFE? THAT is what apathy at the polls get's you. Argh you people piss me off.

Re:Further...

[???]

This is an interesting observation which both amuses and depresses me... Tha answer is that...

While this may be part of the issue, we _know_ that at least as it relates to congressional races in the U.S., the bigger cause of tight margins is Gerrymandering. This is why redistricting is a contentious issue in the U.S. When redistricting time comes around, the incumbents in the state legislature tend to "pack" their opponents into a few districts, while engineering small pluralities favouring them in a greater number of districts. This creates a few landslides for their opponents, and a large number of "squeakers" (which are not really squeakers, as they've been fairly well forecast by computer statistical models) favouring them. While both parties have engaged in this practice, it has tended to favour Repubs more than Dems, because Repubs have been able to seduce black Democratic reps with packed districts, ensuring what is seen as greater representation for African-Americans (a number of districts effectively guaranteed to fall to African-American Democratic candidates by landslides due to packing of the district).

Re:Further...

[smellsofbikes]

You're entirely right, but if you're a political party proposing a platform, which are you going to propose, the pizza platform or the dead rat platform? Parties say what they think will get them elected, so they're under pressure to say popular things. Over time, in a stable two-party system, they'll be saying almost exactly the same thing as one another, because that's the most popular thing to say.

Seems a safe bet

[Anonymous Coward]

From Gonzales's perspective it would appear to be a safe bet that a sufficiently large number of the voters ARE that dumb.

After all, they RE-ELECTED Bush.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Aceticon]

Actually the problem runs much more deeply than voter apathy. The main reasons why the same old hands keep getting re-elected even when they are clearly selling custom-made laws to their corporate pals are:
- Gerrymandering - Politicians get to draw the lines of their own electoral districts. It's no surprise then that using information about registered voters they draw the lines in such a way as to maximizing their chances to get re-elected. Latelly they even use computer programs to do that.
- Incumbents have a lote more money to defends their seats than other candidates running for that seat. In the US, the candidate with the biggest advertising campaing is often the winner. This actually creates a perverse incentive for politicians to proposed/approve laws that benefict some companies: the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.

The result was that, in 2004, 95% of incumbents managed to keep their seats. It's hard to believe that only 1 in 20 politicians turned out to not be the best choice to represent their constituency ...

Honestly, seen from the point of view of someone who lives in a country where politicians get elected via proportional voting (Holland), the political system in the US looks far from being a real democracy. Not only do different votes have different weights (a person voting Democrat in an electoral district with 70% registered Republicans - or vice-versa - has precisely ZERO chance of changing the outcome of the vote) but the whole registered voters thing provides countless oportunities for social manipulation.

I've also lived in a country that not so long ago (32 year ago, tomorrow) went from dictatorship to democracy (Portugal) and were members of parliment are elected via electoral districts. This resulted in the same 2 parties alternating with each other as winner of the elections. After some decades of this the end result was:
a) Both parties have pretty much the same policies. In front of the cameras politicians criticise the other party, but in practice both parties do the same things.
b) There was an increase in career politicians. The kind that go to politics for money and power, not because they want to improve the country.
c) A "political class" was born (politicians actually use this expression). They stopped being representatives of their constituents and instead were pretty much just representing themselfs. This can clearly be seen in a number of laws designed to protect/benefict politicians (and lawyers).
d) An environment of unaccountability has installed itself. Those politicians currently in power do their best to cover the backs of those that were in power before them (as in, for example, burying legal investigations into corruption) because they know that when they change places the other ones will do the same for them. (thanks to the free press, at the moment there's a bit of a backslash against corruption)
e) A lot less people vote nowadays. Unless you're voting for one of the two parties that are always in government, you know that your vote counts for little. Voter turnout is now often below 50%, while in the years after the revolution it was more than 70%.

Still, at least there's no gerrymandering or voter registration: parliement seats actual change, even if mostly it's between the same two persons and latelly some young and inovative parties have been slowly growing, even if, thanks to electoral districts, their representation in the parliement is actually only HALF of what they would get in a proportional representation system ...

Not so much

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Australians, Canadians, British, Europeans, and Indians; don't think you're safe either. You all do trade with us and the groups who support this have interests in your countries as well, meaning you all will have similar laws in place soon as well

Some very good points here, but you should realise that trade is a matter of profit and negotiations. There is a certain amount of leeway on either side, but once restrictions become too onerous, the profit is no longer worth it. There is surprisingly little trade being done across the atlantic in any case. Amerikan hegemony is not as far reaching as some might think, or want.

I'm confident...

[Xeth]

...that every penny of profit that The Pirate Bay takes in goes straight to Al-Qaeda.

ooh , terrorism

[amias]

nothing funds terrorism more than driving cars , except paying taxes.

It's not really a plan, yet

[hackwrench]

More details need to be worked out. First we need to organize a group, then we form a plan, grow our numbers and then act!

...or something like that.

Re:It's not really a plan, yet

[SillyNickName4me]

For now, I live in the EU, and it seems that voting still has some use here at times.. will try that way first.

Skipping ads would be illigal if this were passed

[Devistater]

Good ole Philips. They musta snuck this in
From the http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 link, it lists all the stuff thats been shoved into this monstrosity. I just spotted this:

"H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act
Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. ... This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head."

So now Philips has it all set, they have that patented technology to prevent ad skipping, and this will make it ILLIGAL to skip ads. Nice.

No, C is still evile

[hackwrench]

so are D-Z. Now other syllabaries on the other hand...

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

>Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy.

The POWER Inquey (from the good people at Joseph Roundtree) here in Britian has disposed of that myth, and I assume there is not that much difference between the two countries on issues like this. Have a look and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.powerinquiry.org/

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[mapkinase]

People seem to have wrong impression that they can influence something in "democratic" countries. It is illusion. They can change minor things.

The only thing that can change situation is when people are ready to fight to death for what they believe in. With government or whatever force is threatening their way of life.

Early American pioneers had guns and were ready to die defending their homes from the enemies. European nobles had their pride and their kings were only first among equals. Real roots of democracy are honour, dignity, self-respect and self-reliance.

Average American voter is dependent on too many things to be called a democratic constituent (wages, employers, sewage infrastructure...). In modern society everything is too much integrated, so people do not have real independence. As a result they are easily scared or manipulated by dictators or demagogues.

Real action always requires sacrifice. Writing to the congressman does not involve that.

The untouchable Triumvirate

[hackwrench]

The Politicians, the Lawyers and the Mental Health Professionals.
In the show Pretender, the place he worked for is called "The Center", which is a nickname to refer to whichever mental health corporation is in a given county or group of counties.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[pla]

Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.

As do I - Because it describes the reality of the situation, like it or not.


even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

True - It says, loud and clear, "Pander to your base, because the fringe whackjobs will actually throw their vote away rather than vote agauinst you".


Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy.

Apathy, yes - I don't want Tweedledum or Tweedledee. But stupidity? I'll stand at the front of the line to say that Joe Sixpack doesn't have the mental capacity to set the clock on his DVD player, but I would also say that makes him more dangerously uninformend and opinionated, not less. He actually believes things like "for the children" and "drugs r bad, m'kay" and "WMD WMD WMD I mean Freedom". And Joe votes. And the small minority who actually do take the time to study the issues at hand (the real issues, not the dog-and-pony "they" use to distract Joe from the hand dipping into his pockets) simply don't have the numbers to outvote Joe.


People need to understand that you do not have to get your party voted in to make a difference

In a winner-take-all scenario, which the US uses, you most certainly do need to get your party voted in to make a difference. The winner doesn't change their strategy to adapt to a minority showing - Quite the opposite, they go even more toward their base, which proved the viability of ignoring everyone but their core constituency. 2000 and 2004 as good examples of that... in 2000, the Greens made a good minority showing, but Bush's pandering to the southern religious whackjobs paid off. And how did the Republican strategy change in 2004? Did they take a more environmental approach to embrace the disenfranchized Greens? Hell no! They all but said "rape and pillage Alaska, oh and we'll toss you a very expensive bridge to nowhere", while taking the religious pandering from subtext to an overt "fuck you America, convert or starve".

EU

[olman]

The main point of contention was essentially that the EU regulations tend to be overly complex and byzantine. This is not what you want in a constitution, full stop.

In France about 20% of voters had some constitution-oriented reason for voting either way. Rest were voting about their goverment and lackluster representative democracy therein (france), employment, taxes, globalization..

Mostly what had little or nothing to do with the constitutional agreement.

Now the brussels good boys network is planning on indeed making KISS version of the constitutional agreement. So far so good, but in france they plan to pass it without vote this time around! That's one way to make sure the people won't vote wrong way, thought.

And height of absurdity is Italy's initiative to form "progressive core" of EU with france (and Germany) .. With the two worst heel draggers in Europe, I'd rather call that the anchor that's going to sink the whole union.

Re:EU

[init100]

That's one way to make sure the people won't vote wrong way, thought.

Just remember that the french are not known for their passiveness when the government tries to pass laws that people don't agree with. Ever heard of trucks and framing equipment blocking the roads?

I'll say what you didn't want to.

[Anonymous Coward]

You ARE in a police state.

Wake up and get it sorted out.

Despair

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no man, no pilitical party capable of cleaning up the mess left behind after this 8 years of Republican plundering. The enemies of American freedom are winning it without lifting a rifle or spending a single dime.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[swillden]

instant runoff

IRV doesn't help that much. It allows third parties to obtain more of a voice, which is good, but it doesn't really allow them to obtain power. As the strength of the third party grows to a point where it threatens to win an election, IRV still creates a situation where voters have to vote strategically for the major party they consider the lesser evil, rather than the third party they really prefer. Otherwise, they risk the third party candidate knocking out the more ideologically similar major party candidate, but without acquiring enough votes to defeat the other major party candidate.

Approval voting is better than IRV, and the Condorcet voting systems are even better. For legislative bodies, proportional representation is also an option, though it has downsides as well -- I prefer to vote for people, not parties.

Copyrighted works fund terrorism

[babbling]

If all works were legally available for free, people would have to be rather stupid to pay terrorists for them, wouldn't they?

Buyable politicians fund terrorism

[Opportunist]

But that's something that won't be outlawed too quickly, I bet.

If a bunch of politicians are so easily swayed by getting bribes and other "goodies" from some company to pass a law that hurts the general population, how hard would it be to buy them to get a few not-so-good people into key positions?

Fuck it, why beat around the bush: Hey, Smith, how much is the law? I wanna have one too!

Go hang out at bars where lawyers go

[cheekyboy]

and where a tshirt that says, "DMCA = DEATH" , "CON-gres MOFOS did it." "Piracy Rulez"

You are so wrong

[Maximilio]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

No, I'm sorry, I can clearly tell the difference between having Republicans in charge of my government, and having Democrats. They're 1,000,000 miles apart in many respects, including basic competence and willingness to listen to people.

Re:You are so wrong

[The Snowman]

The main difference between the two is that the Democrats want to make sure my take home pay is less than half my gross salary and that if I don't like it I can just get free handouts from the government. The Republicans want to regulate what I do in my bedroom, then send me off to war to secure them more oil.

If you look at the financial freedom v. personal freedom aspects, they are different. However, they both want to restrict my freedoms. They both want power and control over me. How they achieve this is different, but the goal is the same. It's like having a mugger with a knife and a gun. How he achieves his goal is up for debate, but no matter what, he wants the same thing.

Re:You are so wrong

[B_Realll]

Right on. There is no difference to me between the bogeyman of terrorism or the bogeyman of "hurting the poor". They are both scare tactics used to gain power. Politicians are the absolute lowest form of humanity. The sad part is that politics is a monopoly. We are forced to fund them through the IRS. We started down this slippery slope during the New Deal, when the "greater good" became the philosophy of the government. Whether you are giving up your rights in the name of big business or in the name of the underprivileged does not really make a difference. We gave up the right of personal responsibility a long time ago, which is the most important right of all.

Re:You are so wrong

[stinerman]

The main difference between the two is that the Democrats want to make sure my take home pay is less than half my gross salary

Depends on your gross salary. Even then, IIRC, those in the highest tax bracket under Clinton weren't paying 50% of their wages in taxes.

Re:You are so wrong

[Maximilio]

Democrats want to make sure my take home pay is less than half my gross salary

Is this attributed to anything or are you just pulling this hyperbolic figure out of your ass? My take-home pay is not half my gross, and by actually examining the paycheck stub, I see that much of that is coming off in the form of health insurance, parking fees, and so forth.

And, by the way, under Republicans the average American hasn't gotten a pay raise in 5 years. I'll take higher taxes and consistent growth over tax giveaways for the hyper-rich and snowballing uncertainty any day.

I mean any day. I'd take Clinton again as President in a heartbeat. Any day. Unconditionally.

Re:You are so wrong

[Maximilio]

We are forced to fund them through the IRS. We started down this slippery slope during the New Deal, when the "greater good" became the philosophy of the government.

Yes, please defend for us the state of our society prior to the New Deal. Especially the working conditions, unemployment rate, and the status of the elderly. I hear they were some good times.

Re:You are so wrong

[B_Realll]

I never said that the state of the society was good. You did prove my point though. One side of the aisle now backs social welfare programs, while the other touts corporate wellfare and national security. As soon as we traded our rights for security, we gave each side a carrot to keep us voting the party line. Either party can now win elections by simply spouting FUD about how the other side is going to take away that security. This system makes it damn near impossible to change to a third party because it is a bigger gamble.

Re:You are so wrong

[The Snowman]

Clinton had republican Congress to deal with at least part of the time, and in any event, I am talking party platforms, not what really happens. I used the word "want," not "does." If either party had 100% control over our legislature we'd have major problems.

Re:You are so wrong

[The Snowman]

Hyperbole. Democrats love to tax and spend. I am not going to go research exact numbers when the point is they love to tax. The Republicans are bad too, but don't have that stigma.

No, it's true. It DOES fund terrorism!

[babbling]

... selling stuff DOES fund terrorism whenever the seller is a terrorist and is making a profit!

Teddy bears fund terrorism.
Books fund terrorism.
Chocolate funds terrorism.
Jewellery funds terrorism.
Cars fund terrorism.

Notice a pattern here? Business funds terrorism. If there was no money, then nothing could fund terrorism.

There is only one conclusion to draw from all this: Alberto Gonzales is a commie!

Re:No, it's true. It DOES fund terrorism!

[Exocrist]

You forgot "Oil funds terrorism."

Re:No, it's true. It DOES fund terrorism!

[babbling]

Damn. That's a good one. In fact, it's probably closer to being true than anything else is. Oil would certainly have a better chance of funding terrorism than copyright violations ever would.

Ten years of jail time for copyright infringement?

[golodh]

Interesting excerpts from the article:

(1) "The 24-page bill is a far-reaching medley of different proposals cobbled together. One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement. Such willful attempts at piracy, even if they fail, could be punished by up to 10 years in prison."

(2) "Jessica Litman, who teaches copyright law at Wayne State University, views the DMCA expansion as more than just a minor change. "If Sony had decided to stand on its rights and either McAfee or Norton Antivirus had tried to remove the rootkit from my hard drive, we'd all be violating this expanded definition," Litman said."

(3) "copyright holders can impound "records documenting the manufacture, sale or receipt of items involved in" infringements"

(4) "boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000"

Well ... this starts to look like the laws in good old England last century. Where paupers could be sentenced to things like banishment to the Colonies (or an extensive jail time) for something like stealing an apple.

ad (1) It does seem a bit over the top punishment-wise.

ad (2) Just what we need! Congress has surely got its ear to the ground on this one.

ad (3) Makes sense ... just think of all those weblogs that ISP's are so loath to give up. Grabbing the weblogs and suing people wholesale on basis of it may yet become an important source of revenue for copyright holders.

ad (4) What are the going rates for manslaughter? And for aggravated assault? And for murder? Repeated copyright violation in excess of 1000$ is apparently the moral equivalent of murder and is rated higher than manslaughter or aggravated assault. Interesting point of view. First the War on Drugs and now this. We're going from strength to strength.

Watch the good old US of A wage War on Crime. Copyright violations are so bad for society that they merit firm jail sentences. Bad news perhaps for teenagers who use p2p software, but the good news is that this might be just what's needed to secure our lead in people jailed per 1000 (see http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries -by-highest-prison-population-rates.html) which is now only threatened by Russia and a few banana republics. We lead the world inthis area (except perhaps for countries that don't release statistics such as North Korea).

Just a thought ... those jails we have are awfully expensive per inmate. Wouldn't it be an idea to give offenders a choice: jail time or a tour of service in Afghanistan or Iraq? To err ... atone for their misdemeanour? Just a thought.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[eraser.cpp]

Would you prefer Bush or Gore? Most 3rd party voters would have voted Gore, and if they had he would be President right now. The two large parties already get messages when they make opinion polls, voting for a candidate you know is going to lose doesn't do anything except make the Republicans happy you didn't vote for the Dems. Your views are too out of line with that of their base to make any change. At best they'll just avoid subjects made hotly debated by a 3rd party.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

['nother poster]

Dude, do you have any idea what that page is? Do you know what the position of "Majorty Leader" is within a political party? Jesus Christ man, learn a little something about the U.S. political machine before you spew this mess from your keyboard. Talk about sleeping through civics class.

Re:It's not too difficult to figure out, you know.

[NormalVisual]

If you follow the philosophy that "one person can't make a difference", then B will end up getting voted in, despite the entire population wanting C.

But even though the entire population would want C, they won't be given the opportunity to really hear how C will deal with critical issues, because A and B will make sure they limit C's involvement in the process as much as possible, particularly by refusing to allow them to participate in national televised debates.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[NormalVisual]

the more favours they do when holding office, the bigger the pot they will have when the time comes to defend their seat.

Nowadays that's called "campaign contribution", but once upon a time I remember that being called "bribery".

