Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders
mjdroner writes "ZD-Net has the latest on a sweeping telecom bill in the Senate. The bill provides no support for net neutrality. The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts. The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."
send rational letters and email to your reps; not that they will listen, but so they know folks are paying attention. -dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
I'll wait until netcraft confirms it TYVM.
liqbase
Every time this legislation comes up it gets thrown out. Why doesn't the MPAA embrace technology rather than buying off Congressmen and sneaking this line item into every damn piece of proposed legislation?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Boy I'm glad there's more than one country that sells these... Equally glad that the FCC doesn't have range on those countries and my uncle Tito can import ANYTHING.
Funnypics
Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders
Is there anything Bill wouldn't either outlaw or make compulsory? I'm getting really sick of that guy.
So the FCC is going to replace my mythtv box with a new system? Are they planning to do this just after they confiscate all the firearms from the public?
of this incessant bullshit being brought upon us by our government. To think that the American people voted these retards into office to begin with!? F*ck the FCC, **AA, the president, his cabinet and all the other little cronies. God Bless the USA? God Damned the USA seems to be more fitting at this point.
"These measures will help assure that the information superhighway does not turn into a red light district," Exon said at the time. "It will help protect children from being exposed to obscene, lewd, or indecent messages."
Yeah, that worked out so well.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The Fellas At The Freakin' FCC Song
Peter: They will clean up all your talking in a matter such as this
Brian: They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a p*ss
Stewie: And they'll make you call fellatio a trouser-friendly kiss
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: It's the plain situation!
There's no negiotiation!
Peter: With the fellows at the freakin FCC!
Brian: They're as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups...
Peter: Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Stewie: Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: Take a tip, take a lesson!
You'll never win by messin'
Peter: With the fellas at the freakin' FCC
And if you find yourself with some you sexy thing
You're gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling
Cause you can't say penis!
So they sent this little warning they're prepared to do the worst
Brian: And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be co-erced
Stewie: I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: They may just be neurotic
Or possible psychotic
They're the fellas at the freakin FCC!
Developers: We can use your help.
With the public servant as unpaid **AA stop-loss personnel. Sure, I'll send letters to my officials, but I'm at the point where I want to start billing hourly for all the publicly funded legislative and academic labor spent on the affairs of private, commercial concerns.
Pi Ran Out
to keep buying congresspeople off. If they keep trying one day they will win.
Vote in a Democratic Congress this fall.
The President will veto anything they put together and they'll refuse to pass anything the president tries to put through.
With luck, we won't have any more new laws until 2008.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
My question to you would be: why would the MPAA embrace technology, when instead they can just buy off Congressmen and sneak this line item into every damn piece of proposed legislation?
Sure, it hasn't passed so far. All they have to do is keep trying.
Change the stream format from audio to "something else" and decode it on the other end.
What it is redefined as could be as vague as "scientific data" or "random text"
Just a thought.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
"It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, consumer groups and local government," [Senator Stevens] said.
Oh, I know this one... it attempts to strike a balance, but it doesn't try too hard.
Or was it... when you stack fifty blocks on one side of the balance, you only have to stack one block on the other side as long as it's fifty times as far away.
Holy Crap! They actualy agree that I should be able to share recorded TV shows over my home networks? That has got to be the most reasonable thing I've seen from the gov't in AGES. It's got to be a mistake on their part right?
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.
If you don't want this, vote straight Libertarian this election and every election thereafter.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
When some clever corporation figures out a way to turn a profit by sticking babies on pikes, a pliant US Congress stands ready to make it legal -- and to keep private citizens from doing it themselves.
All the actual baby piking will be done overseas by non-union workers, of course.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
You know, I'm starting to think that broadcast television, motion pictures and recorded music might not be worth all this trouble.
Perhaps it's time to start enjoying live plays and musical performances again. Seriously, my digital entertainment is video games and documentaries. I am starting to think the unthinkable: maybe I can live without TV and Movies.
People will continue to create entertainment and education for download right? Oh, right...Unless network neutrality is abolished and my provider decides that I can't access this freely created content.
I wonder, is it time that I start figuring out how to set up a HAM-based Internet connection?
Just askin', is all.
"The Inducement to Read Act" because I know they have already exceeded my threshold for expropriating money from my wallet. One could also try writing congress, but I've yet to receive a reply when doing so, even from a staff flack.
It's interesting that illegal immigrants have better organizational skills than US citizens. Actually, it's more pathetic than interesting. We have lost our republic.
That's what the history books will record. Corporate interests stifled freedom and creativity so much that the companies pushing this CRIPPLED new technology actually were not able to find buyers and more and more ANALOG-based innovation continued.
... UNLESS THEY GIVE ME AN EXTRA DEVICE FOR FREE. WHEN THE MPAA PROVIDES MY FLATSCREEN, TUNER, AND PVR AND ALL SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE, I'LL GLADLY ACCEPT THEIR CONTENT UNDER THEIR TERMS.
Expect to see more digital-to-analog converters, more people paying *LESS* to get ANALOG cable TV, more people less willing to pay extra for HDTV, more people happy to have analog-based PVRs and not have their recorded sports games automatically erased, or see messages from pay movie channels that state this content cannot be recorded.
I, for one, am in NO HURRY WHATSOEVER to purchase any digital tv devices.
We need a cool catchy name for Analog TV - something like Fair use TV or unencumbered TV.
We need a crummy name for HDTV - something like Restricted use TV.
The MPAA is ready to fall on their swords for forced digital rights - they seem to not see any way to profit that doesn't involve controlling every device between them and me. I'll be damned if I'm going to give up control of my devices to the MPAA or RIAA.
Would that be like, "a computer"?
Newsflash: There's no hardware unique to a TiVo.
They'd have to outlaw PC's for this bill to work.
Let them try. It will be a death sentence for every commercially manufactured, dedicated PVR. And the birth of some truly wonderful opensource software.
Sounds good to me.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Libertarianism, like communism before it, is an ideology that sounds great on paper but is worthless in the real world.
Actually it beats really hard on it, despite it being broken already.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would insert all kinds of special provisions that would benefit some group at the expense of others, all kinds of new technology would become illegal, and lawsuits would proliferate. Who knows what would happen, the point is that when congress acts on technology (eg. the DMCA) they are likely to create a huge mess and things better be PRETTY DAMN bad before Congress can do more good than harm.
Does anyone have suggestions of a device that will do this before the law is passed?
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
I hate to say this, But the end is near for media as we know it. This will eventually pass. And when it does pass, then it gives ground for breakage of the Sony vs Paramount law that allowed us to have a Betamax or VHS deck in our homes. Once they can successfully get that law overturned, then anyone caught with contraband such as recorded movies on tapes, or disks that are not commerially produced, will be subject to jail time and a substantial monitary damage award. If you think things are bad now, wait until they mandate that all "grandfathered" commercially produced media is now illegal to own or posess, and that you are required to deliver that material to a drop off site for recycling. Oh; and you don't get reimbersed for the money you spent on it either.
Just remember;
You voted these bozo's into office in the first place.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
I haven't really been interested in this before, but DO recording digital receivers exist NOW? I use AudioHijackPro (www.rogueamoeba.com) on my G4 now; but the computer's got to draw a lot more power than a dedicated receiver. Anybody own one?
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
Libertarianism, like communism before it, is an ideology that sounds great on paper but is worthless in the real world.
Well... To be fair, Communism in its true form was never adheared to. Truth be told the only economic system that put others to shame was National Socialism, but you tend to end up with crimes against humanity.
I would be concerned if there were something worth recording anymore.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Thinking about voting Libertarian? Check out Critiques of Libertarianism before you drink the cool-aide
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
On the one hand, the administration and Congress want to record every email/IM I send, every site I visit and every file I download, forever. On the other, they want to prevent me from recording or copying anything anytime.
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
Bruce Perens warned us all this would happen 6 years ago in his "Napster Hurts Free Software" essay.
All the while you listen to their music or watch their TV, you give them the power. If everyone stops buying/watching/listening to anything **AA controlled, then they lose everything. Even if only you stop, then they no longer have you by the short hairs.
It's in your hands. Do you have the willpower to resist?
But TiVos use an analog tuner, right? My replayTV certainly does -- it doesn't know what to do with a digital signal.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Something about MythTV and my cold dead fingers, but I just can't seem to remember how it goes.
Am I the only one that thought the article summary was talking about this Bill?
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Not CopyRight to the Freedom of Speech
Congress needs to get a backbone and know the difference. If people are speaking out on public broadcasting network, and FCC blocks out the ability to spread the content in any form or shape regardless it's copyrighted or not, it's discarding the freedom of speech.
Nobody owns your words and your mouth, so shall nobody own your ear.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Blah, blah, blah. "Oooo, I'm a Libertarian! Wonk, wonk! If you don't vote for us, you're ghey!"
Give me a fucking break. You Libertarians are all the same: big talk, no walk. You're so full of shit, I can smell you a mile away. You offer no valid solutions, only pie-in-the-sky fanciful conjectures. Your understanding of the U.S. Constitution is virtually non-existant. You have the political savvy of a child, the diplomatic skills of horseshit, and the intelligence of sand.
So take your "vote Libertarian" bullshit and shove it up your ass.
Easy ...
A "Digital Receiver" is a device used to capture video and audio broadcasted over cable and/or air, and is not provided by a company that is providing hookers, booze and/or kickbacks for the members of Congress.
The libertarian party seems to embrace intellectual protectionism as much as anyone else. Look at many of their candidates and leaders to know for sure that they are as gung ho on it as Dems or Reps.
Title: Use Creative Commons idea(s) not DRM!
To: those who want to protect digital copyright... use Creative Commons!
FOR ALL MULTI-MEDIA CONTENT DELIVERED OVER ALL DIGITAL NETWORKS - An Artist's choice of Creative Commons ALLOWED WORKS FILTERING and OPEN USE with no royalty tax is Key to making everyone happy!
ARTISTS do need to be protected.... with the ability for those who don't want absolute copyright protection to have only the protection that they want. This only can be done with Creative Commons! Not DRM, and Not with exclusionary laws that control our computers (aka devices that can record)! Yes, it is possible to mandate levels of play and record depending on allowed (not excluded) creative commons metadata tagged files and thus the files as they stream over any network to devices that could be mandated to follow certain rules of polite behavior when encountering certain levels of artist requested copyright protection.
There is only one way to make everyone happy...
Use Creative Commons, with a meta-data tag, that gives a digital file a digital ID that is search-able, filterable, and then protect that meta-data from changes or removal by creating a law that prevents the change or removal of a file or it's meta-data. ISP's could filter the meta-data - like how anti-virus software works, and notify a user (ISP has their email address for billing purposes) that the users account is being used to exceed "fair use" of copyrighted material, beyond a quota, or established "fair-use" limit. Of course Creative Commons or the government needs to establish a Creative Commons style of "commercial only" license with a way to register (on-line) a creators digital meta-data. Shareable meta-data (See Creative Commons Share-alike) would be not filtered or audited, only commercial only meta-data would be filtered. The notification process would first be friendly, then a process of questioning by the ISP could happen if the "commercial only creative commons meta-data" continued to be shared beyond fair use! If all friendly attempts to stop the infringer from exceeding fair use quota did not affect the traffic the ISP could then notify a central world wide infringer data base providing a "hidden" Pseudonym email address to the database where others could email this Pseudonym address and the ISP would then forward the email to the infringer (the creator of the works, owner of copyright, or fans of the work could then ask the infringer to stop (could be digital and automatic once the infringer's pseudonym email address hit the database listing the files meta-data along with the pseudonym's email address. Friendly notification, only amplified could continue, before enforcement action via law suit or criminal process could continue. IP v6 could allow an ISP customer a "assigned IP address" and even if the user had a open wireless network that was usable by anyone, they could be advised in a friendly way to investigate the users of the network or be able to "block the sending of certain files on their network" at a central router or firewall. Final penalty for user who infringes on "commercial only creative commons copyright digital meta-data" would be the termination of the Internet account by the ISP (private ISP or public if the municipality were providing free Internet access)! No one would like to loose their Internet access, would be worse than fines (as a repeat infringer could be targeted in a database with the risk of being black listed for X amount of time from using other ISPs). Of course, other Internet anonymous use could continue as only "commercial only" meta-data would be filtered or audited! China does a similar thing now to control Internet access there, only in violation of human rights. Blocking content is possible as well and the creative commons license, once violated, revokes future use of the licensed work (meaning that the ISP could block, or rather only allow by following the applicable license and enforcement of the li
As someone who doesn't illegally steal material, I'm starting to find all this DRM stuff annoying.
For example: I bought the latest Nine Inch Nails album With Teeth, only to discover that you can only play it on a PC through a proprietary software player (assuming your OS can run it, of course). That player sucks, and does annoying things like messing up my computer's volume levels. I haven't tried personally, but I'm reliably informed that it won't work in some car CD players as well.
The point here is that what I bought was marketed as a CD. It was right there on the shelf in the CD section, next to other CDs, with nothing obviously saying that it wasn't. To be fair, there might have been a note about whether or not you could play it on PCs visible in the small print– I can't remember and don't have it with me to check. But who reads all the small print when buying a CD?
Now, the word "Compact disc" is a trademark of Philips (as indicated by the funny symbol), as is the "CD" logo you see on all the cases. Philips officially denies permission to use that mark to companies using technology that prevents playing the disc properly on standard equipment. Therefore, anyone marketing the material in the manner that I saw it (be it a record shop, the music publishers, or wherever) is infringing on Philips' rights, and deserves to be sued to high heaven for it.
It's a shame Philips doesn't go after this more aggressively, because preventing this kind of bastardization of a mark is exactly what trademark law was made for. I'd imagine that if all record shops were suddenly required to separate out normal and copy-protected CDs in an obvious way, sales of the latter would probably drop ASAFP, and the problem would disappear just as fast. I can only assume that since everyone's doing it, they want a clear test case in their favor first to make it quick, easy, and most of all cheap to follow up with others. Maybe they're looking for such a test case and just waiting to make their move. Maybe they just don't care, but as one of the world's biggest manufacturers of CD/DVD burners, that seems unlikely.
Anyway, the gist of this comment is that I really haven't bought a new CD since that album. I was always selective, but I did buy a few every few months or so until that point. They've really have lost a genuine, paying customer. I don't find the loss has ruined my life; I listen to the radio if I want to hear some new music, and occasionally use a legal download service if I really like a track I've heard. Now I'm a living own-goal for the media industry's DRM technology. Anyone else?
I don't mean to troll, but it seems to me that if the MPAA and RIAA had their way, we wouldn't listen to music or watch tv at all. At least not in the manner to which we've become accustomed.
Why would I bother buying an expensive recorder if it couldn't record all of the content I might like to record? Why would I watch tv or listen to the radio if I couldn't later share the experience with friends and family?
And I'm less likely to watch tv in the first place if I can't share a funny clip with friends later. Take the Simpsons, for example. Often times I'll want to replay a clip of Homer doing something stupid for a friend. But if the MPAA has their way, I wouldn't be able to do this.
Or take talk radio. My wife and I were riding along listening to talk radio when a traffic situation caused her to focus on the road. So naturally, she's lost a little bit of context and remarked that she'd like to rewind the radio to catch what she missed. Of course, you can't do this now with a car stereo, nor will you ever if the RIAA has their way.