O il

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran, a world leader in promoting terrorism, gets its funds from selling bootlegs? Research suggests not, Iran's "terror trove" comes directly and undisputedly from the selling of oil.

"Oil, quite frankly, funds terrorism" remarked a slashdotter on the condition of anonymity. "To combat this, we need tougher laws, harshly penalizing those involved in the production and distribution of oil." Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were unavailable for comment at the time of this writing.

Welcome to the War on Drugs

[hotspotbloc]

Pretty soon if you're convicted of a IP violation you'll become ineligible for federally backed student loans. Same type of war, different players.

Re:Welcome to the War on Drugs

[runderwo]

Did everyone else notice this part?

Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.

In case you are not aware, these rules allow your property to be seized, without hope of return, for no other reason than being suspected of the crime.

This part is great too:

Amends existing law to permit criminal enforcement of copyright violations even if the work was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Just imagine the workload the police will have when people use computers to generate random crap, and can send the police after any new Google hits that pop up, at NO COST to the complainer.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[NormalVisual]

Average American voter is dependent on too many things to be called a democratic constituent (wages, employers, sewage infrastructure...). In modern society everything is too much integrated, so people do not have real independence. As a result they are easily scared or manipulated by dictators or demagogues.

Great observation. A disturbing proportion of today's Americans are more about preserving their current lifestyle than any abstract ideals such as "freedom", and probably would not be prepared to sacrifice a great deal for those ideals. For instance - look at those who protested the Vietnam conflict. I have all of the respect in the world for those who disagreed, burned their draft card, and went to jail and suffered the consequences of their actions. I have all of the contempt in the world for those who disagreed, burned their draft card, and fled to Canada to avoid prosecution.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Ex-MislTech]

This has need to be said for a long time, most ppl I know feel we are voting
for one bought and paid for crony or the other .

So damn near half the ppl eligible to vote don't even bother .

The two parties put up their marionette of choice and the funders pull their strings .

The rest of us go back to our distraction of choice because of a sense of hopelessness .

They play their us vs. them rhetoric , but some feel it is just a charade .

Peace
Ex-MislTech

Here are the REAL questions we need to ask:

[ajs318]

1. Does the system of copyright as it exists today still serve the purpose for which it was initiated -- that is, To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

2. If not, is it possible promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts without securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

All countries are more or less free

[Britz]

Free as in shades of grey instead of black or white. The difference is that many Americans think their country is perfect and every other country should follow its lead. And when the US armed forces bomb another country to submit to its whims it is to the best of that country, because by that logic it can only get better. Pretty dangerous ideas, especially if you think in terms of black or white. That is the reason why many people on earth think the US is the most dangerous country.

Which is WRONG!

Checks are pretty much still in place. Free press helps a lot. Even though Iraq was a bad idea the number of people that suffer is much lower than in other places. Take for example Chechnya, or places in Africa.

Still, Bush's rethoric is pretty scary at times.

Re:All countries are more or less free

[glesga_kiss]

Even though Iraq was a bad idea the number of people that suffer is much lower than in other places.

So wrong. Over 30,000 innocent people are dead, at least 5,000 soldiers and those who "survive" are trapped in a country with no chance of a future (other than civil war).

Reducing the Iraq affair to "a bad idea" is like calling Stalin's legacy "bad social policy". It's a nice ephanism for "we fucked up real good".

Checks are pretty much still in place.

No they aren't. The checks are still waiting to punish those who misled us into this affair. Why are you so confident that the system might prevent it in future?

Re:All countries are more or less free

[Britz]

Please don't think in terms of black and white. The US is dangerous. Every single death in Iraq is horrible. But put into perspective the view changes. Stalin is responsible for about 20 million dead people. That is about a hundred times more than 30000. Congo sees about 1000 people die every single day:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/congo/ 2005/0107volatile.htm

To checks and balances: Bush needed more than a year to bring about this war. Time is the key here. The US will not be able to wage more than one major war every four years I think. The thing I am a little orried about is nukes. But countries like Pakistan or North Korea are much more likely to drop one or "loose" one to terrorists for now. Pakistan is a very unstable islamic state that already exported nuke know how to North Korea.

I am German and very critical of US foreign policy. I just like to put things in perspective:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183097&cid=151 28869

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[HoosierPeschke]

Mod Up, very informative.

Ipod squad

[nurb432]

Just wait for a 'police force' to wander around looking for people wearing an ipod.. " against the wall " .. " prove you have licensed this content".. Then they haul your ass off to prison since you copied a song.

What the hell is this world coming too? 10 years for a song, but 6 months for raping someone..

Id say write your congressmen, but they dont care..

Re:Ipod squad

[cheekyboy]

Dont worry dude

When rapture comes and oil is at $500/barrel and gold at $10000/ounce. The rich and powerfull will suffer.

Mass rioting and burning of mansions and govt houses. Jail will be the safest place then.

Ever watch Mike Moores 911? Bottom line is , the comclusion I got is that a lot of americans including the ones
making decisions are real really truly clinically insane, and just are real power trip control phreaks.

Too much drugs in the 60s and none today? Or just never had any?

Just let chaos reign, let nature do its randomness, no one person or govt can control society, it will break down and shit all over you if you try. And then you will be dead and so will the whole familty line like the Tzars.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never voted in Texas, have you?
Often you have a choice of two Republicans. Nearly everyone here is a republican, you have to be whether you like it or not. You can't vote the Democratic ticket in most places in Texas because none run for office. In and around the major cities they have an option, however Texas is a big state and the rural areas are Republican. Texans love them because they promise that if you pay $100 million in taxes they'll bring $110 million back to the state in pork barrel projects. That's exactly how Delay won the republican nomination again this year, then dropped out due to the planned corruption campaign against him. He told big business here in Texas he'd fight legislation on earmarks and haul as much pork back to Texas as he could. Others like Ted Stevens of Alaska etc. do the same damned thing. Instead of a $230 million bridge to nowhere how bout giving every man, women and child on that island a million dollars to build a dock and purchase a boat of their choice = net saving of $180 million. There's only one reason I'd live on an island in Alaska, because I didn't want every goofy shit with an SUV coming to see me. What the public needs to do is vote everyone who's been in washington more than 8 years out of office.

I have an revolutionary sollution

[stlhawkeye]

This guy is obviously an idiot, but there's a really easy way to completely bypass this bill - stop pirating shit.

Re:I have an revolutionary sollution

[oDDmON oUT]

It's hardly as simple as you would make it out to be, sir.

Ever burn a mix CD for your SO?

PIRATE!

Ever record something off of internet radio or FM?

PIRATE!

Ever time shift a TV program and bypass the commercials?

PIRATE!

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

It's easy to slap on a label and criminalize some basically innocuous behavior to the benefit of those that already have all the benefits (you did know that corporations enjoy more rights and protections than you, Mr. John Q. Public, right?).

Terrorist Funding

[SeanDuggan]

On the other hand, I believe the Russian mafia receives a fair amount of funding via copyright violations. Still, that has nothing to do with politics in our country. This legislation frightens me. I'll make the appropriate letters/calls/emails to my representatives, but I suspect that the average joe doesn't realize how this will impact them, so I'll just be stroking my ego by being a drop in the bucket.

Re:Terrorist Funding

[lesleymac]

But you're talking about Russia, where copyrighted DVDs and CDs share shelf space with knockoff pirated media and no one cares. It's not like that happens here.

Re:Terrorist Funding

[marcosdumay]

So shoudn`t we extinguish copyrights to stop giving money to the mafia? (of course, some mid term copyrights will lead to mid term transfers, so softing it helps too.) Hardening it will only help the mafia.

Re:Terrorist Funding

[soluzar22]

Sure it does. Pop into any one of a dozen smaller stores that sell anime, and you will find that far from being ADV, Geneon and the like, most of the cheaper boxsets are made in Hong Kong, subtitled in Chinese and English, and totally illegal. The store owners don't care. This doesn't happen in your Best Buy type of stores, but there are plenty of sole traders who couldn't care less about copyright.

Not me, Jah-Wren Ryel

[hackwrench]

Begging is what Jah-Wren Ryel's suggestion amounts to.

Re:Not me, Jah-Wren Ryel

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Begging is what Jah-Wren Ryel's suggestion amounts to.

That's total bullshit. Votes are the way the citizens pay politicians. With-holding payment is not even close to begging.

yes... hard to implement

[way2trivial]

when the area to be covered (and I mean land area) is so large.

we need regional representation more than we need political diversity to that extreme...

I was thinking more along the lines of democratic areas get democrats & vice versa.. and some places do get libertarians at times.

Worthless

[Coreigh]

Having read only the Slashdot post my immediate reaction is that the proposed idea will not deter not punish the individuals or groups that the bill's author or the Atty. General claim to be targeting. All "bark" no "bite", unless you are one of the poor unwitting saps that gets snagged in this trap that is more dangerous to the IP holder's fans and consumers than it is to the supposed criminals and "terrorists." --C

Regional?

[hackwrench]

Like people have that much similarity based on what region they live in anymore.

Re:Regional?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like people have that much similarity based on what region they live in anymore.

Actually, the region has a great deal to do with similarity-- many issues are very locally impacted. For example, mandating the use of public transportation may seem to make sense in some high population density areas with land forms that are suitable for the development of a strong public trasportation system, but areas (such as the one I am from) that exists of large open spaces, varying terrain (deserts, mountains, etc), public transportation is difficult to use and very expensive to operate and thus makes little sense to the "locals" of the latter region.

Re:Regional?

[cduffy]

I've only lived in two parts of the US, California and Texas, and the political differences are substantial. Even in Austin (which is very socially liberal -- not par with Berkeley, but certainly much moreso than most other areas of .ca.us and vastly more socially liberal than other part of Texas), there's much more of a generally Libertarian bent than widely exists in California. As an example: Austinites, while socially liberal, are have much less of a tendency than Californians to support gun control.

That's not to say that I think that proportional representation for the federal government is a bad thing. It is to say that I think that the federal government needs to be smaller in scope, such that states have greater sovereignty within their borders.

The "More Information" link points to legislation

[oDDmON oUT]

passed in 2004. PK doesn't have anything on the new bill.

Moderidiots on crack?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did that nonsense post got moderated informative? Misclicked or moderator in on the troll?

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[The_DoubleU]

Is the H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act for real?
I mean, are they going to make it illegal to skip ads?

Public Knowledge.org, it is a fun site right? It is just something like The Onion, yes? Please?

Another Texan

[Arwing]

Oh God, another Texan, why do we keep on sending people like him, GWB and Tom Delay to Washington? Being a Texan myself, I don't think all of us share the same view as those fools. But somehow we keep on electing those idiots!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[muhgcee]

While you might have some good points in general, the example you used at the end isn't valid. Republicans aren't going for the green vote. If they were going for a third party vote at all, it is the Libertarian vote.

Is MS behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Microsoft see an opportunity to make it illegal to posess a computer that's not running Vista with its built-in controls on what the owner is allowed to use it for? Making using Linux illegal has to be a wet dream for them.

"Records Impoundment"

[nurb432]

So this means that they will be able to, without a court order, go collect all the sales records from all companies that sell any sort of multimedia device? ( ipods, md players, vcrs, computers, cdroms, soundcards, cassette payer/recorders )

Then they can take those records and use them as probable cause to start searching peoples homes and shaking us all down as a society?

WTF?!

Lamar Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

The second biggest reason I'm becoming ashamed to admit I'm from Texas, now that Tom Delay is off my list.

Y'all keep on eye on Joe Barton tho'. The Darth Vader of environmental politix will undoubtedly be the next shill for something stupid.

Power, not politics, is the problem

[dada21]

After reading through 350 posts twice, why has no one blamed the real problem behind laws like this?

It has nothing to do with Republicans (Democrats have always voted for anything that expands the power of government).

It has nothing to do with campaign finance (most campaign finance laws were written to either keep incumbents powerful, or limit the financial activity of 3rd parties).

It has nothing to do with protecting the artists (as copyright grew from 7 year to lifetimes, the power was offered to fewer and fewer people, leading to a cartelization of the distribution avenues).

It has nothing to do with terrorism (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The US has killed more people with car bombs than any militant organization).

It has nothing to do with money. Money can be gained for the politician already through the massive spending bills -- just title the law in a way that the people don't read it but love the name and you can extract almost any amount of cash for your friends, family and other cronies.

It has to do with power. Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court all have taken way too much power into their hands since FDR. The slide started with Lincoln. Nothing will stop these power-mongers, no voting, no campaigns, no third parties, no phone calls. Until the individual states realize that they're weaker from promoting such a large centralizing government, nothing will change. Every third party is just a fundamentalist version of one of the two big parties, and every third party candidate that wins ends up being no different than the regular politicians.

The taste of power is enough to corrupt anyone, and there is no hope as long as we continue to let these politicians take over more and more management of a country that was better managed when states competed with one another for the best citizens.

Actually, I think

[Anonymous Coward]

your view is mistaken.

"...if you give a large group of people two very similar choices, like for example in te Pepsi/Coke chalanges, you end up very close to 50/50 ratios. If you let someone choose between eating a pizza and and a rotten rat - the results are way, way higher. So the "choice" we're given is not a real choice"

The "pizza vs rat" is really not a choice. No one need exercise any discretion in that case. But the Pepsi/Code choice, while for different reasons, is also not a choice because, as you point out, there is so little difference. What we need is multiple good candicadates with clear differentiating platforms -- all generally advocating good things but allowing the voters to set national priorties by picking the candidates pledging support for the more appropriate issues. AND THEN HOLDING THEM TOO THEIR PROMISIES!

Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich

[Anonymous Coward]

like choosing between a Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwichpolitical

(insight from South Park...)

Lamar is not part of the Bush administration

[mi]

I wonder if the Bush Administration realizes what its rhetoric sounds like. Copyright infringement = terrorism? [...]

Congressman Lamar Smith is an elected lawmaker, and not a member of the Bush administration in any way.

Re:Lamar is not part of the Bush administration

[aurum42]

Did you bother to skim through the article, or even the summary? Apparently not.

The draft legislation, created by the Bush administration and backed by Rep. Lamar Smith, already enjoys the support of large copyright holders such as the Recording Industry Association of America.

Re:Lamar is not part of the Bush administration

[mi]

We are in a thread, that began with the subject "Thank you Lamar".

Well, I know...

[erveek]

Well, I know I completely trust what this administration says about who funds terrorism.

They have such a great track record.

I'm just waiting

[Talinom]

I have found nothing on Lamar Smith's webpage.

It is too new to show up on the THOMAS (Library of Congress) website. Oh, wait. It hasn't been introduced yet.

H.R. 2391 only comes up as the Safe Communities and Safe Schools Mercury Reduction Act of 2005.

That said if TFA is accurate then it will be something I oppose and will write to my state Rep about.

Re:I'm just waiting

[oDDmON oUT]

Your sig should be emblazoned on a tee shirt, mind if I do that for you?

Re:I'm just waiting

[MrZaius]

http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong108/ippa/2004100 7notes.asp [techlawjournal.com]
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5989&sequence =0 [cbo.gov]

Could it be "H.R. 2391
Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004
As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 7, 2004"?

If it is, take a careful look at titles V and VI. Both look good on the surface.

Please, someone give us more information than the above. I flew off the handle and called my congressman halfway through RTFAing, got asked for a bill number, and couldn't find anything that supported the article. Any ideas on what to tell 'em to look out for? Where is this bill, what if anything has changed since the senate version, etc? Please, give me more stuff before I call my work-area congressman.

PS: People, call your local offices and email your congressmen/congresswomen when someone gives us some usable information. Call the local office, and you'll be the only one talking to his local staff about this issue, and they're probably more likely to pass things up the chain than the DC staff.

(Note: IANA congressional staffer, just someone that trusts local folk more than DC interns and lawyers.)

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[UncleRage]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108Cy5DFG::

Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[sirrobert]

I'm not a huge fan of this kind of legislation myself, but your summary is ridiculous. The claim isn't that "Copyright infringement = terrorism" or "Marijuana = terrorism" but that these are "industries" in which terrorists operate in order to fund terrorist activities. Now here's where you (yes, you at home!) can draw a Venn diagram: Make a circle and label it "Copyright Infringers." Now make another circle and label it "Terrorists." Make sure that the two circles overlap in such a way as that the CI circle has some hangng out the side, and the T circle has some hanging out the side.

Good! Now, careful analysis of this diagram will show that they aren't calling Copyright Infringement the same as Terrorism or even calling Copyright Infringers the same as Terrorists.

What it is saying is that since the "Copyright Infringement 'Industry'" has no legal checks and is "free" to operate outside the law (obviously), that it's a prime place for terrorists to work to get funding, without having to pay taxes on it (and thereby identify themselves in a traceable way) -- or if they do (laundered), not to leave a paper trail that leads back to the person himself. It's also a very-low-capital-for-fairly-high-profits business. It's the same as saying that lots of terrorists are getting into the medical profession because it is very lucrative and they can fund terrorism well with it. But if this is the case, why not crack down on it, since they are facists? Oh, because it's not illegal to be a doctor so that's just one of those "private choice" things that someone can do with their money. But copyright infringement is illegal. So they can stop some of the terrorists there (in theory).

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[Chowderbags]

That might be good, except that most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer. If they targetted this bill towards those making a profit off the works through sale of the material, then maybe I could understand (except that large scale pirating operations that could help terrorists would almost certainly be done overseas...).

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[sirrobert]

I'm inclined to agree with you that this is a weak law that will very likely result in unfortunate abuses by some in power. That's why I said in my opening line that I'm not such a fan of this kind of bill myself. Generally, no matter how good the intentions, legislation will get twisted around in this way or that to accomplish the pet ends of some one or another. If that's the objection, that's fine (although it's foolish to judge anything by its abuses -- though it is worthwhile to judge something by its weaknesses that may lead to abuse). I'm mainly responding to the nonsensical vitriol of the other guy.

As to the notion that "most of what this is directed against is the noncommercial copyright infringer," that's claim isn't justified by anything in the article at least. It does happen that the bill, according to the article,

would expand those civil and criminal restrictions. Instead of merely targeting distribution, the new language says nobody may "make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess" such anticircumvention tools if they may be redistributed to someone else.

But this is hardly mostly directed towards the individual, non-profit criminal. It happens to encompass both the higher-level and lower-level criminals, and would make it easier to levy penalties designed to combat terrorism on the copyright infringement criminals who are not guilty of terrorist activity, but that would be an abuse of the law that may be able to come out of abuses of its (possibly) poor safeguards.

As for it being overseas ... well, that may be one of the aims of the legislation (who knows?). That's a large part of why we put hefty penalties on things we don't want ... to make the potential cost very high in order that potential criminals refrain from doing it ... here at least.

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[TheJediGeek]

Exactly. While it MAY be true that some commercial copyright infringement ends up supporting some kind of terrorism, this legislation is not targeting that. I really don't know how much commercial copyright infringement goes on in the US. Most infringement in the US is probably the non-commercial type. That would be the type that does not involve money.
How does Billy Bob making a copy of the last Garth Brooks Greatest Hits XLVI for his cousin/brother Jimmy Joe Billy Bob help support terrorism?
This bill is targeting that kind of infringement. From the wording, it could make computers with CD burners illegal. Hell, it wouldn't necessarily even need to have a CD burner.
Read the link in TFA to the story about Lexmark using the DMCA to stop a company from making ink cartriges. That's so ridiculous it's absurd. This type of thing is making it illegal to be in competition with a large company.
That in itself would make for an interesting paradox. Monopolies are illegal, (unless government created) but competition is also illegal now.

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[gentlemen_loser]

"But copyright infringement is illegal. So they can stop some of the terrorists there (in theory)."

Do you not realize how fucking stupid this sounds? I'm agast that the parent was modded to insightful - probably on account of the mention of a Venn Diagram.

Here, allow me to hit you up with a qoute:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

THAT, my friend, was a Patriot. The spineless assclown coward we have in office, his cronies, and the mindless sheep that agree with them, are NOT Patriots.

Re:Copyright Infringement != Terrorism

[sirrobert]

There is so much rampant illogic in the parent post that it is difficult to know what to say. I often feel this mild obligation to correct such errors, if for nothing else than to articulate to others who read it exactly what is wrong with this kind of "argument."

I'll just do a quick response that leaves out a lot of the steps. I'll leave it to the reader to work out the principles and syllogisms himself.

First, whether or not the theory (the one proposed by the lawmakers) is "stupid" is irrelevant to whether or not the original critic's comment made sense. It didn't. The highlighted sentence above ("But copyright ...") is completely accurate, inasmuch as it reflects the notions of the theory (and it only claims to reflect the notions of the theory).

Regarding the quote from Benjamin Franklin (and the implicit claims made by "gentleman_loser" in the parent post), there are a few things that I would say:

1. It's a catchy quote, but I disagree with Franklin here. Even fools deserve basic liberties. I'll throw out another quote for you, just for kicks:

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

   Sound familliar?
   
   
2. I really doubt that Franklin was speaking of copyright infringement as a "basic freedom."
3. I agree that Franklin was a patriot. I am too. I don't like this law. But I can still see that the first parent post (original response) was foolishness. Mostly because of a capacity to divorce my desires and opinions from a rational discussion of something that is not essentially about my desires and opinions. (Woops! Don't get confused here, that was tricky. The discussion (started by the comment to which I originally replied) isn't about what we want, though the topic may be related to some desire or other of ours. Remeber, words are used to mean stuff, not just to put pretty lines together!)

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[IdolizingStewie]

I don't know about anything else, but I at least am guilty of voting for an incumbent solely because he was very senior and therefore could get pork barrel legislation. It wasn't the best thing for the direction of the country, but at least it helped my district.

DMCA on steroids

[effertroy]

From outside the USA I ask - why not follow the NRA example. Write your Congress-critters in both Houses. Snailmail works better than e-mail. Tell them what you think about this new proposal to take away fair use and First Amendment rights. Slashdot them. Politely, firmly, tell them this affects your vote in November. Don't rant, don't swear. You can change this proposal. If lawmakers see enough mail opposing this - and particularly enough mail from people they don't routinely hear from, they'll start asking why they should support it. Don't delay, do it today. And get everyone you know to do it too. That's how the NRA has succeeded all these years. Look and learn. effertroy

Congress will not reform itself

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand.

Congress makes the laws. Congress is made up of corrupt politicians who get their money from lobbyists (many from the drug-infested, bribery machine that Gingrich & DeLay & Ney et al. tuned on K Street -- the bribery machine was there before them, BTW -- they only tuned it to try to make the bribes all go to Republicans only). Congress is made up of corrupt career politicians who want to get reelected.

It serves their interest to punish newcomers, to encourage no turnover. So they will never want to abandon the current system of seniority that punishes newcomers and keeps power to long-term career seat holders.

It serves their interest to lock out any third party, so they will never want to change the "winner take all" non-representative electoral college.

That is to say, you cannot reform the corrupt Congress by hoping that Congress reforms it.

I'm all for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as the RIAA uses the laws they already have.

Once they go after the President:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/prez-a-m usic-thief-according-to-riaa-167611.php
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/16/gw_bushs_ipod _contai.html

And they go after the serving military members who have illegal MP3's and videos.

THEN let them have their new laws.

Re:Amerika - Why was the parent modded down?

[HeroreV]

You're funding the terrorist! You're funding the terrorist! Everyone resist!

Bah!

[SoVeryTired]

"One would, for instance, create a new federal crime of just trying to commit copyright infringement."
Honestly, do they give a Nobel prize for attemped chemistry?

Incidentally, I reckon we'll be hearing a lot more about "IP crime". Re-branding it as some generalised "crime" will make it much easier to fight against than mere "piracy", which I guess most people would see as a relatively innocent thing.

sounds fair

[Intangion]

sure 10 years per copyright infringement sounds fair.. i mean afterall it IS FUNDING TERRORISM!!!

My gosh, this sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

so much like my country (USA):

"...the same 2 parties alternating with each other as winner of the elections. After some decades of this the end result was:
a) Both parties have pretty much the same policies. ...
b) There was an increase in career politicians. ...
c) A "political class" ...
d) An environment of unaccountability ...
e) A lot less people vote ..."

Incredible how history is so repetative.

What should be exceedingly worrying...

[Chowderbags]

What's really worrying is the addition of asset forfeiture for the devices used in copyright violation. The forfeiture laws on the books are already overreaching and often are misused. There is little chance of ever getting anything back after it's taken, and the actual "case" is brought against the object, so you are screwed by the system. Even if you are later cleared of the charges, good luck on getting your stuff back, since different agencies can shuffle the objects back and forth to get around even the courts. I only hope the revolution comes soon after the granny who only uses her computer for email gets caught up in one of the shotgun blasts of lawsuits against random people that that RIAA loves so much.

What the heck is it about Texans?

[rnturn]

G. W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Lamar, Cornin, Gonzales... not to mention the folks from Enron ('member, Ken Lay is connected politically to these clowns) ... the list goes on. It's gotten so you have a better than even chance if you say "Lemme guess, he's a Texan, right?" whenever you hear of some lame-brained idea coming out of a politician.

Re:What the heck is it about Texans?

[member57]

Fuck off asshat.. What about Robert Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, MCI Worldcom, TYCO, Those aren't Texas politicians/ companies, just as crooked as anything from Texas.

Re:What the heck is it about Texans?

[Jack Schitt]

rnturn lists 6 Texas-based entities
1: G. W. Bush
2: Tom DeLay
3: Lamar
4: Cornin
5: Gonzales
6: Enron (Ken Lay)

member57 lists 5 Non-Texas-based entities
1: Robert Kennedy
2: Clinton
3: Pelosi
4: MCI Worldcom
5: TYCO

Based only on number of entities listed, rnturn has more items listed creating a valid 'better than even' situation.

Based on an average entities/state ratio, which I did not take the time to actually calculate, you'll notice that all entities listed by rnturn originate in Texas, wheras member57 lists entities which I assume are approximatly evenly distributed across the country.

Based on this analysis, rnturn's statement is valid and member57's reply, even though the number of entities listed is similar, should, nonetheless, take into account the density of entities as well as their location.

This statement was written by an unbiased, nonpartisan commentator. This statement favors rnturn's statement only on the merits of the argument and is not based on any political bias. Should anyone have reason to question the veracity, accuracy, or bias of this article, please reply to it before it is archived.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Luscious868]

Fact: The United States of America has never spent more money on education that it is now spending.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[BalanceOfJudgement]

And correspondingly, American students are scoring higher on tests than ever.

Oh wait, it's exactly the opposite, with American testing standards reaching new lows every year.

The problem is that a raw dollar amount tells you absolutely nothing about the health of the educational system - its testing results, do.

And America is failing miserably. Students couldn't care less why the Revolutionary War was fought, much less care about the rights and freedoms that were being fought for.

And so, here is the world we have handed ourselves.

If such a law would pass...

[FellowConspirator]

The biggest victory for "content cartels" is not the bill itself, it's the title. It would mark the first time that the phrase "intellectual property" appears in a US law. It's a very important first step in realizing the transformation of copyirghts, patents, and trademarks into real property. Eventually, photocopying pages from a book really will be theft.

Is it time to give up?

[Antimatter3009]

Seriously, if this passes look where we stand. Perhaps this one bill is not the end in and of itself, but it shows the direction we're headed. We're fighting for our rights and, unfortunately, we're losing. I think our only hope is the upcoming elections. We need to vote in a Congress that is not already in the pocket of the corporations/Bush administration so that we can at least slow down what is happening. Then, in 2008, we need to vote in an executive branch that will actually fight with us. If we get another Congress and executive branch like the one we have now, I'm not sure the 2012 elections will ever happen.

In a way, I feel like I'm going way overboard here. Imagining everything in this country could fall apart so fast still seems ridiculous, but the more I see the less ridiculous it looks. Hardly a day passes without seeing something take away more of our freedom, and it just keeps coming. It's like there's no end. Maybe it's just me, but this is depressing. I've seen these restrictions pass over and over, but I've always had hope that someone will stand up against them and have at least some measure of success. That hope still exists, and there is still a chance to save this country, but it's all fading much faster than I ever thought possible.

Woohooo! Fight Terrorism!

[kkovach]

Such changes are necessary because new technology is "encouraging large-scale criminal enterprises to get involved in intellectual-property theft," Gonzales said, adding that proceeds from the illicit businesses are used, "quite frankly, to fund terrorism activities."

You people pirating those Brittney Spears CDs are un-patriotic, un-American, treasonous, terrorist lovers, and you should all be lined up and shot!

Seriously though, it's ridiculous that 'W' and his cronies now just stamp everything as "fighting terrorism" and expect everyone to just let it pass. Man, they're assholes!

Don't bother supporting that statement with facts

[HangingChad]

designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Don't bother presenting any evidence to back that up, just make a broad, over-reaching statement and present it as fact. I don't believe anything that comes out of the Bush administration. The only person who lies more than Gonzales was The Lying McClellan. How did you know Scott McClellan was lying? His lips were moving.

Oxygen also supports terrorism, so why not cut down all the trees? Oh, wait...

RIAA vs. the Mob.

[Kadin2048]

Given the choice between funding the Russian Mafia or the RIAA, I'll take the mobsters any day of the week.

Seriously: in the long run, I think a production cartel like the RIAA probably does more long-term damage to an economy/market, if allowed to take control and operate a political system, than a criminal organization ever could. I know in the short term this might seem ridiculous, but you have to consider that we are basically, as a country, allowing the recording companies and the **AAs to write our intellectual property laws. These are laws that are going to be the underpinnings of our economy for the foreseeable future.

I'll take some good old-fashioned judge-buying and kneecap-breaking and down-by-the-waterfront executions any day of the week. At least then you know who you're dealing with.

Re:RIAA vs. the Mob.

[mrchaotica]

Makes sense to me!

Re:RIAA vs. the Mob.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I think a production cartel like the RIAA probably does more long-term damage to an economy/market, if allowed to take control and operate a political system, than a criminal organization ever could.

At least you don't end up dead when you go against the RIAA.

re: Powerless?

[King_TJ]

I can relate to what you're saying... Thankfully, I haven't had any personal friends die in the war so far, but many people I know have gone through it.

But rather than taking an attitude of "It's hopeless!", I try to take a long-term outlook on everything. Bush can't stay in office forever, and it's becoming increasingly clear to people that the "war on terror" is mostly an excuse to pass new laws. What this means is, our next elected president is going to be a Democrat. He (she?) may not be any better at running things than the Bush administration.... but few people would really want to run for office parroting the same policies that generated one of the lowest approval poll ratings in history. So you can be assured that there will at least be a change in direction.

As a Libertarian myself, I plan on voting in that manner. Of course it isn't accomplishing much right now, but at least I'm casting a vote for what I believe in. And by the mere fact that it's still a relatively unknown platform, it prods some people to take interest. (EG. I went to the polling place for a local election a couple years ago, and when I asked for a Libertarian card - they didn't even have the right colored punch-cards readily available. My district is strongly Democrat, so I was apparently the first voter in the place who asked for that. They had to rummage around for the proper card, and it generated noticeable attention in the room. I suspect at least one of the people there got more curious about what the L.P. was all about, just from that situation.)

I've also noticed a marked increase in random people I meet who mention an interest in a 3rd. political party. Not that long ago, if you mentioned the Green Party or Libertarians, most people had no idea what you were talking about. ("Libertarians? Are they real liberal, or some version of that Socialist party?") Nowdays, quite a few people say they're at least aware of the alternatives, and usually know some friends who belong to those parties.

Nonce sense!

[Anonymous Coward]

we can't prove it, but it's a scientific fact!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[masdog]

But a 5% showing for a 3rd party candidate will have an effect. Ralph Nader didn't even need those numbers nationally to get noticed by the Democratic party or the media.

The problem is that when a 3rd party candidate gets popular, one or both of the major parties will resort to keeping that candidate off the ballot by any means necessary. In the last US election, the DNC successfully went to court in several states to keep Nader off the ballot because they feared he would take more votes away from their candidate.

Comes now the "war on copying"

[Mr. Slippery]

For some years, as the rhetoric of the RIAA and MPAA grew hotter, I've been predicting a "War on Copying" similar to (and about as successful as) the "War on Drugs".

In a few years, look for guys selling copy-protection busting software on the streetcorners next to the heroin dealers.

(Hmm, but then, this could be an opportunity for code geeks to make drug-dealer cash, to live that romantic cyberpunk outlaw hacker lifestyle...)

Just once, I'd like to make a pessimistic prediction about the United States government and be wrong.

Sunbelt state voter's view

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can't believe what this administration is doing! Spending billions on a bogus war while domestic needs go unmet...oooh, he mentioned school prayer...pushing bills pandering to the entertainment industry at the expense of the public and...aaahh, they mentioned gay marriage and abortion...sticking it to most Americans by putting more power into fewer wealthy elite's hands...they just waved a flag! Must vote for Republican's again. Must vote for Republican's again..."

Sorry government, but there's prior art here

[trigonalmayhem]

M.I.A. and Diplo's "Piracy Funds Terrorism" came out in 2004. I imagine they could probably sue you for IP violation if you pass this law.

garbage by any other name...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between a Congressional building and the town dump?

How and when the trash is delivered.

heh

[spammacus]

"'IP crime' ... which is used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

Or perhaps the word 'terrorism', which is used, quite frankly, by two-bit politians to draw attention to a personal agenda.

Just like the word 'communism' in the 50s. Plus ca change...

What's stealing?

[k2r]

> (after all, stealing is to get it for free, no?)

No, this is a common mistake.
At least in Germany stealing is taking away some movable thing of substance without the consent of the owner and with the intent of not giving it back.
Copyright infringement is not stealing.
"Stealing music" is not possible.

k2r

The essence of evil

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Is not a devil with horns.

It is the desire to kill freedom and subjugate all of humanity.

There was an interesting question posed on the most recent episode of Doctor Who:

Is a slave, still a slave, if he doesn't know he is one?

The answer is yes, and anyone who says otherwise has something to gain from enslaving people.

There is only one solution to the coming subjugation of the human race...

Revolution.

Third Party voting

[SeanDuggan]

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.
A third party candidate can easily mean the difference between success and victory if they split the vote. Numbers of votes significant enough to show third party interest are likely enough to tip the election if people consistently choose a third party candidate rather than one of the two main ones. The Democrats and Republicans love the idea of third party candidates because they can use it to manipulate the vote.