I've noticed that my media consumption habits have changed. It used to be that I would buy several CD's a year; I don't think I've bought one in the last two years. Yes, I suppose I could easily bypass the copy protection, but why bother. If the record label is such a jerk that they attempt to keep control of what I now rightfully own, then they can keep their shiny plastic and I'll keep my money. No sense in encouraging scumbags anyway.
And why would I bother paying Hollywood for movies that I won't be able to enjoy in the future? My uncle has a few thousand decaying VHS tapes which he won't be able to play 10 years from now. And of course, with the DRM on DVDs and thanks to the DMCA, when DVDs are obsolete, you will lose your investment. At least my uncle could copy VHS to DVD. But how long would that last when the next generation players enforce DRM?
So I've kind of given up on Hollywood and Big Music. It seems that they've become to wrapped up in their own hubris to realize that crippling content doesn't add to the value of the product. And yet, their stockholders continue to buy the old mantra, "Piracy is killing our business..." It's not piracy - it's lack of value. Why would a consumer buy something they legally can't own? The **AAs haven't figured out the American vision of entertainment is much different from their own. Americans:
By contrast, the RIAA and MPAA envision this model of consumer enjoyment:
So, even those of us who would be otherwise honest must face a decision:
So, is tv relevant anymore? Not when I can't enjoy it. Same for music and video - I'm enjoying public domain works now and independent stuff that I glean from the Net. Yes, I can afford to pay for my content, but why would I pay if I can't own it anyway?
The RIAA/MPAA can't seem to understand that individual ownership and the rights that come with it are a fundamental part of selling content. If you don't want to give up control, don't sell the content.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
All of that looks like anti-libertarian propaganda that is mostly illogical.
Here is a better suggestion; read some descriptions of libertarianism (neither from libertarian evangelists nor libertarian haters), and think for yourself.
I am teenager, in my senior year of High School. Theatre is a pretty large part of my life... and honestly, I prefer it over TV, etc. No, I'm not an actor. I'm a "Lighting Technician" -- so I get to enjoy the play from my booth. :-)
To anyone out there who hasn't really been to live theatre, I suggest atleast giving it a try... I feel I always get my money's worth when I'm watching a play[that I am not involved in]
that money can buy in the United States. Seriously, look no further than the DMCA, a piece of legislation introduced by the long brain dead Orrin Hatch that is so vaguely written that anything is illegal if a corporation doesn't like it.
How does this happen? Why with money of course!
It's proof positive that EVERY law written in this country needs to have a sunset date of one or two years when it's reconsidered for renewal.
What I would suggest is for you to find ways to use these laws for your benefit. It's not just for corporations.
Here's an example, it's illegal for travel agents to get together and collude, it's against the Sherman Anti-Trust act. They should be able to band together and do whatever the hell they want. I started a travel agents mailing list that after a year had been infiltrated by members of the airline industry. The solution? Start a new one, this time started with a core group of trusted people and any new agents would have to be recommended by a current member and seconded by another. Next, protect the list under provisions of the DMCA, so if a travel vendor happened to get their hands on a transmission, they would be in violation because of the DMCA.
Here's the payoff: Delta gives 10% off their fares to a particular mega agency in Chicago and American gives 10% off their fares to another large regional agency in Atlanta (one of several ticketing deals that agencies have around the country). This wonderful set up allows the agency in Chicago and Atlanta to talk and they ticket each other's discounts helping each other to not only give cheaper deals but to meet their requirements for a nice big fat override check from the airline every year.
Is this fair? No, but then again paying travel agents no comission isn't either. You CAN make a difference folks, stop bitching and be creative. These laws are written for you, bit e back.
I'm not a fan of the current retardican party that has been corrputed by right-wing and corporate interests.
I like the democrat party, except they lack true leadership and there are a few overtly left-wing nuts that, well, are just as strange as some libertarians I've met.
Which brings me to the libertarian party. The overly-idealistic views and beliefs of libertarians are so far off center that they remind me of the religious beliefs of scientologists. You know, we wouldn't HAVE THIS FUCKING PRESIDENT IF YOU MORONS WOULD HAVE SAVED YOUR CRY-BABY NADER DISTRACTION BULLSHIT UNTIL AFTER BUSH WAS DEFEATED. But, no, you picked a really great time to try to establish your third-party. You lost and you took down the democrats with you. As well as any hope of ousting the current psychotic-in-chief we call Mr. President. Nice move. Pick up a clue phone and dial in to the "reality" line some time.
Introduction
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.
Government
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.
Regulation
The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over da
Then on top of that there's Gerrymandering, where if the incumbants don't like a group of constituents they can break them up and assign them to different districts where they will be minority voices.
Huh?
The Libertarian position on this issue would naturally be to NOT enforce net-neutrality (its a regulation!).
Or put another way, a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for BigTelco and their lobby.
Just so you know, RIAA deals with music, not MPAA.
RIAA == Recording Industry Association of America
MPAA == Motion Picture Association of America
MPAA deals with movies.
A Digital Recorder that has built in double barrel shotgun functionality. They can't confiscate it then! MWHAHAHA!
As long as the new cards being sold are compliant the MPAA will be happy. The old ones will break or become obsolete soon enough. If they're smart they'll make it a felony to buy or sell these and troll on ebay.
I'm sure there will be a way around it. Driver mods or offshore software. That doesn't mean it isn't evil.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I recently went 3 years with no tv / movies. It was fine. Now I watch some tv, but mostly just in the background while I read or play games. It's pretty easy to live without TV. The wierdest part was not knowing any of the common cultural references. People would talk about shows or commercials and I'd not seen any of them.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Then don't panic. They haven't even killed the pig yet. This will grind on for years.
I don't know about HAM-based, but I think there's plenty out there about SPAM-basaed internet connections.
Why waste time with this garbage when there are so many better uses of State time? I really don't understand - besides the "low hanging fruit" or "government-as-mouthpiece-of-businesses" arguments - why this country is afraid to face issues and problems that are meaningful and need resolution. Instead, what we do over here is run around under the banner of intellectual property while the labor pool is vanishing, the economy's sluggish, and the citizenry aren't liking the actions taken by the government.
That's it, I'm moving to the Netherlands. ;)
I will continue to fight to conform the future to what I believe to be true until I die, and as I fight to conform the future to what I believe to be true, what I believe to be true conforms to what the future will be.
Wow. Do those guys have a government permit to burn all that straw?
AT&T Introduces Privacy+ Tier for Consumers and an NSA Turbo-Speed Tier for the government, at Market-Leading Prices
Wednesday April 26, 6:00 am ET
For $24.95 a month extra, the new Privacy+ Tier offers consumers the ability to feed all data to the NSA at the slowest speeds available. However, for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, the NSA can override the Privacy+ Tier and spy on Americans at Speeds of up to 6.0 Megabits per Second
SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 26, 2006--AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T - News) today announced a new, higher-privacy tier for its AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet service that meets consumers' growing outrage for allowing the NSA full availability to its backbone. At the same time, it announced a new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier that, for a fee, allows the government to override the newly introduced Privacy+ Tier.
Beginning Monday, May 1, new residential customers who order AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet service online through www.att.com can purchase the Privacy+ Tier -- offering data to the NSA at speeds sometimes as slow as 56k. (other monthly charges and a 12-month term commitment apply). Effective today, the new Privacy+ Tier is available for $24.99, when it is ordered with a qualifying service bundle. Existing AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet customers can upgrade to the Privacy+ service through the company's Web site and take advantage of the current pricing promotion beginning Monday.
"Consumers are craving greater privacy, and now with the AT&T Privacy+ service, they can at least get the satisfaction that the government is going to get their private data at the slowest speeds possible; "Consumers could easily get more privacy from a company that doesn't offer the NSA a fat pipe right onto its backbone, but with the incredible amount of money that the government paid us for that pipe, we just couldn't pass it up. The new Privacy+ Tier, tips the scales back just a little bit in favor of the consumer," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
Also effective Monday, May 1, the NSA can sign up for the new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, which for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, allows the government to override the newly created Privacy+ Tier. "The NSA is craving greater speed to American's private communications, and now with the NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, they can at least get the satisfaction that they can resume domestic spying at the highest speeds possible; "The NSA will be hard-pressed to find this speed at a better price, for a full 12 months, from one of our leading competitors," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet also announced that with the NSA paying an undisclosed, but very large amount of money for access to its backbone data, and with a higher than expected demand from consumers, that it has decided to ask popular web sites, such as Google and eBay to also pay a monthly fee to insure a speedy deliver of all consumer data to these web sites. In that regard, AT&T Yahoo introduced the new Extortion-racket Tier.
Also, in a move that is sure to stun Wall Street, AT&T has announced that they will soon enter the "garbage collection" business.
About the New AT&T
AT&T Inc. is one of the world's largest telecommunications holding companies and is the largest in the United States. Operating globally under the AT&T brand, AT&T companies are recognized as the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to business and as leading U.S. providers of high-speed DSL Internet, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. AT&T Inc. holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which is the No. 1 U.S. wireless services provider with 55.8 million wireless customers. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and AT&T products and services is available at www.att.com.
You will also be charged a monthly FUSF (Federal Un
Ron Paul
Good video of Charlie Gonzalez dissembling in committe hearings.
Who needs'em anyhow, right? *sigh*
The internet has made the Independent music production market a level-playing field.
It has also made the Commercial music production industry work that much harder to produce music that doesn't suck. *obviously they are not up for such a challenge*
The commercial music industry (along with the movie industry) wants EVERYONE to think that piracy is KILLING them (like, physically, whhhhhaaaa), when in fact, it has nothing to do with piracy, it has to do with the quality of their product(s) *or lack thereof* that is killing them.
Since independent artists can't really afford to lobby these brain/heart-less politicians, we will now fall victim to the Commercial Industry's cut-throat lobbyist tactics.
This has nothing to do w/ preventing piracy, this has everything to do with preventing independent artists from continuing to compete with commercial artists.
Yet another reason to stop lobbyism in America!
#SGVLUG (irc.freenode.net)
Think they can't do it? Try finding an analog capture device that doesn't respect macrovision.
Man, you really need that seminar!
so, even though people have been recording things on audio cassettes for decades, now that people are doing it digitally in smaller numbers (it takes some technical knowhow), all of a sudden they want to outlaw the recorders?
I think that copy protection schemes are overwhelmingly proving the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies by pushing more people into illegality. It seems like a great premise of the whole freedom thing is trusting people to do what's right in a situation, and not forcing them to do what is right by removing access to legitimate resources. Just my two cents.
So your advice is to not vote? I mean if you eliminate the libertarian candidates there's no one left.
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
Unfortunately, if you're voting Libertarian, you might as well be throwing your ballot in the garbage can. Besides, I'm not convinced that any party is the answer to a systemic problem. I think individuals can be the answer though. Be choosy about who you vote for, sure, but not based on party.
Is it a co-incidence that Bill could do this as well as a Bill ?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Hmmm? Which article? Think for yourself, my ass. The points raised in those articles are valid criticism of libertarianism. Some of them were written by Libertarians criticising each other! Go ahead, try to refute them.
I'm waiting.
What's that? You can't be bothered to read criticisms of your favorite dogma? You might actually have to think for yourself instead of parroting back the libertarian party line? Maybe that's because Libertarianism makes you stupid.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Not only do they stop "piracy" but they keep the means for making digital media from becoming too cheap. The reason is this, in practical terms the corporation will cease to manufacture digital recorders (or operating systems?) for "consumers" and will enable these features on on multi-thousand dollar "professional" level equipment. After all we can't let the rabble have an independent media and report things the corporations don't want us to know right? Fortunately I can always keep Tiger on my OS X G5 box, or put Linux on a generic box, but watch "consumer" level (cheap) digital recorders and OSs (end to end encryption ring a bell) fade out not, for technical reasons but so the corporations can gain ever more control on what content is made and how it's distributed.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
If he can import *anything*, I can think of quite a few imports that are far more lucrative, with almost *guaranteed* repeat business.
Hmmm.
I think that still need some work.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Make inroads in local government, establish something vaguely resembling a platform people understand, do the same get-your-nails-dirty bullshit every other successful political party has had to, or shut the fuck up and go back to beating off to Larry Niven and Ayn Rand novels in your mother's basement.
The only thing worse than the two bastardizations of the named political parties in the US are the citizens just barely bright enough to recognize this situation, but too fucking apathetic to choose a side and reform it from within.
Oh, I'm sorry, that would take WORK and SACRIFICE, which is to faux-Libertarians what SOAP is to hippies. No, better you go do another "Little Professor" rant here or your blog no one reads to make yourself feel better about your total fucking uselessness. I stumped hard for not one but two candidates in the last election. They both lost, but we and they built momentum for 2006. If we lose again, at least I know I did something.
Didn't like Clinton? It wasn't the Democrats who put him there, it was one in five voting Americans who voted for Perot rather than reelect GWHB.
Didn't like Bush II? It wasn't a Republican groundswell, it was assholes who thought they'd show *everyone* by voting for Nader.
Get your goddamn hands dirty with the rest of us and preen about your moral/political purity later.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
In practice such a law would outlaw the key part that makes a DVR, the part that converts QAM/VSB/whatever DVB-s signal you think of to a form amenable to being stored/processed by a general computer. I.e. a computer wouldn't be outlawed, but an Airstar HD-5000 would be outlawed or restricted. That is the definitive piece of equipment that differentiates a TiVO from a computer.
What you'd see is probably the same thing you see today on the DVD drive market with respect to Region protection. Also probably with the similar firmware fun where a broadcast-flag free card is a download away.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I have never understood why it is said that someone is "throwing their vote away" by voting for a 3rd party. You are not throwing your vote away. Unless there is some technical difficulty, it is still counted. What we really need in this country is a third party to win a number of seats in congress to help gum up the works so that these idiots won't be able to pass new laws.
I love the concept of the LP, but I also hate to see assholes continually elected because of third party idealism*. Had all of the Reforms, Greens and Libs and voted for viable candidates in the last few elections this country might not have the massive problems we have now.
Yes, I realize this creates a vicious loop... "gee, I'd support the Libertarian Party, but they have no power...
But I haven't bought music in a long time. Not that I'm out downloading it illegally either. For fun, we typically have friends and family get together, eat, drink, and play music together. If you're not musically inclined, get a friend or two who are. Hang out at their house(s) and enjoy live music for free.
For thousands of years, this is how music has been enjoyed. There's no reason for anybody to stop enjoying it this way...just because somebody invented iPods.
As a consultant to the Telco industry, I had a conversation with a senior Telco executive in 1992 in which I was asked to solve the problem of disparate pricing between data traffic and voice traffic. In short, the problem was this; if the telcos charged the same proportional rate for the use of their network for both data and voice, either all voice calls would be absolutely free, or data would cost a million dollars a meg. Neither situation was acceptable, yet the problem demanded a solution.
I replied that the problem was fundamentally unsolveable, as it was an artifact of their basic operational and pricing models. It could only be solved by changing those models. While this answer was essentially correct, at the time, I knew then that the question would never go away. And so it hasn't.