Quite frankly, I don't think any level of third party interest is going to get through to those people who vote straight tickets of Democrat and Republican regardless of issues. Most of them do it because that's how their parents vote, or that's how people they trust tell them to vote, or because people within their ethnic/social/religious group are supposed to vote that way. I personally disagree with those people who run those "get up and vote" programs. Most people in this country shouldn't be voting because they have no idea or real interest in the issues they're voting on.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[HooliganIntellectual]

"Voter turnout is low because of stupidity & apathy." Sorry, this is just an old wives tale about nonvoters. Most nonvoters refuse to vote because they see the system as being corrupt and irrelevant to their lives. People are not ignorant about the fact that the American political system sucks. In fact, the approval rating for Congress among ALL voting age Americans is incredibly low. If voting changed anything they wuld make it illegal.

terrorism and everything

[buhatkj]

truthfully any possible sourceof income could be used to fund terrorism. we know they sell drugs, heroin/opium other stuff locally produced in the islamic world. we know they also recieve donations from anonymous charitable organizations. we know terrorists get involved in spamming, adware, anything where you can make a quick buck anonymously. now if they can print up a few thousand second rate ripped off copies of some dvd and sell them for 5 bucks a piece on the street in hongkong, wtf, they'll do it. they could also sell lemonade..or falafel(haha). maybe some popcorn to go with the dvds. hell with that, they could steal stuff off trucks and sell it. they could do any damn thing. this is all just trying to treat a symptom.
inevitably, they will make money somehow, because they need money to fund their activities. until their ability to exist covertly, or their reason for being is gone, they will continue to find ways legal or otherwise to fund themselves.

the only real effect of this stupid law will be to put a bunch of dumb kids in jail, who just couldnt pay for some movie on dvd, or modded their xboxes. it won't do a damn thing to stop terrorism.

to be honest, the middle east situation seems hopeless to me at this point. i dunno, its just a bunch of land. we have more than enough, could we just move the israelis here?
even if we did, would all this murdering stop? or would the palistinians just find other reasons for it?

its funny, to me it seems like a big world, yet we are always fighting over little bits of it. it seems so stupid.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[MrZaius]

http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong108/ippa/2004100 7notes.asp
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5989&sequence =0

Could it be "H.R. 2391
Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004
As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on October 7, 2004"? If it is, take a careful look at titles V and VI. Both look good on the surface.

I flew off the handle and called my congressman halfway through RTFAing, got asked for a bill number, and couldn't find anything that supported the article. Any ideas on what to tell 'em to look out for?

PS: People, call your local offices and email your congressmen/congresswomen when someone gives us some usable information. Call the local office, and you'll be the only one talking to his local staff about this issue, and they're probably more likely to pass things up the chain than the DC staff.

(Note: IANA congressional staffer, just someone that trusts local folk more than DC interns and lawyers.)

Simple solution!

[thisissilly]

If copyright infringement were really funding terrorism, the simple solution would be to legalize it: if anyone could copy anything they wanted without penalty, there would be little incentive to buy "pirated" goods from bad guys!

More seriously, I intend to contact my congresspeople and tell them to vote against this.

When do we get to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hdonate to some congressman and have him introduce legislation reducing copyright terms, clarifying fair use, etc?

wake up time!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been voting C party last two presidential elections (it comes the closest to my moderately nationalistic and strict constitutionalist leanings), but I will point out their stance on IP is pretty much the same as the most restricted R or D on that issue. That needs to change at their top levels and get them back to a more freedom oriented aspect. I think a lot of it is they "don't get it" on some computer and electronic issues. Simple ignorance perhaps.

This new measure, if/when introduced and passed would basically nail about all the political and news blogs out there, including Slashdot. Slashdot would get shut down from this law, and so would freeps, DU and other such places. This is something all political activists no matter their stripes need to oppose. Maintainers of blogs would have to vett every post before it went live at a minimum and be pretty restrictive. Most linux distros/mirrors if they were accessible in the US would get charged, or could be quite easily. The defintion of copyright infringing "tools" could be quite a few popular programs now shipped.

Re:wake up time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution Party? You guys are awesome!

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[MrZaius]

(grr... responded to the wrong thread)

Woohoo!

[Gorkamecha]

Now in addition to illegal immigrants, our prisons (already overflowing from the "war" on drugs) can now cram in the geeks as well. Soon their will be more people in prison then working to pay for them!

And, that, folks is why this bill shouldn't be...

[Svartalf]

There's two key words there, "Congress" and "President".

Congress is the one that's supposed to come up with the laws, including the verbiage, based on their own perceptions and input from their constituents.

That's not the President's job nor is he supposed to be allowed to do so.

But, here we are, with the President and his Administration acting like they're the sole rulers of this country- and effectively, they might be, but the law says different.

Never mind that it's one of the more draconian Copyright enforcement laws ever. (Why did we need a new one, the DMCA didn't do what it was intended to do and made things worse by doing unintended things in the process- this is liable to be even worse...)

Never mind that they're using the lamest damn reason (C'mon Gonzalez, provide us PROOF of claims of it supporting terrorism before making those sorts of claims!)

It's that they're not following the proper procedures and they're openly admitting that a lot of what passes for lawmaking isn't at this point with them claiming that Bush drafted the law.

I'd be upset about that. I'd be asking questions about that.

And some people wonder who piracy hurts....

[mark-t]

Because, quite frankly, we have only the epidemic proportions disregard for copyright to thank for acts like this.

Public Knowledge information Updated

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note, the link provided to Public Knowledge (http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391) pointed to an old bill. We've (PK) updated the information at that URL to apply to the current draft proposal.

Supreme Court - dodged a bullet

[wiredlogic]

which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

With deductive reasoning as rock solid as this. I'm glad Gonzales was passed over for nomination as a Supreme Judge. Thanks W.

See what happens when ...

[constantnormal]

... the Chinese do not respond when asked nicely?

The forces of law and (dis)order in these United States promptly legislate solutions to the Chinese lack of respect for IP.

What? This isn't aimed at the Chinese?!?

This is an anti-terrorism bill?????

Somehow, I just can't see Osama sitting in the caves in Pakistan churning out bootleg copies of Charlies Angels DVDs.

There must be some mistake -- this appears to be a bill SUPPORTING consumer terrorism on the part of the media monopolies.

Where it says "Of the People, By the People, For the People" ... exactly who are these "People" being referred to?

Re:See what happens when ...

[funwithBSD]

America citizens, and to some extent legal aliens

It certianly does not apply to anyone outside the US, such as OBL or the Chinese.

As I hear so much these days "Well, you have to respect the culture if you want to do business in X"

That cuts both ways, you should respect the IP laws of the country you do business in. Hey, if they want to sell bootlegs to India or themselves, so what?

But to reimport them to the country that you stole them from is disrespectful.

Corporate Crime vs Crimes of Humanity

[grapeape]

And we all thought that corporate run govt and law inforcement was the stuff of science fiction. Its nice to know that copying madonna's new cd is more of a crime than agravated assault. Based on current federal sentencing guidelines this will rank "copyright violation" somewhere between violent rape and child molesting. Whats the lesson to be learned in this? I guess if your just dying for the latest cd's your better off robbing a music store you will do less time.

Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Germany stealing is taking away some movable thing of substance without the consent of the owner and with the intent of not giving it back.
Copyright infringement is not stealing.
"Stealing music" is not possible.

But you can easily steal a CD. I don't think anybody would argue that that is theft, and that it is morally and legally wrong. But the value of a CD is not in the physical medium -- anybody can get a blank CD practically free -- the value is in the data stored on the CD. So what exactly is being stolen?

Re:Devil's advocate

[k2r]

IANAL but it's essential for "theft" (in GermanyAFAIK) that the owner does not have acccess to the item afterwards.

Since the RIAA can sell as many copies as before even if I downloaded 10000 mp3's this is hardly theft.

It's copyright infringement or "Urheberrechtsverletzung", but not rape, murder, terrorism, trespassing or theft.

k2r

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[glesga_kiss]

It's no surprise then that using information about registered voters they draw the lines in such a way as to maximizing their chances to get re-elected. Latelly they even use computer programs to do that.

Shouldn't the programmers be up on terrorism charges for that? They are clearly and deliberately attacking democracy, which is what terrorism is. Apparently.

More SLAPP on the Way, Free Software Beware.

[twitter]

Strategic lawsuit against public participation will be so much easier now. From the first article:

Boosts criminal penalties for copyright infringement originally created by the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 from five years to 10 years (and 10 years to 20 years for subsequent offenses). The NET Act targets noncommercial piracy including posting copyrighted photos, videos or news articles on a Web site if the value exceeds $1,000.

I can see "deep linking" doo doo all over the place, resulting in seizures of equipment and 10 year prison terms.

Also this was disturbing:

The SIIA's Kupferschmid, though, downplayed concerns about the expansion of the DMCA. "We really see this provision as far as any changes to the DMCA go as merely a housekeeping provision, not really a substantive change whatsoever," he said. "They're really to just make the definition of trafficking consistent throughout the DMCA and other provisions within copyright law uniform." The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

Red Hat? You are kidding me! This bill is going to make life very difficult for free software. The big publishers are going to move to DRM'd formats and you will have to chose between them and your software freedom. Projects like Wine, Mplayer and Xine are going to be hammered. As it has been in the past for record stores, it's there way or the highway for you. The harassment potential of these changes is limitless and Red Hat will learn to their cost that they are not part of the big media club. I suggest they have Kupferschmid make a retraction or leave the organization.

When politicians use star wars as a guide...

[Anonymous Coward]

How much it would cost to get legislation passed that would require everyone to refer to Lamar Smith as Jar Jar Smith?

Re:When politicians use star wars as a guide...

[Jack Schitt]

Yeah, votes run around $50,000 and up these days, depending on the representative(sic) in question...

Small Correction from an Orwell Groupie

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwellian doubletalk is properly called "duckspeak".

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[c6gunner]

"Most nonvoters refuse to vote because they see the system as being corrupt and irrelevant to their lives"

You just proved his point. Most people don't understand the system and are too lazy or ignorant to do the research. On top of that, they think it's irrelevant to their lives. So you get ignorance and apathy. Look up those twow rods in a dictionary if you're confused about their meaning.

Re:It's not too difficult to figure out, you know.

[saintlupus]

You're making the assumption that the voters are well-enough informed to make the decision to vote for C.

And that C doesn't completely pussy out for some other reason. I generally vote a straight Green ticket, but they weren't on the ballot for the presidential race in '04. Why? I live in New York, and they didn't seek to be on the ballot in traditionally Dem states.

--saint

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[pclminion]

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

This statement is bandied about quite often. I've yet to see any proof of its veracity. I'll continue to vote third-party anyway, but I'm not deluding myself.

Thank you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cesare Beccaria... It's nice to see you've brought punishment theory up to the 18th century.

But.. but.. but...

[CptnHarlock]

I always vote!.. :P .. Did I _anywhere_ say that I am apathic? Or that I don't vote? Whare in your reply did you state what _you_ are doing about the situation? I've also done a lot of volunteer and so called grasroots work. I've also for a period of time been labeled (officially, mind you) a terrorist by the regime of one of those "for life" leaders you mention.. But that's another tale... :)

Cheers.. And keep up the anger!..

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[pclminion]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

As I mentioned in another comment, I've done some very extensive data mining of the Congressional voting records over the past 15 years. The statement that the parties are practically the same is completely ludicrous. However, what is even more important than your party affiliation is who your friends in Congress are. One of the most interesting revelations of my research was that congresspeople form very well-defined cliques and voting is extremely consistent within these cliques.

Yeah, yeah, we all knew that, but it's good to see it borne out by some real statistics.

Re:And, that, folks is why this bill shouldn't be.

[JWW]

Oh, come now. The President's always been able to ask lawmakers to introduce legislation for them. That's nothing new.

Its just that this particular law is a pile of crap, no matter who wrote it.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[pclminion]

Try explaining the Condorcet system to the average Joe. His eyes will get glassy. Nobody is going to approve a voting system that they can't understand (and therefore, trust). Even stupid people understand what "majority" means, so that's what we get.

Go back to the source !

[Anonymous Coward]

The first US Constitution states that copyright is limited to TEN YEARS.

And NOT to be extended forever at the whim of fat scumbags who buy the law
that suits their IP owning companies. Without even mentioning the ridiculous
"copyright crime".

Copying a work is never a crime. It is only a means to disseminate something
that should be free, ie : our common culture.
Copying a recently released work should always be a minor offense because not everyone has the means to
get access to them. Culture is what binds us in a common understanding.
It should not be an instrument of division based on personal wealth.

Since one has to pay often large sums to produce some of these works and the artist must have an incentive and a reward if he creates something good, TEN YEARS' rights is more than enough to recover any monies and profit well enough to continue producing more works.

At the end of these ten years, no one should be able to prevent the free
distribution (or "file sharing") of these works.

This has nothing to do with industrially made illegal copies, which are done
by criminal organisations and should be punished acordingly.

That's the way it should be, but instead, we get revolting, dishonest,
sold-out piglets spreading the most sickening lies about IP "theft"
and trying to manipulate public opinion into believing that any sharing
is wrong.

What is wrong is that the same people are keeping everything for themselves
as usual. Because they can. Don't let them get away with it.
Keep copying, keep sharing. You're hitting them where it hurts most : their
bank account. Every time it goes down, their power wanes a little.

Notice how the price of DVDs has gone down ? It's because they have to lower
it to move them, not because they want to be nice to you and let you have things at a better bargain.
File sharing is exposing the grossly extortionate profits they are used to making at the expense of the public.

They will only negociate with a knife to their throats, all the while making sure
they can terrorize the ordinary joe with "copyright crime" sentences from bought and paid for laws.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Rich0]

One advantage of proportional democracy is that there are no local reps - everybody is elected on a national scale. Therefore, there is no single constituency that you can shower with money to buy votes. Thus, no local pork-barrel spending.

On the other hand, you don't have a local rep to talk to per se when you have an issue you want raised. Then again, how many people really have access to their federal reps in the current system?

Think about what you wrote, for a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooner or later... we will tumble as hard as USSR or will elect to start a war.

Think about that statment, a bit.

Afganistan. Iraq. "War on Drugs". "War on Terrorism".

Or were you thinking of a new one? Iran? North Korea? China? Oceana? Eurasia?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[An Onerous Coward]

Until we have condorcet voting, I don't think the problem of strategic voting will go away.

But I can't see how it would benefit the congresscritters to implement it, so I'm not sure who to write.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Then states will relatively low population, like Nevada, would get screwed.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[0x0000]

Sorry - I find that argument quite irritating.

Me too, but unfortunately for the voting population, the fact that it's annoying doesn't quite invalidate it entire.

if the candidates percentage of the vote is 1% one year, then 1.2%, then 3%, etc, the major parties will notice that & attempt to make their policies closer to the libertarian (or whatever) ideal.

.... or at least, that's one theory of how it could go. There are others, including, say, the Regime that takes power makes it illegal, immoral, or fattening to belong to another party, or socially unnacceptable not to belong to the ruling party. The Suppression of Dissent is the basis for most of what the current Regime has done, and they show no signs of slacking off on it. There will be no "third parties" in 2008 - assuming we even have an election - it would be trivial for the Dubya Regime to advance their terrorist agenda suffiently over the next 2 years that they will be able to openly admit the fact that they are suspending the democratic process - after all, they've already done it - admitting it will just require another couple major "terrorist strikes". Think they wouldn't?

A case in point: The Nader/LaDuke/Green ticket got a percentage of the vote in 2000 (e.g. 3% in Iowa); in 2004, conditions for third parties were so much worse there was no noticeable Green presence *anywhere*. Looked like (to me) that the uptick in 3rd party voters in 2000 scared the Republicrats sufficiently that they took steps to make sure it didn't happen again.

When you have an activist government...

[RexRhino]

There are two theories of government... one, that central government should be extremly limited, and should stick to a few basic things to keep the peace (like defending borders, printing money, making sure people aren't dumping waste into lakes, etc)... then there are those who believe that the government should have broad powers and unlimited resources, and it's job is to "run" society, and manage it, and address every single problem in society.

The benifit of an activist government is you can scream and cry and there isn't a single problem that it won't try to help you with (if it actually does help you is a matter of debate)... but all benifits have an associated cost. The cost is that EVERYONE gets to ask the government for help... And since we have a population of hundreds of millions of people, and since we live in a society where millions of people can have conflicted interests with millions of other people, and since governments ability to control things is rather crude (it can only promise punishment/violence for generalized situations) - There are going to be a lot of people hurt by the government. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Most people here want a ultra-powerful centralized government that regulates all of society, but they want that same government to keep it's hands out of the Internet, or intellectual property, or whatever it is that they are into. That is just not possible. In the same way you dismiss anyone who complains about drug regulation, or enviornmental regulation, or other regulation... the average Joe is going to dismiss you at best of being some crazy Libertarian, and at worse of being a terrorist-loving greedy capitalist bastard who wants to take away our precious rights, OUR IP RIGHTS! After all, the government is here to help us and protect us, and you want to eliminate that protection!

You will not be able to stop the massive regulation and centralized control of information, because you support massive regulation and centralized control as an ideology in itself. I know, I know, you say "Well, I support regulation, but I support GOOD regulation, not bad"... but "good" and "bad" are subjective, so that isn't an excuse. You support regulation first and foremost, and in a democracy that is trying to balance the will of millions it is hard to come up with regulations that don't screw over millions of people. Strict IP controls are just another price you have to pay for having an activist government to "protect" you.

Re:When you have an activist government...

[Sj0]

Prove that the dichotomy exists, or your rant is invalid.

I doubt I'm alone in being dubious about your assertion that slashdotters want a superpowered government.

Re:When you have an activist government...

[RexRhino]

I doubt I'm alone in being dubious about your assertion that slashdotters want a superpowered government.

You missed the point. Most Slashdotters WANT a superpowered government for some things, and don't want a superpowered government for other things.

You want me to prove that a big government that regulates everything, will also regulate the things that geeks find important? Duh! Look at reality. The larger the government, the more powerful the government, the more centralized the government, and the more information is regulated. More government control = more government control of information - almost universally. Show me the case of the authoritarian government that is laize faire when it comes to information and technology!

Re:When you have an activist government...

[Sj0]

No, I'm missing the part where your point seems at all valid. I'm waiting for you to validate your point somehow. By all means, please point to this mythical superpowered government everyone wants.

Re:When you have an activist government...

[RexRhino]

If you don't agree that the government is becoming totalitarian, and you think that everyone are all freedom loving people, and everything in America is fine and dandy, well, that is very comfortable. You can argue that you don't get my point all you want. But when this law passes with bipartisan support, and the vast majority of people accept this law without question (because, after all, it is governments job to protect us), you will get my point. When you are accused of being a "terrorist lover", because "terrorists are making money breaking IP laws", or accused of being some sort of anarchist when you disagree with the law, you will get my point. In a couple years down the line, and you go to prison for 10 years for posting "intellectual property" on your website (the President's speech was copyrighted after all! You shouldn't be critising it on your website!), you will get the point just fine.

Eventually you are going to be confronted by the police state, and they aren't going to listen to you as patiently as I am. And they won't have to prove any point to you, they will point their guns, and you will say "Yes Sir!". You will agree with me eventually, I was just hoping to use gentle persuasion before it gets that bad.

Re:When you have an activist government...

[Sj0]

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were, like many others, accusing Slashdotters of being big government loving hypocrites. I agree with the premise that government in general acts towards furthering one goal while pretending to be trying to further another.

It's time for ... sneakernet !

[Anonymous Coward]

And I heard the sound of a thousand encrypted hard drives being sent via Fed Ex ...

I'm more scared of the implications...

[C10H14N2]

That we have simply redefined what is merely a tort as a crime. That much alone is frightful, regardless of the tort. It would be as if suddenly we redefined personal injury as a crime. So, someone comes to your house, slips and breaks a hip. Now, not only do they sue you for eleventy billion dollars, they sue to get you thrown in prison for ten years. This is no different and if we can declare something is vaguely damaging as copyright infringement as a crime, prison sentences for fender-benders--a FAR more quantifiable and real liability--are just around the corner.

Unfortunately, there is so much schadenfreude in this country that people willfully assent to this constant increasing severity in punishment for offenses of constantly decreasing severity in damages. Don't be do quick to blame just one politician or another. Their constituents--read: your neighbors--actually want this and, frankly, get off on the idea of it being applied to "those people." Everything is "their" fault and "they" should be punished severely so "we" good, upstanding citizens can be comfortable that the problem was never "us" but "them."

Re:I'm more scared of the implications...

[KwKSilver]

Your first paragraph is wickedly insightful. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up....

Riiight

[Guppy06]

"The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

No, terrorism is 99.9% funded at the gas pump. For every fraction of a cent Osama might get from "IP crime" (assuming that he actually does), he gets a buck from your fill-up. Where are the laws limiting gasoline consumption to "fight terror" and "save the children?"

If Gonzales is going to make statements like this, he damned well better have the evidence to back this up. If he "knows" that "terrorists" are making money from it, then he should have an idea how much money is being made from it and how it is reflected in terror's budget overall.

Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed)

[verisof]

I just read the bill and was disgusted by what I saw. Like most of us here at Slashdot, I work in the IT field and have had way too many brushes with Homeland Security demanding data they have no right to get just because they want it. Our civil liberties are getting gobbled up and we, as Americans, are letting them do it.

So, everyone on here, PLEASE call Joseph Gibson, Lamar Smith's Chief of Staff at (202) 225-4236. Call him TODAY. He told me that NO ONE had bothered to call them regarding this bill. That I was the FIRST person who had actually talked to him about how heinous some of the provisions are in this bill. Make sure you actually read the Bill before you call so you can make your intelligent objections. Otherwise, we all come across like a bunch of people who just want to rip off IP from other people. And make sure you tell them that you are vehemently opposed to this bill and will raise public awareness about the loss of our Fair Use rights.

I spent a lot of time talking to the Mr. Gibson about the Sony Betamax ruling with regard to Fair Use rights and how Business would have missed out on the multi-billion dollar video industry if they hadn't lost that case. Also, about how creating legislation to keep a monopolistic cartel (RIAA & MPAA) in a position of power is ANTI-free market. (Businesses in a free market have to adapt to survive, I certainly know that I have to play by those rules. . . .)

Other things we can do include:

• Sending emails out to everyone we know to contact the Congressman's office. Let's flood his office with emails, phone calls & letters.
  
• Contact the news desk at your local newspapers and make sure that they are covering this item. It makes for good copy if they actually KNOW about it.
  
• Do anything you make the NON-geeks out there understand the rights they lose with this bill. How would they like it if music ripping software was illegal and they could no longer put the music from their LEGALLY PURCHASED CD's on their iPods?
  
• Also take the time to write a letter. Every one letter represents 1,000 constituents who have the same problems, but just couldn't find the time to write.

Also, please Mod this reply up to make sure that people GET THE MESSAGE. Thanks!!!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Guppy06]

"You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents."

And what message is that? "The state legislatures have successfully gerrymandered dissenters into obscurity, leaving the incumbents to continue to ignore them completely?"

Except for statewide offices, our "elected leaders" are chosen not by the ballot box, but years prior in the state houses. American democracy is about the legislators picking their voters, not the other way around, and unless that changes, even a vote for a major party candidate is a waste of time.

Re:yes... hard to implement

[Znork]

"we need regional representation more than we need political diversity to that extreme..."

Actually, that's a question of decentralization. Regionality based representation in a body that is overly centralized just results in pork-barrel politics (ie, I'll support your law on social security and you give my brother in law, I mean, region a 50 million dollar bridge project).

If there are issues that are so different among regions, having regional representation serves no purpose; the representatives cannot decide on such an issue in any meaningful and honest way, except to decide to make it a local issue instead.

So, I'd suggest that a california libertarian has more in common with an eastern libertarian than he has with a californian democrat, and for issues that cannot be (and/or arent) dealt with locally, the representation would serve better as a representation for political opinions rather than as representation for regionality.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Guppy06]

"In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters."

"Enormous number?" Got a source?

Here in reality, most US elections are won by supermajorities of 80%+, a member of the House of Representatives is more likely to be indicted or die in office than to lose an election. It's called "gerrymandering."

interesting

[danielk1982]

Will they jail the 25 million users of various P2P networks? Or just make an example of a few old ladies?

I fucking hate Ross Perot

[Tony]

I hate him. I hate his irritating voice, his big ears, and his small stature. I fucking hate Ross Perot.

He made a liar out of me. I had told my brother there was no way in hell a third party stood a chance in this country, and along comes Ross to garner a substantive portion of the vote. Ape-fucker.

19% isn't a "small fraction", particularly in light of the power that the two major parties wield.

Especially considering how nutso he seemed at the end. I know a lot of that was media manipulation, but he sure seemed nutso. My brother thinks he didn't want to win, like Richard Pryor in _Brewster's Millions_.

Unfortunately, I think the two parties have learned their lesson. Now third parties are pretty much locked out. The increasingly-vehement rhetoric between party lines has galvanized party constituents so they are less likely to stray. "Red" vs. "Blue" has turned us into rival gangs, with all the hate and anger focused against the other gang, rather than against the leaders of the gangs who take turns bending over the Statue of Liberty and fucking her green copper ass.

Not that I'm angry or anything.

Re:I fucking hate Ross Perot

[Grishnakh]

I hate him. I hate his irritating voice, his big ears, and his small stature. I fucking hate Ross Perot.

You hate him because he looks dorky? I don't care what a leader looks like, only that they do a good job. Whatever his physical traits are, he has successfully run a couple of large companies (and not ones that are just war profiteers like Halliburton).

He made a liar out of me. I had told my brother there was no way in hell a third party stood a chance in this country, and along comes Ross to garner a substantive portion of the vote. Ape-fucker.

"Lying" is when you knowingly tell a mistruth. Expressing an opinion or prediction which turns out to be wrong is not lying. A "liar" is usually someone with a history of telling deliberate mistruths. So calm down.

Unfortunately, I think the two parties have learned their lesson. Now third parties are pretty much locked out. The increasingly-vehement rhetoric between party lines has galvanized party constituents so they are less likely to stray. "Red" vs. "Blue" has turned us into rival gangs, with all the hate and anger focused against the other gang, rather than against the leaders of the gangs who take turns bending over the Statue of Liberty and fucking her green copper ass.

This is pretty much right-on.

Maybe we'll have a big civil war between the Reds and the Blues, with people taking up arms and shooting their next-door neighbors because they're a "Blue". Within weeks, the country's population would be decimated, and the wildlife can take over. It'd definitely be an interesting story for the history books.

fun and games with asset forfeiture

[necrognome]

From TFA:

Creates civil asset forfeiture penalties for anything used in copyright piracy. Computers or other equipment seized must be "destroyed" or otherwise disposed of, for instance at a government auction. Criminal asset forfeiture will be done following the rules established by federal drug laws.

Now we know how the FBI will go about upgrading its outdated computer systems.

Copyright circumvention == terrorism?

[ClubStew]

So I guess all my old college classmates and that 14 year old girl RIAA sued (among many others) are all terrorists. Gosh, Gonzales is an appointed official by elected "representatives" so it must be true.

To answer someone questions about who elects these people, let me just state that we Americans don't have much choice. It's one lying idiot or another; and either way they hardly represent the majority of their constituents.

Re:And, that, folks is why this bill shouldn't be.

[plague3106]

That's not the President's job nor is he supposed to be allowed to do so.

He can draft a bill, just like anyone else can, and submit it to Congress. Voting into law, that's what he's not allowed to do.

RIAA Mob

[SeanDuggan]

Scarier, an FOAF (yes, that's as far as it goes. A friend of mine has a friend who had it happen to them. Not an urban legend disclaimer) was running an informal service for people who play music so that they could check whether songs they planned to play were in the public domain. After a few decades of playing, she had a fairly good idea of what was in the public domain, what wasn't, and which songs were copied virtually note for note from a public domain song. After a few years of running the service, she was visited by a handful of RIAA agents who first threatened legal action if she didn't advise people, then, when they failed to convince her that way, hinted that unpleasant things could happen to a woman who lived alone. Scary stuff, although I'm not sure how much of this was filtered through my friend when he told the story to me.

Re:Ten years of jail time for copyright infringeme

[unsigned integer]

Just a thought ... those jails we have are awfully expensive per inmate. Wouldn't it be an idea to give offenders a choice: jail time or a tour of service in Afghanistan or Iraq? To err ... atone for their misdemeanour? Just a thought.

Service guarentees citizenship! Click here to find out more!

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[ButHed]

Your description of Portugal sounds like Australia, where I've lived (and voted, responsibly). And like Canada where I've also lived (and voted, responsibly). Now I'm in the U.S., trying to figure out how to vote here. It's not particularly inspiring, I must say. But I am starting to see a pattern.

Ever wondered why the so-called "women's magazines" look so much alike? Every one of them copies what seems to work in the others, which, sadly, seems to drift to the lowest common denominator. They represent nothing; stand for nothing, and make their living from keeping it that way. I think we get the same effect with politicians. Why is this?

The "problems" of are remote; detached from what we do every day. They are "superficialized" by television programs that try to summarize complex issues into 30-second pastiches of the some of the most outrageous sound-bites and the most vivid images. Whether or not the presentation makes sense or not isn't at all the point -- most viewers are semi-conscious at best, and are just seeking titillating gossip. Like the 10 best/worst dressed at the "Oscars".

Try this if you really want to see what I mean: Put on a "news" or "news analysis" television show. Or read your favorite "news" magazine. Carefully try to reconstruct the logic of the argument from what's presented in the article/program. Do some research. Really try hard to examine the implications of each point, and try to find logical flaws and inconsistencies, being careful to avoid only finding those that suit your prejudices and predispositions. (I was taught that this was called "critical thinking" for anyone not familiar with the process). It takes work; effort.

Not enough people seem willing to invest the effort to do their own analysis of the issues. They'd rather stop off on their way home and pick up a McOpinion, and tell themselves that that will be good enough. Few would claim that a "Big Mac" is the best 'burger they've ever had, but it is doubtless the most convenient. Perfect if you're unwilling to invest the effort in finding a better one. Or making a better one. People abroad complain about McDonalds, but there they are, queued up at lunch time. No helicopter gunships or soldiers forcing them in the doors; they go in of their own volition.

We get what we "pay" for; we have nobody to blame but ourselves. If you don't like it, educate yourself and go do something about it.

Re:Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I have emailed my congressman, reported this to the local tv news station, and am trying to find a submission page for the local newspaper.

I also sent an email to the House Judiciary Committee asking them to re-evaluate the sponsorship of this bill, considering the companies that own Lamar Smith.

That phone number is looking tempting, though.

Stealing STAC code terrorism?

[wardk]

IP theft funds terrorism???

So does this mean that MS is a potential terrorist organization after blatantly stealing and being convicted of said stealing of STAC's disc compression technology?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[swillden]

Try explaining the Condorcet system to the average Joe.

I've done it several times. It's not bad at all if you explain it the right way:

Me: Each voter makes a list, favorite at the top, least favorite at the bottom. If more than half of the voters listed A higher than B, then A beats out B. Whichever candidate beats out all the others wins the election. And voters can vote their true feelings without worrying that they're throwing their vote away.

Joe: But what if nobody beats everyone else?

Me: That almost never happens, but there is a simple, sensible rule to figure out the winner even when it does. Basically, you just figure that big wins say more about what the voters want than narrow victories.

Joe: That makes sense.

Me: It's really clear if you look at a couple of examples.

Joe: Nahh, that's okay.

Actually, explaining IRV isn't significantly easier than pairwise methods.

And *everyone* can understand approval voting without any trouble at all, and it's better at strengthening third parties and reducing strategic voting than IRV.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Spy der Mann]

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away

Yeah, but people want immediate solutions. (Would you stand another 4 years of Bush?)

We need to change the elections system. Allow third parties, replace the stupid "electoral votes" (WTF?) for popular votes, and have a second voting between the two most popular candidates if the winner doesn't get over 50% of votes.

Where's Mike Godwin now?

[FhnuZoag]

Seriously, what is needed is a variant of Godwin's law, only referring to terrorism instead of Nazis. Appeals to terrorism in a discussion never, as far as I can tell, enhances the level of the debate and is almost always a stupid appeal to emotion.

"give Justice Department tools to fund terrorism"

[HTH NE1]

Yeah, but the "IP theft = terrorism" line came from Gonzales

In the blurb, I read it as "give the Justice department 'tools...' which are used to '...fund terrorism activities'".

Unless "which which" is supposed to mean something and wasn't a typo.

(TFA makes it clear that it is the copyright crimes that allegedly fund terrorism, not the tools, except where I say "allegedly" they say "quite frankly". Almost makes you want to accidentally run over his dog, Lionel Hutz-style.)

News headlines will read....

[BobSutan]

"New legislation passed into law. Theft rates skyrocket."

"When the police asked a man caught stealing DVDs and CDs from the store, he said the risk was a bargain compared to downloading the same content online. Now he'll only get a fine, a few days in jail, and be on his merry way. If he'd used a computer to do the same thing he'd be financially ruined, spend up to a decade or so in 'pound me in the ass prison', and be marked for life as a felon. To him the choice was simple."

My point is punishments need to fit the crime. This legislation proposes punishments that are grossly excessive, as is the case for many punishments related to computer crimes that were brought forth by the content industries--I'm looking at you RIAA and MPAA. When the punishment of doing physical harm and ACTUAL theft is less risky of making a mere copy of electronic data, the world is in a sorry state of affairs, which is a symptom of the greed and corruption ruining this country.

Well okay then, the U.S. is not fascist...

[dtjohnson]

We're not fascist yet since we fall short on several of the 14 characteristics of the fascist state:

1 -- Displays of the flag have decreased and most don't sing when its time to sing 'God Bless America' at baseball games.

8 -- There's very little intertwining of religion and government on an official basis, other than in the rhetoric of a few leaders.

14 -- Our elections are generally not fraudulent, although Diebold et. al. are making inroads.

Okay, we're not doing too well on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 but there's still hope.

Re:Well okay then, the U.S. is not fascist...

[NeuroAcid]

No no, your wrong.

1.Flags are being replaced with magnetic ribbons

8.religious groups are starting to use lobbyists more and I'm sure you know that since Bush came to office religious organizations have been receiving government money,

and 14. yes Diebold and gerrymandering, and the fact that you need a shitload of money to run a campaign, and the fact that the way the system is set up no third party stands a chance

Re:Well okay then, the U.S. is not fascist...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not fascist yet since we fall short on several of the 14 characteristics of the fascist state:

1 -- Displays of the flag have decreased and most don't sing when its time to sing 'God Bless America' at baseball games.

Don't you mean 'The Star Spangled Banner'? Granted, I swore off professional crybab^H^H^H^H^H^H sports years ago, so they may have stopped singing the national anthem at sporting events.

The RedHat Connection.

[Irvu]

The SIIA's board of directors includes Symantec, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Intuit and Red Hat.

There's your answer. Lamar Smith was bought and paid for by these people RedHat Amongst them. It is they who are to blame for this law not him, and their pressure that is to blame for Gonzalez obsessively linking this to terrorism (show me how Bin Laden benefits from pirated Britney Spears).

If we want change we have to stop screaming about Sony and then buying their products. If any company backs legislation we oppose then we have to deny them our cash. Sony is in on this but so are some of the companies above and the ones listed here. We have to do the same to companies like RedHat and Sun.

1. Call Redhat at 1-888-733-4281 or +1-919-754-3700 (outside the U.S.)
2. Tell them that this bill is an abomination that you cannot support and that if they support it they wont get your or your company's cash in the future.
3. Do the same for Sun:
   

   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   4150 Network Circle
   Santa Clara, CA 95054
   Phone: US 1-800-555-9SUN; International 1-650-960-1300

   
   
4. And Oracle:Bullet Corporate Headquarters
   500 Oracle Parkway
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   Bullet Call for Directions
   650.506.7000
   Bullet International Phone
   +1.650.506.7000
   

   Bullet Corporate Headquarters
   500 Oracle Parkway
   Redwood Shores, CA 94065
   Bullet Call for Directions
   650.506.7000
   Bullet International Phone
   +1.650.506.7000

5. And so on

Lamar Smith should also be contacted, but he will just do what his corporate sponsors say so they are tones we have to target and for us as /.'rs The tech companies are our crowd.