Indeed, in this Bill, we have now come to the denouement of that long conversation, the logical conclusion of the "Telco" way of thinking. Slow they may be, but no one can fault their persistence.
So long as the Internet remains a prisoner of the Telco infrastructure, its freedom will continue to be eroded and exploited by the insatiable profit imperative of the Telcos, until eventually data and voice traffic finally come into proportion with one another in price. This is the ultimate goal, and if it takes another 15 years (as it has already) then that is fine with them. If the present efforts fail, they will try again. And again, as many times as it takes until they succeed.
This being the case, it is time now to disintermediate the Telcos if we want to preserve a free Internet into the future. The Internet must cease to be a prisoner of the Telco infrastructure, and even the big ISPs.
I do not purport to know how to do that, but *someone* reading this now would know how it can be done. I believe it would almost certainly involve using wireless LANs at home to create a fully-decentralized self-healing point-to-point relay network. But that is just my guess.
Will the person who *does* know how to create such a network please start work on it now. If you love Democracy and Freedom, please give this idea your urgent attention.
there is always the communist ticket. ;)
when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Find coupons in Greeley
Those ramblings are quite accurate.
Libertarians are extreme and hate all government and intererence with big business. For example they would dissemble the EPA and environmental laws because they believe its not the governments job. Also they oppose antitrust laws.
I believe in the power of government. Just not corrupt government. The alternative is everything run by the private sector which is happening today under republican rule.
Democrats at least hold more own values more than any other party so I will vote for them.
http://saveie6.com/
Vote Libertarian: Because a world where Steve Ballmer isn't tied down by laws is a Good Thing.
Seriously, Libertarians would simply remove the middleman(government) from the picture, making it that much easier for Big Business to screw us. And you don't want to find out how big Big Business can get as it's screwing you.
FOR ALL MULTI-MEDIA CONTENT DELIVERED OVER ALL DIGITAL NETWORKS -
Supporting an Artist's choice of Creative Commons ALLOWED WORKS FILTERING and OPEN and FREE USE of Creative Commons MetaTag control ability, albiet with no royalty tax paid to no patent holder, is the key to making everyone happy! The viewer then has a choice of content to watch - Free or not Free!
ARTISTS do need to be protected.... with the ability for those who don't want absolute copyright protection to have only the protection that they want. This only can be done with Creative Commons! Not DRM, and Not with exclusionary laws that control our computers (aka devices that can record)! Yes, it is possible to mandate levels of play and record depending on allowed (not excluded) creative commons metadata tagged files and thus the files as they stream over any network to devices that could be mandated to follow certain rules of polite behavior when encountering certain levels of artist requested copyright protection.
There is only one way to make everyone happy...
Use Creative Commons, with a meta-data tag, that gives a digital file a digital ID that is search-able, filterable, and then protect that meta-data from changes or removal by creating a law that prevents the change or removal of a file or it's meta-data. ISP's could filter the meta-data - like how anti-virus software works, and notify a user (ISP has their email address for billing purposes) that the users account is being used to exceed "fair use" of copyrighted material, beyond a quota, or established "fair-use" limit. Of course Creative Commons or the government needs to establish a Creative Commons style of "commercial only" license with a way to register (on-line) a creators digital meta-data. Shareable meta-data (See Creative Commons Share-alike) would be not filtered or audited, only commercial only meta-data would be filtered. The notification process would first be friendly, then a process of questioning by the ISP could happen if the "commercial only creative commons meta-data" continued to be shared beyond fair use! If all friendly attempts to stop the infringer from exceeding fair use quota did not affect the traffic the ISP could then notify a central world wide infringer data base providing a "hidden" Pseudonym email address to the database where others could email this Pseudonym address and the ISP would then forward the email to the infringer (the creator of the works, owner of copyright, or fans of the work could then ask the infringer to stop (could be digital and automatic once the infringer's pseudonym email address hit the database listing the files meta-data along with the pseudonym's email address. Friendly notification, only amplified could continue, before enforcement action via law suit or criminal process could continue. IP v6 could allow an ISP customer a "assigned IP address" and even if the user had a open wireless network that was usable by anyone, they could be advised in a friendly way to investigate the users of the network or be able to "block the sending of certain files on their network" at a central router or firewall. Final penalty for user who infringes on "commercial only creative commons copyright digital meta-data" would be the termination of the Internet account by the ISP (private ISP or public if the municipality were providing free Internet access)! No one would like to loose their Internet access, would be worse than fines (as a repeat infringer could be targeted in a database with the risk of being black listed for X amount of time from using other ISPs). Of course, other Internet anonymous use could continue as only "commercial only" meta-data would be filtered or audited! China does a similar thing now to control Internet access there, only in violation of human rights. Blocking content is possible as well and the creative commons license, once violated, revokes future use of the licensed work (meaning that the ISP could block, or rather only allow by following the applicable license and enforcement of the license cho
Take that, pickle-smoking teabaggers aka the RIAA.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Read my post. The LP, Greens, etc., are functionally dickless if they keep believing there's such a thing as top-down reform. The Republicans didn't start with Lincoln running for President, they started with lower offices.
The neocons running things now started their work in the 1980s, when Democrats owned Congress pure and simple. Where did they start? School boards and mayoral elections. Are we going to point fingers and laugh at them, or concede this tactic works and adopt it?
This is Slashdot. Every other article is about how logical it is for Apple to steal from Microsoft and vice versa, but as soon as the topic turns to politics we get incredible amnesia.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Allow/deny policy. I love it.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I think you have the Libertarian Party confused with the Green Party. To quote Wikipedia:
"Nader has run for President of the United States three times, in 1996 & 2000 as candidate for the Green Party (Winona LaDuke was his vice-presidential nominee) and in 2004 as an independent with Peter Camejo as his V.P. nominee."
looking at the problems of government individually, and form one solution that addresses all those problems and then develop a plan to force implementation which is where the general strike comes in.
It shows its nice to have a new party not made of corruption but the libertarians are a little extreme and not the answer.
http://saveie6.com/
Dear Publius:
This one's going on Fark, but you knew that, didn't you.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
From the Libertarian Party FAQ:
"We're active in all 50 states, have more than 200,000 registered voters and more than 600 people in office, which is more than all other third parties combined."
I hope you feel better having ranted, but your invective is perhaps better directed elsewhere.
Lets see...
The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts.
"Digital Receiver Recorders". That could fit a VCR, some of it, if just the clock, is "Digital". Then, in combo with the TV, is a "Receiver Recorder".
So, I guess that would mean that Soap Operas cannot be time-shifted to a time when the lady of the house is home from work, and can relax and view "Days of Our Lives", broadcast earlier in the day, and recorded.
Not so, you say? "Soap Operas" first came on the Radio, not TV. The device in question in the "Bill" is a Digital Radio Receiver with recording capabilities? They need to be really specific here, and give model numbers, etc. so we know just what is going to be illegal.
Here we have another law that would be hard to catch people breaking. (Wait while I do some figuring...) (350 million people times...Uh... This is going to be hard... divided by two equals 125 million soap opera fans...)
Sounds to me like this bill will get laughed off the Senate floor, while more important legislation, such as "Plan X for Gasoline Prices" gets front row center in the Congress.
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
I am with you on it on part of rejecting TV, movies and recordings.
For the positive part I would propose reading.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
A few more steps, and they will be on the dark side ...
This is a total joke. Almost ALL of the legislations that are proposed or pass the U.S. congress has something to do with 'copyright'. This is a total outrage. It seems like U.S. consists of nothing but copyright olders and the serfs who has to pay for their 'copy' 'rights'.
Somebody has to stop this.
Read radical news here
This is one of my biggest pet peaves with Libertarians. They won't actually do anything except argue. There has never been and never will be a Libertarian country, because the damned Libertarians are too frickin' lazy.
Besides, if they never put their theories into practice, they'll never have to admit how nonsensical they are when everything falls apart.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Vote in a Democratic Congress this fall.
You mean the same ones who tried to blokc a bill recently because it did not grant the FCC enough power to regulate telecom net neutrality issues? The same FCC that wants the broadcast flag (as evidenced by this bill).
The FCC should not have any more power, period. Vote for Senators who do not want to give the FCC power, REGARDLESS of what party they hail from.
Vote based on the individual, not the party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Remember the good old days of open music? SID files on C-64, and MOD/trackers, where you get the song, and the sequence/source along with it?
I dunno, I agree that the whole media thing is getting to be more trouble than it's worth. I don't worry about it too much. Most of the music I listen to is being produced by people on their PC's with software and samples. There's still trackers available for linux/win32 and os x. My favorite is renoise which doesn't have a linux version avail. There's free sample libs and vst's out there, and still a bit of a demo scene. There's more and more video blogs and clip sites out there for funny little crap ppl capture. More and more info, books and research being published on the net.
The way I look at it, more and more tools available for ppl to be creative in different ways. A lot more media out there competing for eye balls. I don't watch TV, I don't go to the movies. I miss all the hollywood action except when a friend rents DVDs... I still buy CDs from a few not-so-well-known electronic artists...
The way I see it, is if everyone wants that big headache, they're welcome to it. But there's always alternatives. If MSM (mainstream media) becomes to encumbered and I'm locked out, so what? I still have linux etc and a ton of free resources to play with. They can't force me or anyone else to play with them. I can always go do something else, with other like minded people. The only time they have me is when I want their content. And lately most of it is so rehashed who even cares any more?
I'd like to see a free and open society. But who am I kidding? The people in control give us the illusion of freedom, it's not real an tangible. They're going to do what they want to do regardless of my or anyone else of the 'masses' objections. The least I can do is not buy their stuff and try and vote with my dollars to funnel money into projects that aren't so fascist or draconian about the centralized power and control.
Outlawing a computer would do more than that, it'd crush every single corporation - because they've gotten too reliant upon computers. I think the government is stupid - but not THAT stupid.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I think you missed the benefits of 'preferential voting'. Essentially it means:
'I'll vote for this guy, but if he doesn't get in then
I'll vote for her, but if she doesn't get in then
I'll vote for them.. etc'
To use an example from the previous US election, one could vote for (say) Ralph Nader, but preference John Kerry. (Yeah, yeah, so I'm left-of-centre). With preferential voting, you're not wasting your vote, even though Nader will probably not get in. Rather, you're sending Kerry a message that you don't really approve of his policies, but just prefer him to the Other Guy. The crux is, that your vote still goes to Kerry.
Another benefit, is that minor parties can allocate their own preferences. So one could just vote for (say) Nader, and he could negotiate his preferences with the major parties. This would give him leverage in the policy development of the major parties in the lead-up to the election. It also makes people more inclined to vote for minor parties, because they know it's not a 'wasted vote'.
That's the system we have in Australia, and I think it works really well. I think it's absolutely essential if we're to encourage multiple parties (even if they're minor parties).
Don't tell me you believe that load of hogwash? Got any non-biased sources for that claim?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Thinking about not voting Libertarian? Read the bill or look at any of the other abuses of government's power, before you drink the cool-aide.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
On a more serious note, this is a dumb idea. I know they have been talking for a while about making all A-to-D converters have some kind of shut-off flag. I love the idea of being able to hit "mute" on every recording device within earshot, but this is a bad bill.
Wow, I'm posting anonymously and my Captcha code was "Echelon" (100% serious not joking). Is the Slashcode psychic or something?
For another similarly-themed song from Monty Python's great Eric Idle, see here: Pythononline > Plugs > Idlewild. Look near the top, where it says "Eric Idle presents... The FCC Song." Warning--not work-safe (Eric, unlike Family Guy, wasn't planning to have this one broadcast).
Libertarians would have no problem with companies restricting your use of DVR technology through technical means. And if you don't think big business can collude with itself as well as it can with government, I have some waterfront property you might like to purchase. The end result of a Libertarian win would be no government regulation of big business at all, and they could do whatever they want.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well said! In my family we have put ourselves on a diet of movies, music and news. It all became way too depressing. Thanks to the internet we can now be very selective about what we want to hear about.
Now we watch selected shows on free to air TV (although increasingly we tend to walk away in the middle of the show getting tired of the commercials). We Rent the odd DVD (And rip it so we don't have to sit through 15 min of commercials) and listen to free to air radio entertainment at times. Stopped buying CD's years ago (and ban my son from buying them due to virus risks) and never started buying DVD's.
There's the odd time we go to the cinema but these days we choose other activities instead. Minigolf, mountain biking and swimming. These plonkers think we depend on them but as a result I believe people in general are turning away from these media moguls leaving their air castle deflated.
In out life we have gained a lot. More fun, more activity, more time on our hands and less depressed because we don't hear the hyped up "news" crap anymore.
Life is good this way.
Once these associations get you used to these restrictions, there will
be more. There will be ways of extracting a fee from you each time you
want to listen to music or media you buy; possibly even ways to limit more than one person from listening at one time without each one paying a fee.
What a wonderful dream!!
...until I read the summary. It's interesting how my thought process automatically went to Bill Gates instead of a draft of a new law.
And without the legal requirement for the technical restriction, the market would crush it. Who would buy such a limited product when there's a less restrictive one available? 90% of the companies can collude all they want - someone will produce a product that isn't influenced by the collusion, and it will be successful for that very reason. IANAL (I Am Not A Libertarian) but I can see where they're coming from with this - people are greedy, they want what they want, and whoever gives it to them will prosper while those who don't will not. That's how the market would theoretically support the will of the people better than the government.
Large gorillas have filed civil suits for violations stemming from the use of the slang "800-pound gorilla" when referring to large businesses which dominate an industry. A spokesperson for the gorillas said, while this has been an issue for gorillas for a long time, that since AT&T provided the NSA with a backdoor to its backbone, that it is just too offensive to have the word gorilla and AT&T used in the same sentence. As the suit winds its way through the judicial system, the gorillas prefer people use the more appropriate metaphor for large corporations who violate American citizen's privacy rights on a grand scale, by referring to them as "800-pound penises."
Ron Paul
On a related note: the purpose of copyright is to stimulate expression. The Constitution says so. Therefore, anyone who uses copyright to restrict expression should be scorned, and their actions thwarted. Outlawing digital receiver recorders prohibits people from using technology to communicate. If you do it on the premise of copyright protection, it should fail. It's that simple.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A while back I read a study reported on in the economist, that looked at what the effects of the legislative branch being controlled by one party and the executive branch by another. The only legislation that it curtailed were big controversial changes (say socialisation of health care). However, it was also noticed that pork spending increased dramatically, apparently because it was used as a bargaining chip to get one side to agree to the others legislation. I'll post a link to the study later if I can find it.
Furthermore, both parties are on the side of increasingly stringent "intellectual property" legisation. They are both in favor of continually increasing penalties in general, to appear "tough on crime", without concern for making the punishment match the crime, or the diminishing returns on decreasing crime. They both are in favor of throwing our rights away to "protect us from terrorism". They are both in favor of huge pork spending that benifits the industries in the area.
I am not saying that both parties are the same - they are vastly different in many of their views. But in the areas where they do differ, there is rarely enough support to bring those ideas to fruition, so the differences have less practical effect then you would think. It is the areas that they agree that have the biggest effects on our lives, and their views in those areas are frightening.
The answer is to get more third party candidates that have respect for our rights elected into congress. Speaking of which, Michael Badnarik is running for congress and has a decent chance of winning. Who is elected to congress effects us all, and he could certainly use some help letting the people of his district know what he stands for.