Benefits of the Bill

[SeanDuggan]

What makes it worse is that there's some good stuff in the bill too. 5136 allows libraries to legally make copies of "orphan works" that are unclaimed but technically copyrighted so as to preserve them. 2391 apparently adds some protections for people who wish to collaberate on scientific projects but are worried that they might forfeit their patent. Admittedly, I don't know how either of those are phrased, so they could range from useless to actively harmful, but I could see the proponents of the bill playing up those parts and even getting some computer geeks rallying behind them.

So, this is how TCP will become mandatory

[karlandtanya]

Authorities
That computer is a hacking tool. Hacking is illegal.

Hacker
No, you're confusing "hacking" with criminal acts. "Hacking" just means that I'm using my computer in a manner not consistent with its original design to solve a problem in an imaginative manner.

Authorities
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Look, sir--some laws are just unenforcable, and we know that everybody's been breaking them for a long time. Hell, I used to, too. That's over now, but we're not locking people up for it yet. The people in the TCPA did the best they could to protect their rights and preserve as much of yours as they could tolerate. After that, legislatures simply let the technology define the rights.
The law has changed: What you're doing falls outside the scope of the TCP System. You could have bought an approved computer. The courts understand that there's really only one reason you didn't. know there's only one reason you didn't. We don't have to prove you did anything else illegal--the presence of the unlicensed computer is a crime, now.

You have a good job. A decent house that you're going to own in twelve more years, good credit, the respect of your peers, and peace of mind. You eat dinner with your kids and your wife. And what's your misery? Your kids are a couple of smart-mouth little shitheads? Great. Think about it. Don't be stupid. That's your worst problem? It's just a computer, fer chrissake. Just pay the fine; it's not going to break you.

Nothing else in the house I should know about, is there? Sign here. It says this computer you're giving me is the only illegal item in your possession. I'll sign as witness. See, it says "under penalty of perjury", and you signed it. I trust you. Look, sir, I'm trying to help you out here. You seem to be a decent guy and folks like you really don't belong in jail. I'll be in the neighborhood following up in about a week--you can ask me any questions then. County dump's public property, by the way. Can't say what came from who or when in there. Yeah--next Saturday. We'll be doing this side of the street in the afternoon.

One more thing--After I leave, I go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and get yourself a legal computer, register it, and start using it. Use the number on the bottom of the form.

No, seriously. Go buy a decent computer. You're going to need one, and it's not going to put your Visa over the limit. Look, your hard drives get yanked & scanned into the database. Whatever you were using your computer for before---if don't start doing it on a licensed computer, the court assumes--Yeah, you got it.

Terrified hacker
Sorry. Here's the computer. Where do I sign? Can I pay the fine with Visa? No, I don't mind a 3% fee; that's what--only another fifteen bucks?

Three Years Later...

The fully engaged citizen act: Federally mandated taxpayer subsidized minimum internet access for everyone. Partially or fully subsidized (check your tax return to see if you qualify) computers for everyone. They're not very powerful, but they're enough to vote, file your taxes, and pay your fines.

And we really, really expect you to take advantage of this program. Why wouldn't you? It's basically free, and the only way you can vote, renew your drivers' license, apply for an apartment, sign up for electric service. Give all that up? Why? No, seriously, why? Sure, you can opt out of the program, but we'd really like to know why. I'll wait until you get it filled out. Can we go inside an sit down?

No, you misunderstand the word. Privacy is what's violated when the neighbors peek at your daughter in the shower.
A pattern of secretive behaviour, on the other hand, is evidence of a crime. No, of course, not you. You've done nothing wrong at all.
No, you don't qualify for the subsidy. But, hey, lemme see what I can do. Just sign up today, and I'll see you get the latest model--it'll

The Upside

[carrier lost]

If inexpensive, convenient, entertaining uses of legally purchased media disappear, perhaps more people will turn to free or nearly-free entertainment created without onerous copyright restrictions and not carrying scary legal threats.

Putting aside concern for the obvious damage such legislation does to civil rights, it might actually lead to the demise of the "old" media companies as it becomes safer and less expensive to just enjoy the cheap, independent productions on the old, slow, (public access) 3rd tier of the internet.

MjM

Re:What's the motive? Gimme an answer

[marcosdumay]

People decide what laws to follow around here (Brazil) too. This is good because checks the government actions, but makes it easier to government (all of it, even those not so powerfull people) to steal us. And it is also a nightmare when you have a wana be dictator at the government, because he can enforce it selectively against the people he doesn`t like.

Mod parent up please.

[Hrodvitnir]

I really wish I had mod points to mod you up. This is pure FUD spreading, using lies. As much as I dislike the current administration, spreading easily disabled straw-man bullet points is not the way to undo the damage.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

This is an outright and utter lie created by the Republicans. By lying, whining, and spreading Rove-esque rumors about the previous President and his Party for years and years, they make it seem as though their own lies, schemes, and abuses of power are commonplace. The President has never had amnesty from the law. He has never had all of his supreme court nominees approved. He has never had the right to spy on Americans. He has never blacklisted people from technical conventions based on their party status. He has never asked people to sign loyalty oaths to hear him speak. He has never been a figure of unquestionable sanctity. These things are new, and they are eroding the balance of power. Don't buy the bullshit.

If anything, the Democrats are losing elections exactly because they aren't like the Republicans.

Honestly, I can't believe how many people will sell their public conscience for the warm fuzzy feeling of being more jaded than the average man. It's disgusting.

The reason this all turns to terrorism is

[Maxo-Texas]

unrealistic profits locked in by unreasonable laws.

You don't see terrorists cutting in on industries with profit margins of 7 to 10 percent.

Legalize drugs -now- before we completely destroy south and central america (and mexico). The drug cartels/terrorists are approaching the wealth of small nations now because of these insane laws.

Legalize resale of medicine and intellectual property. If it sells for $4 -anywhere- in the world, then it the highest it sells for should be the cost of transport plus $4. If there is a false law artificially raising the price of a good, then it is supporting terrorism.

Re:The reason this all turns to terrorism is

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the religious freaks and the moral minority who cry "oppression". Yes, legalizing drugs would "oppwess" poor widdle Cwistians who are certain to cwy about "mowal fabwic" of society and "evoh wibowals cowwupting our childwen".

Re:The reason this all turns to terrorism is

[Maxo-Texas]

It is unfortunate but true that 5 to 10% of society is going to be severely impacted by legal drugs, gambling, alchohol, prostitution, smoking, etc.

Do we destroy the rest of society to protect those 5 to 10%?

Because increasingly- that's what we are doing.

Time to donate to the EFF.

[dfloyd888]

I recommend people rant about this bill for a bit to blow off steam, then go to www.eff.org and donate. A donation to the EFF to help protect our rights will go a long way in this battle.

If you don't want this to be the law of the land, don't just rant about the evils of the Powers That Be, but take action. Get out there and take steps. Donate to the EFF. When the EFF has a form letter to send to your senator or rep, use it, if you are a US citizen. If you are not a US citizen, and know people who are, urge them to donate and write their reps and senators.

After donating to the EFF, tell people about this bill, and why its bad. Make your arguments lucid, and by all means avoid ranting. These days if you even appear to be fanatical about something, most people will go into "smile and nod" mode, and all your effort will be for zero if not counterproductive, as people will think you are just "another one of dem dam pirates stealing software." If possible, refer people to eff.org, or a website viewed as reliable. Cnet.com.com.com.yadda has its quirks, but they do put out some very fair articles, so link to them.

I am digressing from the article by recommending privacy tools, but this is important nontheless.

Take steps to guard your privacy. Get PGP or gnupg. Learn it, and then perhaps have a keysigning gathering or two. Good steps to host one can be found here. (http://www.cryptnet.net/fdp/crypto/gpg-party.html )

If you don't like PGP, get a S/MIME key from Verisign. They have 60 day "demo" keys for free, and all they really require is your E-mail address. The link for a personal E-mail certificate is buried somewhere on their web page, but it should be present.

Consider moving your main E-mail to hushmail, cyber-rights.net, or a secure email provider. Also, consider using a privacy service offered by a provider. Some good examples of privacy providers are SecurStar (www.securstar.com), FindNot (www.findnot.com), and the one I use and highly recommend, cotse.net (www.cotse.net).

Disclaimer: I don't work for any companies listed above. I also posted in plain text, so URLs will need to be copied and pasted.

Mod Parent Up! In a big way!

[IgLou]

You sir are bang on the money. When companies endorse bad legislation they no longer deserve any level of public support. Especially anything this damaging.

Democracy is not dead

[Stinky Fartface]

Just because some arrogant and corrupt congressman introduces an obviously anti-constitutional bill, everyone assumes the American Democracy is a complete failure. Bunk! Of course politicians listen to coorporations- this is not a new concept and has been going on at least since the dawn of politics, and certainly since the dawn of this republic. But politicians listen to YOU too dammit! If every U.S. Citizen in this forum wrote to their congressmen to protest this bill, IT WOULD BE DEFEATED, I guarantee you. All they need a sufficient public outcry.

Re:Democracy is not dead

[Razor Blades are Not]

Yeah - just like the DMCA was.. and the Patriot Act .. and ..

Lamar & Gonzales -- political terrorists?

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Terrorism" is the new red scare, where a blanket term applies to anything unpatriotic and antigovernment.

Frankly, I think that by using it to justify everything, he's engaging in political terrorism.

That is, he's using fear to coerce us into doing something not in our best interests and which we would not do in the absense of fear. Which, curiously, is more aptly called terrorism than this curious posit that non-commercial copyright infringement funds terrorism somehow.

Oh wait, maybe he's right that it does, just not as to how: this infringement induces companies to brib^W fund our congresscritters, and then they spew out these insipid proclamations to politically terrorize the people. So it does fund terrorism! It's just that they're the terrorists ...

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Rich0]

Well, that's the whole thing - proportional representation really only works in a unitary system of government, not a federal one. There aren't a lot of federal governments actually out there (can anybody think of any other than the US that are big?). In the UK, I believe even the local school board in some sense reports to parliament. In the US they would report to the state, and would not be accountable to the US congress. This is because state governments are not fully subordinate to the national government.

I guess a workaround would be to have a proporational house of reps, and perhaps go back to the state-appointed senate model. Each state house would be proportional within the state and could appoint two senators in whatever manner it chose.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

In the past I would've agreed that there was no substantial difference between the parties, but the past 6 years of Rupublican rule has put the lie to that. The parties are NOT IDENTICAL. The previous administration, for all it's flaws, did a significantly better job with the 'day-to-day' operation of government. Just consider: FEMA then (run by people qualified in disaster management) , FEMA now (run by cronies), fiscal policy then (balanced budget and surpluses) and fiscal policy now (the current administration has borrowed more money than every previous American administration combined.) Foreign policy then (not great, but approached with diplomacy, a willingness to work with other nations and an understanding of potential long term consequences)...foreign policy now (torture). Science then (respected, used as a basis for decision making), science now (the researchers are 'biased', scientific information is censored in government reports, the 'internets')
It will take decades to recover, and I for one can't wait for the return of government by grown-ups with some grip on reality.

A few links to help you take action

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

http://ipaction.org/blog/2006/04/bill-hollywood-ca rtels-dont-want-you_24.html
https://ipaction.org/contribute.html
(Also vote it up on Digg (may help?)
http://digg.com/technology/RIAA_MPAA_to_get_thier_ wishes_from_Congress:_More_DMCA_restrictions

Re: Powerless?

[orkysoft]

I went to the polling place for a local election a couple years ago, and when I asked for a Libertarian card

You're saying that to vote, you have to tell the people in the polling place the party you're voting for?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[demonbug]

You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents.

Unfortunately, that third candidate is most likely already paid for as well (or will be by the time they come anywhere close to an office).

The problem isn't the parties or the candidates (not specifically, anyway), it is the way campaigns are run and paid for.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

try {
    changeGovernment();
} catch (22) {
    print err "Only those that benefit from the current, broken system have the power to change it.";
    welcome(enlightenedSelfInterest);
}

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[stinerman]

a member of the House of Representatives is more likely to be indicted or die in office than to lose an election

Do you have a source? Its not that I don't believe you, but it'd be nice to bring that out when speaking on the topic of gerrymandering.

Elect this man

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you run for president please ?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[fossa]

Great explanation. I recently implemented in Ruby a toy script to tally votes by Ranked Pairs (a Condorcet method). (All I found via Google was vote.sf.net which was down at the time; I still haven't looked at their code.) I also recently did some light (web based) research on audio codec comparison, particularly the method known as ABC/Hidden Reference. Scoring these audio comparison tests is done using ANOVA for parametric statistics or the nonparametric Friedman test which is better for voting where citizens are prone to exaggerate their preferences. To my naive eyes it appears very similar to the Ranked Pairs method described at condorcet.org.

On a different note, I have heard defenses of the two-party system that assert that the system causes candidates to reach compromise before the election due to the limitations of the first past the post voting which cannot really handle more than two or maybe three candidates. Because compromise had already been reached, the elected representatives would then be able to "get things done". I'm interested in learning more about any defenses of the two-party system. Personally, I'd be more than happy if Congress never "got things done" because they seem to bungle everything or just claim more and more power.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Whanana]

The bad news is that even 1-2% means that your vote doesn't matter.

Landsburg shows that even with a perfectly even state election (50/50 in NY), statistically speaking, you are more likely to be murdered by your mother

To quote: "If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power--approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row...

The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions."

Mod needs new brain alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful ???

At best, stupid.

Heard of encryption ? Heard of private networks ? USB keys with gigs on them?

No pathetic law can stop this evolution.

Usage is also a source of law !

Re:Mod needs new brain alert

[MLease]

Insightful ??? At best, stupid. Heard of encryption ? Heard of private networks ? USB keys with gigs on them? No pathetic law can stop this evolution. Usage is also a source of law !

How does your post relate to the parent? That there are ways to violate this law with little risk or that the law is bad and/or unenforceable is utterly irrelevant to his point, which is that the penalties prescribed are way out of line with the seriousness of the "crime" (unless, of course, one buys into the ludicrous "IP theft = terrorism" assertion).

-Mike

Re:Mod Parent Up! In a big way!

[Irvu]

Exactly. While I spend a lot of time talking to politicos this is really what gets things done. Atthe end of the day the politicos listen to the companys and the companies must be held accountable. With RedHat it really hits close to home.

wiretaps for copyright infringement are legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't browsing the web an act of copyright infringement? All this copyrighted material is out there, and your computer makes copies of it to display through your browser. If it becomes legal to do wiretaps so long as you're investigating copyright infringement, everyone infringes copyright, then wiretaps (no restrictions) have been made legal.

Ban superstition

[Anonymous Coward]

The clever people have got to have the guts to take on religions head on and especially the fundie nutjobs in the US and wipe the floor with them and their wacko self-righteous dogmas. As if they had a monopoly on ethics !

Say what you will about the commies and the fascists, even if they failed,
they immediately understood that organised religion is obsolete and an enemy of human evolution.

The SS destroyed churches. The soviets used churches as public buildings when they didn't raze them.
One of the few times they were both right and in advance of their time.

W learned that he can get away with it.

[zooblethorpe]

What is amazing is that [W.] has learned nothing for the 2 companies that he bankrupted nor what he has done to Iraq.

Oh, I think you mis-read the man. He learned quite a bit indeed from his failed companies, and quite a bit from Iraq too. He has learned that he can get away with it. And that makes him very dangerous indeed, as he has no sense of responsibility, no sense of the cost of his actions, for he has been shielded from the consequences all of his silver-spooned life.

He is the perfect representation for the Baby Boomer, consumerist, coddled, gimme generation. I must assume that the general griping, followed by apathy, is basically the same reaction you get when someone who isn't accustomed to real work discovers something unhappy about themselves -- they bitch, and then shrug and either ignore it or resign themselves to it.

He is also the perfect morality play for parents and would-be parents on why it is a bad idea to constantly shield children from the natural consequences of their actions. Kids only learn the limits by running into them. If no limits are set, they go on a rampage, and that doesn't magically stop simply because they "grow up". W. is still on a rampage, and he's busy taking all of us to hell with him.

Excuse me if I sound bitter.

My favourite part

[Anonymous Coward]

My favourite part is the asset forfeiture part. If, for example, Microsoft was found to be violating the copyright of, for example, one of the Apache authors, they could be legally required to DESTROY ALL OF THEIR COMPUTERS.

Too cool.

Unfortunately we can expect the House Rules Committee to continue to take care of their large contributors so the version presented for vote will almost certainly exempt large companies from any wrongdoing (and will also be different from the version everyone thinks they are voting on).

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[cpt kangarooski]

In other breaking news, the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series.

Honestly, where have you been? This bill was rewritten as part of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (which contains several other, unrelated items), passed through Congress, and was signed into law by the President last year.

Of course, you also have no clue as to what it actually says.

The relevant part of the law does not prohibit people from skipping ads. In fact, it doesn't prohibit anything at all. Rather, it has carved out a brand-new, but quite limited exception to copyright. That is, it is reducing existing prohibitions, to the extent that they exist.

Basically, some of the more puritanical types wanted to be able to edit movies to get rid of the good parts. The movie studios argued that this would be copyright infringement. But since apparently the only people more powerful than the copyright lobby are the religious nuts, the bill passed. What it does is, it makes it non-infringing to make an edited version of a movie, provided that certain conditions are met, one of which is that ads are not skipped.

Of course, it is only one of many exceptions to copyright law that we have. So if you wanted to skip ads as well, you could not rely on this exception (and that's all it is -- an exception, not a prohibition), but you might be able to find another exception that would apply. Or maybe you just wouldn't be doing anything that would be infringing in the first place, in which case you don't need an exception, since copyright law doesn't cover it anyhow.