Now I'll be the first to tell you that I don't agree with the libertarians on everthing, and the idea of a government controlled entirely by libertarians is almost as frightening to me as the one we have now. But I also know that's not going to happen overnight. What matters in a candidate is not thier idea of the perfect government - what matters is what direction they are going to take us in over the next 4 years. I may not like the libertarian's final destination, but compared to the major parties, I love the direction they're going, and I have no problem riding that train till it's time to jump off.
From now on I'm voting for every third party candidate I can find that supports my rights, regardless of thier views on social spending, regulation or anything else, because if we loose our rights then none of that other stuff will matter.
Digital recording devices and privacy are NOT in the constitution or amendments therefore no one has the right to restrict your usage of it.
O rly? "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states ... 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".
...more profitable long-term. They should know the drill from the Casette Tape and VHS eras; and they massively profited from it and saved a big wodge of cash by going with the flow. But noooo, they have to try and "control" things... Well, it didn't work then and it's going to be difficult to make go now- but we're going to be forced to endure all this shite yet again (and again, and again...) until people quit putting money in these joker's pockets to keep making life miserable for the rest of us just so that they can be filthy stinking rich at our expense.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That's the only solution I can see -- get enough grass roots support and a sympathetic senator or three to push through a law that specifically allows for free use. In fact, I seem to remember a /. article a while about about at least 1 attempt to do just that.
Sigh. Except that imbalances of power are not addressed in the libertarian ideology. So market forces would lead to the concentration of power, which would skew market forces and raise barriers of entry in all markets, which would lead to more concentration of power and so forth. Content owners have a right under libertarian philosophy to protect their content. They have a right to collude with content distributors and electronics manufacturers however they like. And those rights, unregulated by government, would lead to a situation where all the most popular content is protected.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
At least your problem is easier than mine. DVD Red Pro will do ya there for less than $80, IIRC.
I'm still looking for the non-Howard Hughes approach to capturing & recording *component* video at 720p on a HTPC. I refuse to rent a DVR from my cable provider on principle (I don't patronize rent-to-own furniture stores either), but the closest I've come to my design goal is a couple DVRs with component inputs that only accept 480i, which they then deinterlace.
Once they criminalize PVRs that are under their owner's control, only criminals will have PVRs that are under their owner's control...
Pi Ran Out
How about a society where we collectively decide to place limitations on certain freedoms in order to balance the good aspects of freedom with the bad? Kinda like the one we live in. But go ahead and ignore the failures of lassez faire capitalism, mercantalism, and so forth. As libertarianism is not practiced in the real world, it is free to ignore the lessons of the real world.
Answer me this. I'm free to go on your property and plant my own vegetable garden, unless you use force to stop me. If no other human beings lived on the planet, I could go wherever I wanted. How is it your right to initiate force against me in order to keep me off your property? I never signed a contract saying I would stay off your property, why should I be forced into somethign I don't agree with?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
thank you for that comment :D :| or cellphones. they only encourage us to interrupt our face-to-face interactions so we can talk to someone else.
it seems the more technology that is introduced, the more we are encouraged to separate ourselves from other people. take the iPod--I refuse to buy one. I listen to music when I am alone and I share it with people I like. I had a minidisc player years ago but I eventually sold it--all of my friends complained "YOU JUST SIT THERE IGNORING EVERYONE LISTENING TO MUSIC ON YOUR HEADPHONES!"--of course, those same friends now embrace the iPod trend
I am not an anti-luddite, but jesus, is there some median between overuse of new technology and not using technology at all?
maybe people just like the idea of having as many "friends" as possible; take myspace, for instance: how many people can honestly tell you one damn thing about 3/4th of their 150+ friends lists? I refuse to add people I don't know... I use it to communicate with friends I can't easily contact
the list goes on... you get the idea.
Seriously. OK, they like books, but really, what else have they got going for them?
Much of the good recorded music (most pop pre 1980) was recorded by people who were playing live 6 nights a week. Since midi and protools pop music has been made by programmers - we literally have machines that do that now. I like modern sound sculpture music, but the lack of live music means the dying off of a skill set. Without hours on the bandstand, there is no Louis Armstrong, Bird, Motown, Beatles.
"Unplug the jukebox, do us all a favor
That music's lost its taste
Try another flavor
Live music"
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
At first I thought... "why is Bill Gates doing this?"
To paraphrase: "Oh, I'm not that kind of (Libertarian/Marxist)" ;-)
But now we are discussing actual real world strategies and acknowledging that compromises must be made, and practicality trumps ideology every time. That is decidedly different than most conversations I have had with Libertarians, though oddly, no Libertarian I have ever talked to admits to being that kind of Libertarian.
I must admit that you are the first self described Libertarian I have met that believes in anti-trust laws. Hell, most of them won't even admit to the existence of natural monopolies. It's kind of a party line that monopolies only form through government intervention. I really suggest reading up on what orthodox Libertarians believe before calling yourself one.
It's kinda like someone picking up a copy of "Dianetics," reading three chapters, and calling themselves a Scientologist. You realize that certain other people might react negatively to that individual based on those other people's idea of what it means to be a Scientologist, right?
Myself, if I had to pick a name for what I believe in, I'd call myself an Anarchist. "But wait, spun! Isn't that just like a Libertarian?," you say? No. I have radically different ideas about property rights than do libertarians. If I had to narrow it down, I might choose Anarcho-Syndicalism as the label that fits the best. You sound more like a Minarchist than a Libertarian.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's called throwing your vote away because we insist on an electoral college we don't need any more.
Hicks and bible beaters are outraged at not being able to breed like roaches fast enough to outpopulate regions where people have dental care and educations, and whine like beaten children that they need gerrymandering to keep them relevant. Then, when the same issue confronts filibustering, they get selective amnesia and insist we should only listen to the majority.
The truth of the matter is that the Founding Fathers didn't believe peasants could be trusted with one man, one vote.
In other countries, if someone doesn't get the majority vote, they throw out the election.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
lose not loose. grr
You seriously have no understanding of how a libertarian free-market system works.
Libertas in infinitum
Happy Troll Tuesday ;-)
But I didn't notice that I hadn't selected the copyright notice, sorry.
Libertarianism in One Lesson is
Copyright 2005 by Mike Huben ( mhuben AT world.std.com ).
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.
Here in the real world, people can vote Libertarian without any negative consequences occurring due to implementation of Libertarian ideas. It's really very freeing when your candidates have hardly any chance of being elected.
Well, son, take a seat and let me tell you 'bout the good ol' days. Back before there was this new fangled world wide web, we had this place called Usenet which was kinda like you young'ins web forums, only all in text and kinda all jumbled together. It evolved from something that came before the Internet even, UUCP, which was Unix to Unix Copy protocol, though it wasn't only used by unix, you see? (zzzzzz... zzzz... zznork?) Where was I?
Anyways, all these old timey bulletin boards (We called 'em BBSs back then) would all dial each other up over regular old phone lines and forward stuff on at pre-arranged intervals. All of them freely associating created a kind of world wide forum without the need for any of this fancy infrastructure we have now. It was kinda like anarchy in action, but each little bulliten board owner was god of his entire domain, see?
(zzzzz.. zzzz... zzwhuh?)
Who took my meds? Nurse! Anyways, that situation got some o' them early sysadmins and BBS users to thinking. The more moon-headed of them got it in their heads that the whole world should be that way, no, in fact, would be that way, because of computers. And modems, and telephone lines, and, them, of course.
And then they all started read Ayn Rand. And then the seventh seal was broken, and we all wore an onion on our belt, as was the style of the time.
The rest, as they say, is history.