While I understand that bills generally are a bit tricky to read since they don't contain the entire law they're related to, but instead only contain the changes and additions, you still are just making yourself look stupid by not reading it carefully so as to understand what the hell it is.

Frankly, while FECA was a bad law, this specific portion of it was good. It could be better, but there's nothing at all objectionable about it. And remember: I'm one of the people pushing to make copyright more reasonable by making it smaller in both length and scope.

Makes DMCA the "Lesser of two evils"

[Kazoo the Clown]

A popular (and unfortunately, rather effective) strategy for cynical politicos...

They're not even CHECKING!?

[Unlikely_Hero]

From TFA
"The Justice Department is also seeking in its proposal greater latitude for prosecutors. Right now it's only possible to enforce against copyrights that are registered with the government. The new proposal would make that true only in civil cases, allowing prosecutors to go after pirates regardless of whether the copyright is registered.

"The burden of checking whether each work was registered would substantially slow down investigations and hinder the government's ability to prosecute these violations, especially infringement of works owned by small businesses that have not had the time or resources to register," the department wrote in a document explaining its proposal."

Oh god, please tell me that's a joke. So now they're not even going to check if the copyright EXISTS, only if someone claims it does?

Sounds kind of like the reign of terror to me.

That's it, that's fucking it.
I plead the second

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

I guess I don't. Why don't you go ahead and tell me all about it.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Majority_Leader

I guess that you need to go back to high school.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[jjr1]

Exactly, look how Ross Perot lifted the Reform party to the juggernaut it is today.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

Oh, you're talking about the head of the party.

Dude, who cares about that? Seriously, if you want action in the legislature, you look at the legislative positions.

Obligatory Pun

[ndansmith]

The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

This is starting to look like some kind of which hunt.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[Devistater]

Actually where have YOU been?

I'm well aware of the bill you quoted, Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation /s167
Or:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ009.109

Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like:
1) Using any kind of audiovisual recording device, such as a cell phone camera, inside a movie theatre, even if its to take a quick snapshot, is illigal? And that you can get 3 years in jail for it?
2) As well, theatre operators/employees can detain and interrogate you and are made IMMUNE from federal and criminal lawsuits if they do so?
3) Having certain types of movies on your computer can get you jail time, even if you never share or distribute those?

If you cant find the specific text I'm referring to, lemme know and I'll quote it.
Ok thats all from the already signed into law bill.
Now lets move on.

First lets check some of the text of the current law, "Section 110 of title 17, United States Code"

"the following are not infringements of copyright:"
Ok got it, these are copyright exclusions. Now lets see the text of the family copyright thing:
"Exemption From Trademark Infringement"
Ok, so this is about exclusions from trademarks as well.

Ok next, some specific text:
"the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture"
Ok, it applies to a private house watching a legit copy. Who else does it apply to?
"or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household"
Ok so it applies to anyone who creates such technology as well.
Lets see what else we can learn.
"A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act"
Ok, if you make such technology (that makes parts of a movie imperceptable), you aren't liable. But wait:
"The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph."
Ok so you CAN be liable if you dont comply with that paragraph (which currently says you have to have a notice saying this differs from the original movie).

So thats it for the already signed into law part. Now lets look at what will be modified until the proposed law.
The text of that proposal is here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:
"no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture."

Got it. In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.

Now does that directly say they are violating laws by doing so? No, but now they are not exempt now. And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the origin

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[Devistater]

Short answer:
H.R.4077 which is in the article under the H.R. 4586 part.
Text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552:

I have a longer comment that may contain more details, that I wrote in reply to someone else:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183890&cid=151 93034

Cost of Education

[Bananas]

The problem is that a raw dollar amount tells you absolutely nothing about the health of the educational system - its testing results, do.

I agree, but I was trying to point out that underfunding education is a bit like making an underfunded investment - sure, you get something in the end, but it had the potential to be more if you would have put a bit more funding into it, instead of scrimping. I'm not entirely disagreeing, but rather, pointing out that we pay less and less = less and less to go around for buildings, materials, and educators = less and less prospects of your "investment" paying off.

Re:Cost of Education

[BalanceOfJudgement]

less = less and less to go around for buildings, materials, and educators = less and less prospects of your "investment" paying off.

I agree with that part.

Winner takes it all logic...

[linuxhansl]

One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way.

I think this is due to the "Winner takes it all" mentality. If only one party can win and every other vote is completely lost (for all practical purposes), people will naturally organize in groups that together can win. So naturally the groups are aligned along major "opinion-faultlines"... anti-abortionists with anti-guncontrol, etc.

In Europe that used to be different since governments are typically built from coalitions (so you get your "fault-line" groupings later in the process, but at least the vote is not completely lost). As opinions become more polarized (and people more narrow-minded and uninformed) we'll see many more close votes in other countries as well.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[Devistater]

H.R.4077 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./tem p/~c108QoEUCV:e26552: I also wrote a longer reply to someone else's response to this which may contain more detail that you need.

Just Buy a Gun

[egommer]

Just Buy a gun and rob someone so you may buy the software legally. It's less time serverd commiting a crime with a gun that it is to make a DVD backup a quite a few states.

Re:Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed

[Russellkhan]

Kudos, but just a quick bit of input for any who don't realize it: Snail mail is much more effective than email when contacting your government representatives.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight...Nevadans already don't pay state income tax and somehow it's unfair to them that we take away their pork-barrel bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hprojects and expect them pay anywhere near what they recieve back from the government?

Somehow the current situation of donor states like California, whose citizens already contribute a large portion of the casino profits that allows residents to be free of income taxes and whose contributions to the federal government makeup a sizable portion of the budget for these wasteful programs seems a lot closer to the definition of "screwed" than what you've described.

Lamar Smith is a typical crazy right-winger

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who gives a shit about civil liberties is never voting Republican.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[quintesse]

What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote.

Haha, you're right of course!

And by voting for either major party NOW, they guarantee that there will be no significant changes EVER.

True, but you have to admit that if thinking 40 or even 10 years in the future is almost impossible for politicians most people uninterested will not want to wait that long especially if there is no guarantee it will ever work (that's no reason not to try of course, but it will make people feel they're not making any difference).

Re: Powerless?

[King_TJ]

Yep... at least in the primaries and local elections. Maybe things will change as electronic voting machines are introduced ... but traditionally, they asked you which party you belonged to, and they gave you a colored card to punch based on your party choice. (I believe Libertarians had a beige card, and Republicans were dark blue? Something like that....)

I remember being a little shocked that I was asked .... but I guess it doesn't end up making a lot of difference anyway. Someone can easily vote any way they like, no matter which card they select. I think it just allows for an easy way to vote unanimously for your party of choice with a single hole-punch, for those wishing to do that.

third party no matter what?

[badrobot]

What you need to understand is that voting for either of republicans or the democrats is the REAL waste of a vote. The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

I can't believe that you seriously believe there's no substantive difference given the last couple of elections and the issues our country is currently facing.

At a personal level you might be right. They're both going to tax you (slightly more/slightly less, they're both going to write your laws to the exclusive benefit of corporations or sometimes for extreme ideologies (this lobbyist or interest group/that lobbyist or interest group). They're both going to try to take away most of your weapons (bigger and small/just the big ones). And on and on.

Those are personal considerations. You are burying your head in the sand if you can't also see the enormous difference between the two on the national and international level.

Protection of the environment???? Where do the candidates stand? George Bush vs. Al Gore??? BIG difference (are you kidding?). I'm not making a value judgement, maybe Bush is right and the best way to Clear Skies is to dump shit into the air... But they definitely have different approaches.

Multilateral/unilateral foreign affairs???? BIG difference

Public schools vs private, education funding, religion in classrooms??? CLEAR difference in direction. Important issue.

Medicine, health care, abortion, stem cells???? Bush v. Gore??? BIG difference. Crystal clear from the start.

Thoughtful approach vs shoot from the hip???? al gore vs Bush. BIG difference

secular vs faith based decision making??? gore v bush??? BIG difference, clear from the start.

And then in 2004????

One avoided combat and the other went in and came out as a peace activist.

One pushed and pushed for an enormous war killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and costing 100s billions. Many of us think he lied. The other guy was a pussy and gave in in a political climate that frightened him (Kerry is disguisting in this regard) but was probably mostly against the whole thing.

Clear differences in character. Big differences on religion. Big differences on the environment (ANWAR, logging, streams, air, wildlife protection, wetlands, etc). Again, stem cells, health care, education, etc.

And to top it all off 2004 was a referendum on a president who could be one of the most divisive and controversial in America's history.

Are you saying you have no FUCKING opinion on any of that? You have no input? I bet you do. I doubt you are stupid or ill-informed. Many of those things are critical issues! Now is not the time to not weigh in.

If you refuse to vote for either one then you are, clearly, throwing away your vote on ALL of those issues in favor of ONE issue; the issue of 'how much does the status quo suck' or however you want to phrase it.

If you use your head you can have it all. You can voice your opinion now for short term issues (vote Bush or Kerry, Bush or Gore), and work for a long term change by supporting your local third party, working for a change in the electoral system, educating voters, etc.

efficient campaign machines

[badrobot]

There's another possibility. The campaigns are smarter and better informed. Marketing, 'consumer' research, targeting are all advancing by leaps and bounds.

If you need 50.1% of the vote in order to win a particular state and you can show through your science of marketing that you probably have 51% why continue to spend money in that state???? Why throw away your money? Save it for an emergency. Need more money? fund raise some more. Have enough money? Sleep in and cuddle up with the soooooo sexy Laura Bush (mmmm mmm mmm) or go clear some brush.

An efficient machine doesnt waste resources (money, sleep, opportunities for sex and clearing brush) if it has already produced its output (an election win).

I'm not saying they have a perfectly tuned machine (clearly no one knows the outcome for certain). But I do think it's tending in that direction and we may rarely ever see 55%+ again.

Just a little theory.

No, No, No,

[Anonymous Coward]

... It's not the file-swapping IRA, it's those Tiwanese and Chinese industrial pirates that are funneling all of their ill-gotten gains directly to Bin Laden!

Don't forget AllofMP3.com. I'm sure that every time you spend a dime to download a song, some Iraqi or Palestinian terrorist gets a nickel.

"Non Commercial Piracy Aids Terrorism"?

[nurb432]

Someone care to explain that one?

Speak with your wallet?

[eXonyte]

I can't help but smile whenever I read a post by someone crying "boycott!" Even among the vast number of citizens that actually care about issues like this, boycotting won't even put a dent in most corporation's coffers.

Regardless of claims that this or that works or doesn't work, the house does listen to the people they are supposed to be representing provided those people speak loudly enough.

Back in 1994, a bill was introduced that was very hazardous to the home school movement:

"In 1994, an amendment to House Resolution 6 would have required all students to be taught by subject-certified teachers. Alarmed home schoolers besieged Congress with phone calls, faxes, and letters. In eight days, over 1 million phone calls shut down the House of Representatives' switchboard for hours at a time." - Home School Court Report Vol. XVII, No. 2

I see no reason that cases such as this should be limited to only the home schoolers. I'm not saying that we should shut down the switchboard again, but it apparently worked: HR6 as it stood was defeated. What we need is large numbers of people willing to actually contact their government and speak their mind, and until we have that (which I don't see happening any time soon in these cases) the USA will continue its slide in to oblivion. Yes, I realize a lot has changed in twelve years, but a million phone calls can still be quite an effective deterrent.

Re:Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed

[Anonymous Coward]

reported this to the local tv news station

Who do you think is lobbying for this law? You are never going to hear an informed debate on television regarding copyright. The same goes for most large newspapers (although there are a few exceptions).

Likewise, you are not going to see an elected official chastised on television for their support of stronger copyrights.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[cpt kangarooski]

Are you aware that the text you so fondly claim to have read of the bill passed and signed also contains things like

And that's why I said that it was a bad law overall. The new 110 exception is okay, though not great, and I would support it, or something better, on its own. The 2319B provisions are really bad, OTOH, and that's why I was against the package as a whole. I'm not fond of preregistration either. In any event though, we're stuck with it.

In other words, a private person in thier home, and companies making such technology, are no longer exempt when they are skipping stuff, if they skip ads.

Congratulations, you're a dumbass.

Despite my previous post warning against not reading the law carefully, and that you appear to have actually looked at the text of the thing, you've still totally misunderstood it.

In order to understand how these laws work, think of a Venn diagram. We have a big field which represents what's not protected by copyright. Then we draw a circle over some of that area, indicating what is represented by copyright. Then we draw a circle inside the first circle, indicating what is not covered by copyright because it falls within an exception. And we can continue this by drawing a circle inside that, indicating material that is excepted from the exception, and which again falls under copyright, and so on.

For example: People are allowed to drive cars. But people aren't allowed to drive blue cars. But notwithstanding that, people are allowed to drive automatics. But that allowance for automatics only applies on Tuesdays.

So you can drive a blue car, but only if it's an automatic and it's Tuesday. If your car is red, only the first provision is applicable to you; the rest isn't.

The new 110(11) exception is NEW. It does not limit any other exception in any way whatosever, you moron. So if it was ever legal to skip ads, it is still equally as legal to do so.

But if you want to take advantage of the new 110(11) exception -- the one that doesn't reduce any preexisting exception -- then one of the conditions is that you don't skip ads. If you want to rely on a different exception, such as 107, then the no-ad-skipping provision is utterly irrelevant.

All that happened with this specific exception was that copyright shrank. There are no downsides to this, unless you're against people being able to edit movies, etc. There are plenty of huge downsides in the rest of the law that was passed, as I mentioned earlier, but not this specific part.

No, but now they are not exempt now.

If there is no applicable exception, and it falls within the scope of copyright, then it would always have been illegal to skip ads. Of course, that's stupid. Fair use is the obvious candidate for an applicable exception, and this law does not shrink fair use. And frankly, I don't think that ad skipping is even otherwise infringing behavior. Skipping an ad does not, by itself, constitute making a copy, or making a derivative, or engaging in a public performance, etc.

And being as the movie companies were already moving to sue the original companies that were working on this skipping stuff for copyright infringment, what makes you think that owners of copyrighted TV shows wont sue makers of technology that allows skipping ads? Lets see if we can figure out what technology allows skipping ads.
Wow wait, isn't it VCR's and tivos? And any other recording device?
Aren't TV studios complaining about how it should be illigal to skip ads? That its theft to do so? Why yes, they are.
So what makes you think, that if this exemption were signed into law, they will be nice and not sue anyone for making ad skipping technology? I seem to recall lawsuits around commercial skip buttons previously on some home recording devices.

Wow. You are the stupidest person I've seen all month, I'm sure. I love the part where you said "if this exemption were signed into law" just a few paragraphs after you said "Ok thats all from

Thank you Feinstein

[el americano]

On Gun Control, it's right there in the Democratic Party Platform. They specifically support the assault weapon ban (which is not about assault weapons). Whether you have polled the personal opinions of all Democratic congressmen or not, the party will push for it.

I think they are trying to please too many people there. Gun ownership is already limited, and the nonsense ban they specifically support is a feel-good issue for liberals, while being divisive for those people who are gun owners. They also say they support gun ownership, so if they're splitting hairs anyway, why not focus on core values? I'd say Kerry's well publicized hunting trips indicated he'd like to have some of these people voting for him, but then you can't have a gun ban in the platform - and I reiterate, it's there for no good reason.

I'd be happy to support a Democrat who had an agenda I could support, but it's hard to be included when they're all over the map.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

['nother poster]

Dude, there's a senate majority leader also. Oh, and minority leaders in both houses also. And get this. They do what their party leaders say. Why? Because only senators can introduce bills in the senate, and only representatives can introduce bills in the House. They take their orders from the party leaders like good little drones, and if they don't play nice and do as they are told they will lose their positions of prestige to some other drone that follows the party line better. The congressional "leaders" are simply the best, most experienced party line suck ups available at the time.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[frank_adrian314159]

The two parties are IDENTICAL except for a couple knee-jerk issues that make good sound-bytes but have zero to do with the day to day operation of the government.

Do you really think we'd be in Iraq now if Gore had been (s)elected? Afghanistan, probably, but not Iraq. And do you think that a Kerry administration would be sabre rattling at Iran, or trying to work with the UN to find a peaceful solution. No Difference, yeah... What a fucking joke that is. Tell it to the dead soldiers.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

Thanks for the update. Are you done making yourself feel smart now?

STOP MODDING PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

He's wrong and admitted it. God, don't /. mods read anymore?

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Perky_Goth]

Portugal is not as bad, though. The other parties still have a good amount of pressure. Not as much as in the Netherlands, though.
I don't know if i'd call them corrupt or mainly incompetent. One thing is for sure, campaign contributions are forbidden by law.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[Devistater]

You are mixing up two things (and perhaps I did too, though I thought I spelled them out).

1) The family copyright act thing was signed into law last year, I quoted from some of that.
2) the H.R.4077 from which I was quoting is NOT law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.0 4077:
"Latest Major Action: 9/29/2004 Received in the Senate."
Which incidentally confirms what the article linked by this story says:
"The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House."

But this new proposal (which again has NOT passed into law):
H.R. 2391 The Intellectual Property Protection Act
Includes elements from all the bills listed in the article, INCLUDING H.R.4077.

So your quote"Get it through your thick, thick head: this became the law of the land LAST YEAR. It's done. It is not a bill, it is not something that might be signed into law, it is signed, and it is the law, right now. Has been for a while."
Is not correct. At least not in reference to that portion of what I was actually talking about, which was the proposed legislation HR4077 that exempts ad skipping from being infringment.

Quote from you:
"And you know what I don't recall? I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Your expert legal copyright career must have been pretty short up to this point. Starting around 2003 or 2004 perhaps, so you missed the sonicblue/replaytv lawsuit?

Lets pick a couple hits from google regarding sonicblue (original owners of replayTV driven into bankruptcy)
http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-1015121.html
"The company said its upcoming ReplayTV 5500 boxes, which are expected to be released in August, will not contain the Send Show and Automatic Commercial Advance tools as the company tries to "address the concerns of copyright holders.""
"Two years ago, the major movie studios and TV networks filed a lawsuit against Sonicblue, which at the time owned ReplayTV."

The exact name (if you want to do more specific research):
Paramount Pictures v. SonicBlue

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Paramount_v_ReplayTV/2 0011031_complaint.html
There's the complaint.
Since you said
"I don't recall lawsuits around ad skipping buttons. In fact, as a copyright lawyer, who knows more about copyright law than you ever will, I don't even see how that would be possible."
Well here's how its possible, quotes from the complaint:
"Defendants' unlawful scheme attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services and, hence, the means by which plaintiffs' copyrighted works are paid for. Advertisers will not pay to have their advertisements placed within television programming delivered to viewers when the advertisements will be invisible to those viewers. In effect, by eliminating the embedded advertising, defendants' copying-and-commercial-deletion feature will (as to those viewers who employ the feature) eliminate the source of payment to the copyright owner for the very program being viewed."
"For subscription television program services that depend in part on advertising revenues, use of the AutoSkip feature has the same effect. In both cases, the AutoSkip feature would fundamentally and inevitably erode the means by which copyright owners are paid for their works and hence the value of the programming they create."

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that these guys are not being bought and sold cheaply. There are billions maybe trillions of dollars changing hands. If there was only a few thousand or even a few million on the line, it would be difficult to understand why the people behind Bush might rig an election, criminalize 2/3rds of the population (including themselves) or condemn tens of thousands of innocent Americans and Iraqis to death. When you've got a few hundred billion dollars on the line, men like Dreier and Rove would cut the throats of their own wives and children: burning the constitution is just paperwork to them.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Alsee]

Some people are just stuck in a pre-9/11 minset.

-

what an asshole

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Sorry about that, but there it is. Lets take a look at this meandering, spittle-on-chin diatribe for a moment, shall we?

People seem to have wrong impression that they can influence something in "democratic" countries. It is illusion.

Whiskey tango foxtrot? What the hell are you gibbering about. Its only in democratic countries that people can change anything. You try living under a dictatorship for a few years, texas, and see how much change you manage to enact. I have personally been involved at a high level in reversing government decisions in my own country, being published and interviewed, ultimately costing said government millions to reverse policies, and a great deal of egg on their faces, and I'm no politician.

The only thing that can change situation is when people are ready to fight to death for what they believe in.

Yes the earth needs to be nourished from time to time with the blood of patriots. Nice poetry, so heres what we'll do. You leap up with your little gun and shoot someone, I'll wait in line with the rest of the voters.

European nobles had their pride and their kings were only first among equals.

So now monarchy is the root of democracy? Wow, someone should have told that to the French, right after they were told to eat cake. I seriously don't know how you mastered the written word.

As a result they are easily scared or manipulated by dictators or demagogues.

A bit like firebrands advocating bloodshed for their own ends, you mean?

Average American voter is dependent on too many things to be called a democratic constituent

Ah so democracy can work, now? You should get your story straight, son.

Real action always requires sacrifice.

It does not, however, involve murdering people. Whoever modded this up should not be allowed mod points again.

Because they benefit

[AoT]

The more strict piracy and copyright law is the more likely people are to use alternatives. If piracy of windows was completely and totally stopped many people would simply be unable to afford the OS and thus would switch to a free alternative.

New Congressional Bill Makes DMCA Look Tame

[infiniphonic]

The only people that seem to be terrorizing me are the United States Government.

Well, that should take care of all that flap...

[kosty]

about illegal wiretaps or reading *everyone's* email:

"proposed copyright law... would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers."

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[swillden]

Personally, I'd be more than happy if Congress never "got things done" because they seem to bungle everything or just claim more and more power.

LOL. I once saw a bumper sticker that I've been looking for ever since. I'd love to have it. It said "Vote for Gridlock!".

V for Vendetta far fetched? Don't think so...

[Haggador Sparticus]

Slowly but surely, we progress to the facist universe that was exhibited in V for Vendetta. It began its course in overdrive once legislation like the DMCA took place, and here is its next stop. We allow these damning things to progress because of incited fear and slowly but surely each of our very important freedoms are raped from us. We don't notice because it happens too slowly and is not a dramatic change (so we think). I really can see the world of that movie heading in our horizon. (small excerpt from my manifesto) Haggador Sparticus

Why should I pay ...

[cwsulliv]

the costs of keeping some poor slob in prison for 20 years - probably around $2 million - I rarely listen to or watch this stuff.

Since this proposed law is for the benefit of the IP owners, why shouldn't the costs of enforcement and incarceration be fully funded by a special tax on the value of IP for which protection is claimed under this law. So if 1000 individuals per year are sentenced to 20 years for violations involving music IP, then music sales should be taxed at a rate sufficient to raise a minimum of $2 billion per year.

I'll leave it to someone else to figure out what effect this would have on the price (and therefore sales) of CDs or legally downloaded songs.

They've got control of Radio and TV, now the Net

[bjason82]

This is nothing more than a concerted effort to control information and your freedom to use the internet. Since the neo-cons took power during the regan era they have facilitated the consolidation of various media outlets into the hands of a few wealthy individuals and conglomerates. This effectively put the media corporations in control of the politicians, during the last presidential election politicians spent more than $1 Billion on campaign ads. We have come to a point where the media decides who gets elected and who doesn't. On election day 2000 rupert murdoch, the owner of fox, went into the studio and commanded the news team to call the election for Bush before all the results were in; thus fox was the first network to call in Bush's favor. If you do a little research on murdoch you'll find he's a faithful neocon, on Wikipedia he reportedly "has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan...Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections." My point is they have already taken control of the traditional media with the corporate cronies, now they plan on cracking down on our ability to communicate publicly over the net any ideas that might be considered 'subversive.' Obviously, stopping piracy is a far cry from infringing on freedom of speech, but who knows what far-reaching effects this might have. And mark my words, this is one step of many towards an end that might not appear like an orwellian police state, but it'll be just as bad. Their goal is to control our minds, leaving us blissfully oppressed.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Aceticon]

So the votes of those that live in Nevada should count for more than those that life in New York state?

Exactly why - are they more important or such?

If every person has one vote and all votes count the same then the distribution of elected representatives actually accuratly represents the wishes of ALL the voters.

If you're going to boost the voting power of a minority defined by the geographical location where they live, you might as well do it for any arbitrary minority - i heard that owners of red Porsches are awfully underepresented in Congress ...

All America needs now is another McCarthy...

[cjb110]

...and the cycle will be complete.

Wtf is it with blaming everything on terrorists now a days? Is the American government so inept it can only control its citizens with fear and propoganda?

I really wish it'd stop because our (the uk's) government is following suit, we already have a nanny for Prime Minister we don't want a parnoid one as well. Esp if he's going to waste my money 'fighting' terrorists.

Re:Ten years of jail time for copyright infringeme

[Anonymous Coward]

Except half our prisoners aren't our own citizens in California.

I'll give you two guesses which country they come from, and one of them ain't Canada.

If we don't imprison them, Mexico won't, so they just come back over. So our per capita imprisonment rate is probably a lot less.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

['nother poster]

No.

Re:You've failed at civics and reading comprehensi

[NitsujTPU]

Ok. Well, you can keep going all you like. I won't hold it against you.

Re:Skipping ads would be illigal if this were pass

[cpt kangarooski]

But this new proposal (which again has NOT passed into law):
H.R. 2391 The Intellectual Property Protection Act
Includes elements from all the bills listed in the article, INCLUDING H.R.4077.

Sigh.

In the 108th Congress, there were several different pieces of legislation dealing with copyrights, patents, and trademarks. And the legislative history, if you look at it, is tangled up because parts would get combined, then separated. This is why you're seeing specific provisions pop up in several places.

But it doesn't matter, since the article is not about HR 2391 or 4077, both of which stopped being interesting back in 2004. Like I said, you are seriously behind the times.

The legislation that the original article is talking about is not any of the things you have mentioned. In fact, while a draft is circulating, AFAIK it hasn't even been introduced to the House yet, and so isn't numbered.

Furthermore, this new IPPA, which is unrelated to previous bills also called the IPPA, is in fact quite new, and doesn't really recycle old materal from a previous Congress.

And I'm mixing up nothing at all. I know what I'm talking about, which is why I derided you schmucks that were talking about 110(11) as though it was still just a bill. To wit:

At least not in reference to that portion of what I was actually talking about, which was the proposed legislation HR4077 that exempts ad skipping from being infringment.

110(11) is the law. You only think it is proposed legislation because you are reading old documents that predate it becoming a law. And it doesn't exempt ad skipping. In fact, I've yet to hear of a bill that specifically protected ad skipping; what you were all upset about was that it didn't protect ad skipping, not that it needed to, particularly.

Christ! You can't even keep straight what you were blathering on about. Obviously even Slashdot is too grown up for you. And I never thought I'd see anyone say that!

the sonicblue/replaytv lawsuit?

Good point, surprisingly enough. I knew about it at the time, actually, but since it never got anywhere, I had forgotten all about it.

Long story short, the half of the suit that dealt with ad skipping was never going to win. Paramount did not put up a serious argument. But I guess we'll never know, since nothing came of it. I stick by my previous statement: there is no copyright argument against ad skipping, and attempts are destined for failure, unless the law changes radically. Which even given FECA, it has not.

Re:Call Lamar Smith's Office Now! (Number Enclosed

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Ok, so I'll just lay down and die.

Much better alternative.

Expanded Seizure

[dave562]

The portion of the article that caught my eye was the "War on Drugs" style property seizure laws that will allow the government to seize and auction computers. That seems to me like a strong enforcement tool for keeping computers out of the hands of the populace. Anyone inclined enough to figure out how to crack copy protection is likely to be inclined towards places like Slashdot, and other 'non-mainstream' content on the Internet. This legislation is a big crap on the lower class. In any hood in America, you can find copies of any CD or DVD out there. The locals who can't afford computers and iPods and all the new technologies, can still benefit from low priced access to the media. Those people would never buy full priced music or movies, but the media companies don't care about that. The government cares about untaxed money. There is a pretty good sized economy that traffics in pirated media. I see the legislation as a tool that allows the government to effectively crack down on that. It really sucks. I'd rather have the guys without jobs making money by providing music and movies, instead of crack and guns.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Rakarra]

.... or at least, that's one theory of how it could go. There are others, including, say, the Regime that takes power makes it illegal, immoral, or fattening to belong to another party, or socially unnacceptable not to belong to the ruling party. The Suppression of Dissent is the basis for most of what the current Regime has done, and they show no signs of slacking off on it. There will be no "third parties" in 2008 - assuming we even have an election - it would be trivial for the Dubya Regime to advance their terrorist agenda suffiently over the next 2 years that they will be able to openly admit the fact that they are suspending the democratic process - after all, they've already done it - admitting it will just require another couple major "terrorist strikes". Think they wouldn't?

Yes, I'm pretty sure they won't. It's fine to criticize the current party for their power grabs; I do it all the time. Don't careen off into the land of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories though. The Republican Party believes in elections (that it can win). They'll be quite happy with another 2004 situation where they have a regular election but the damage is done before election day through the tearing apart of the other candidate, whether through honest or dishonest means.

A case in point: The Nader/LaDuke/Green ticket got a percentage of the vote in 2000 (e.g. 3% in Iowa); in 2004, conditions for third parties were so much worse there was no noticeable Green presence *anywhere*. Looked like (to me) that the uptick in 3rd party voters in 2000 scared the Republicrats sufficiently that they took steps to make sure it didn't happen again.

Ummm, no. The Democratic party is FAR more threatened by the Greens than the Republican party is. Republican compaigns have been known to aid Green party campaigns in races where the Democratic and Republican candidates are neck and neck because when someone leaves one of the two major parties to vote for a Green Party candidate, it's almost never a Republican. Someone switching to Green is a loss for the Democrats and a gain for the Republicans. The Democrats feel the same way about the Libertarian Party, but I've not known them to stoop to helping that group. The Republicans have nothing to fear from aiding the Green Party, as it's not like that party has any honest chance of gaining -real- support. They have agendas that are a little too left-wing for the average American to agree with. So no, the Republicans aren't against the Green Party, just the opposite. What sort of party would it take for both the Republicans and Democrats to turn against it? A party that isn't left of the Democrats or right of the Republicans. Some sort of centrist party is a nightmare they both share. Do you want to know why there was no green party support in 2004? It's because the election of 2000 was so close that left-leaning Democrafts turned on the people voting for Greens and shouted "The election was almost ours! It's -your- fault that we lost and Bush is in power now!" So much frustration was taken out on the greens by people who said they threw their votes away and edge Bush the tiny edge he needed. Unfortunately, Bush turned out to be such an extremely polarizing figure that no one to the left of center wanted a repeat of the 2000 situation. Even though I didn't really like John Kerry much and aren't a Democrat, I voted for him in 2004 since I felt Bush was such a disaster. In my life, it's probably the vote I'm least proud of. In 2000, the Green Party had Ralph Nader, a man who (at the time) was well-liked and well-thought of for his consumer safety activism in earlier years. They had no charismatic candidate for the 2004.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Do you really think we'd be in Iraq now if Gore had been (s)elected? Afghanistan, probably, but not Iraq. And do you think that a Kerry administration would be sabre rattling at Iran, or trying to work with the UN to find a peaceful solution. No Difference, yeah... What a fucking joke that is. Tell it to the dead soldiers.

I do believe that we would be in *SOME* mid-east country. While Bush lied about WMD and Terrorism, ETC - both parties appear to believe they need to force change on the middle-east and the democrats are JUST as beholden to the military-industrial complex as the republicans are so war would have been the first and probably only choice for them too. Maybe they wouldn't have been so arrogant about it and ignored the expert opinions of people like Shinseki and we would be done with the fighting by now, but I am pretty sure there would have been fighting and dying.

Re:Bought and sold so cheaply

[0x0000]

The Democratic party is FAR more threatened by the Greens than the Republican party is.

Uhm, yeah - I saw that same Fox News "analysis" - you know, the one repeated across the board by the "liberal" media once it had been advanced by the Right - it struck me then, and it continues to impress me now, as a rather shallow piece of rationalization...

Republican compaigns have been known to aid Green party campaigns in races where the Democratic and Republican candidates are neck and neck because when someone leaves one of the two major parties to vote for a Green Party candidate, it's almost never a Republican.

If you call Republicans impersonating Greens in order to split the opposition vote "help" for the Greens, then I suppose your argument holds together semantically, but but I don't call that help, and I am more prone to looking to the spirit of the thing than the simple mechanics of it. The fact is, the Republicans have far more to fear from a Green showing than the Democracts - specifically, the Republicans could lose power, since their power derives from the Totalitarian nature of their ideology, whereas the Democracts could trivially form coalitions with Greens without compromising their standing in the Old Boy network - and that's just a trivial example.

The reason the Republicans laughed at the Greens was because they knew the fix was in (having implemented it themselves), and the enjoyed stirring dissent between Dems and Greens - two groups which might otherwise have combined to break the neo-con hegemony.

Someone switching to Green is a loss for the Democrats and a gain for the Republicans. The Democrats feel the same way about the Libertarian Party, but I've not known them to stoop to helping that group.

Again: this is just the "party line" designed by Rove'n'Company - it doesn't take much thought to see the fallacy of it. And as for Dems worrying about Libertarians- well, that might qualify as a Libertarian fantasy, but since those calling themselves Libertarians invariably vote Republican (in my experience), I don't worry too much about making any distinction between Libertarians and Republicans. The Libertarians, after all, are just the group of college kids recruited by the early efforts of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, then handed over en toto to the neo-con meat grinder during the Clinton administration.... in short, "Libertarians" are simply dupes for the "moderate" line of the neo-con propaganda machine. Remeber, it was this same machine that used to talk about "tax and spend Democrats", "small govenment", and the "liberal media" - all things that have been shown to be simple marketting hype for the neo-con agenda since the beginning of the Dubya term...

The Republicans have nothing to fear from aiding the Green Party, as it's not like that party has any honest chance of gaining -real- support.

It is my current position that we will now never know just what would or would not have been supported by American citizens in a Free Election. It's all moot- no party stands an honest chance at this point. The neo-cons will not yeild power without bloodshed, imo. The historical precedents for this situation are overwhelming.

They have agendas that are a little too left-wing for the average American to agree with.

Only if you imagine that the "average american" agrees with the crap being perpetrated by the present Regime - they don't, but for some reason that is yet to be accepted as the fact that it is.

So no, the Republicans aren't against the Green Party, just the opposite.

In fact they are. The Republicans are against anything that isn't Republican - and preferably WASP. To imagine otherwise is the very height of folly, imo. The Republicans have been

Re: Powerless?

[jusdisgi]

You're saying that to vote, you have to tell the people in the polling place the party you're voting for?

It depends on your state's laws; some of them have no declarations at all, some have an informal/optional setup that doesn't really mean anything (i.e. you can vote in the other party's primary if you like) and some require you to register party affiliation in order to vote that party's primary. Typically in the latter it means that you can only vote one party primary per election, but you can change those at any time and there's no checking or other attachment to it. It doesn't affect anything except which ballot you get.

The idea here is to prevent "raiding" where people from one party (who are not concerned with their own favored candidates' primary prospects) vote in the other party's primary to help give nominations to candidates they feel will be less electable.