(zzzzzz... damkidsgetoffmylawn... zzzz... zzzz...)
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Once you get past the straw men and logical fallacies, I would say that your link presents some very strong arguments .
I won't worry anymore. I'm leaving to China, where I can even make copies of Merceds Benz design.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
Return the CD to the store under the premise that it "doesn't work." They have to take it back.
I did this with a used copy of the Matrix after discovering the DVD had a spyware installer that was hard to get around. Any non-savvy user watching the Matrix on my computer would end up installing it. They looked at me funny but they took it back. Nobody at the store had tried the DVD on their PC before.
I'm sorry, but that site doesn't criticize Libertarian party positions - it is Mike Huben criticising Mike Huben's ideas of libertarian thought. He even says as much. Consider for example:
"This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them...."
"They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.)."
Substitute "liberal" or "conservative" for "libertarian" in the above and one would have statements neither more nor less valid than the original. If Huben were criticising Libertarian party platform positions, or specific Libertarian candidates, then the link to his web page might have been legitimate. But he's doesn't. Or at least I couldn't find anything in his long winded diatribes.
Now, explain in 1000 words or less how your statement justifies preventing me from designing or building electronic equipment just because I'm not Comcast?
Define "contraband" as any good that does not meet applicable regulations. Congress has the right to prohibit the interstate sale of contraband and to protect the market in compliant goods from the intrastate production or sale of contraband. See Wickard v. Filburn.
Uhmmm... your vote goes to Bush?
To do list for Windows
In fact, I encourage others to take this pledge.
I realize that you, [Alanis Morissette|Lars Ulrich|Columbia Recording Artist], have the right to profit from your work and that I should pay for the privilege of listening to your music or otherwise experiencing your art. From this day forward, I promise to only listen to your music if I pay for it.
In aid of this, I swear to the following:
Should your music come on the radio or television, I shall change the station or turn it off until said station produces and delivers written confirmation that they have paid you an appropriate royalty on my behalf.
Should your music come on or your work be displayed at a friend's home or in their car, I will ask them to desist from playing your music, at least while I am present unless they can display written permission or a reciept indicating that they have paid royalties.
I shall not patronize any business that exposes me to any aspect of your work unless I have paid you personally for that privilege. Should a business infringe upon your rights as an artist while I am present, I shall leave.
Please accept my humble apologies for any time that I may have accidentally infringed upon your rights as an artist and be assured that I will not let it happen again however accidentally or innocuously. I hope this helps you to achieve the fame and fortune that you deserve.
btw:
big thumbs up to Page, Lavinge, McLaughan and all the other members of the CMCA...you guys make me proud. I hope you don't mind that I continue to enjoy your music and that I continue to patronize businesses and venues that promote it. BNL: reprint the Yellow Album already...I'll buy two.
I was able to play the CD side of With Teeth in Winamp. My laptop considered it, for all intents and purposes, an audio CD. The DVD side I was able to play in VLC. I don't think any malware was installed, as far as I can tell.
we already see that in states that are both very large and contain at least one humongous city. Witness the crap that goes on in NY state, because it happens to contain NYC. A lot of issues divide on geographical location. I live in Georgia. What might be good for atlanta might just suck for the rest of that state (well, we need to bump up the state income tax to add a dozen new freeways around metro atlanta...)..that wouldn't help folks who don't go there much, would it Out here in cowville, we might need a pipsqueak bridge fixed,,but the money goes to Atlanta instead...
...anything. Maximum inclusive personal political contributions capped at 100$ a year. No "general" contributions, all contributions have to go for a named candidate in a named election who you are entitled to vote for, nothing outside your district, and nothing to the general party apparatus, ie, "no professional politicians". No soft money.
And, look around, even in the more rural states, the news organizations and big money is always concentrated in the larger urban areas, hence, even with the proportional representation, you could have 100% of the Ds, Rs, Independents and others all being "urban centric" and therefore not really represent the bulk of the state geographicallyu, disenfranchising a lot of people.
At the national level it is LONG gone, I knew that the first time I heard some bleached blonde news talking head say some guy who had barbed wire around his place had a "compound". They equate barbed wire with prison camps and armored bunkers. They have no conception of reality outside their little vertical concrete world of taxis, jet airplanes and the NYC/DC/LA axis of maximum profits.
I have a better idea, no more professional politicians nor career government workers. Ten years max total and inclusive "government service",elected, appointed or hired-on, then back to private industry, no pensions, no lifetime benefits, no double dipping, suffer with the rest of us non priveleged peons. It'll make them think twice and thrice over the laws they pass-or don't pass. Eliminate all non personal campaign contributions, not a penny hard or soft from corps or NGOs or lobby groups. Not a cent, not a burger, not a golf ball not a
Next up, automatic sunshine provisions on all new laws, set number of years, then they expire.As it is now, we have no set outside limit on numbers of laws! There are already *millions*. whemn will enough be enough?? Further effort towards review of old laws, to see if they lived up to their promises-no results, bad results, the law becomes null and void.
All new laws get vetted in the restructured supreme court FIRST before they become law. Not pass a law, screw over some poor guy, then make him pay millions to fight it to see if it is really "legal" or not. That is bass ackwards and always has been.
Any independent or third party candidate who can garner 5% during an open primary-open meaning anything goes, no closed party primaries- must be included in printed name form on all the ballots during the election, and must be allowed to participate in any "national" debates if they are broadcast on the public's airwaves. The news media giants don't own the air, we the people do, they lease selected business opportunities but must be of the public service-all the public, not just a few selected rich segments of the public and just two for profit political parties. End the hijacking.
Automatic dissolution of corporations the third time they are caught commmitting fraud, breaking anti trust regulations, etc or fleecing the public in government contracts. The first time if it is bribery of any governmental employee. Immediate dissolution, all shares become null, worthless, must be destroyed (treat it like seized drugs in other words), all top management and the majority shareholder personally liable..
And so on and so forth. There are practical measures to take that would actually work. All of them upset the entrenched monied status qu
Sex. Vote Libertarian and not only can you download porn, you'll be able to pay women for sex without risk of being arrested - even when you aren't in Nevada! Money. Vote Libertarian and you can keep more of your earnings. Drugs. Vote Libertarian and you can do what you want with your own body. And that's not all you get!....
The government tries to pass or passes some bill that doesn't make any sense and just makes me sick to my stomache. arrrgg. No one wants this bill to pass. My mother sent me an e-mail about it when the debate started and my mother isn't exactly a geek. All people wouldn't like this if they had it explained to them. Tell people, learn to explain the real problem with losing net nuetrality in a way the average person can understand. Arrrgggg!!!!
Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders
He sure would.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
This is from *Gandhi*
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
I understand libertarian philosophy better than you. You are arguing points that the Libertarian party doesn't hold.
First, the issue under discussion isn't about companies restricting access via technical means - they've had that right since the establishment of the U.S. You as an individual have that right too. The issue under discussion is the government taking away a right people previously had. The Libertarian party position on this bill is pretty clear - it would be against the bill.
TiVo has a DirecTV HDTV combo box that this legislation would apparently cripple. Of course if you decouple the two devices you would seem to jump through the loophole.
I don't know if TiVo has released a standalone HD box yet, probably because re-encoding analog Y-Pb-Pr would be bandwidth intensive. But it'll eventually happen.
You gotta do a lot better than that. It's a really tough crowd here on slashdot. I wish one day we could get all slashdotters in a hall and arm them with fruit, then let people get up on stage and make a comment. The crowd could cheer, or bombard them with fruit.....I think that would be a good time for the RIAA guys to make some comments.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Best example of amnesia is the virtual un-labeling of Howard Dean as a libertarian in 2000. If Dean wasn't a libertarian then I don't know who is. Call it friendly ignorance, the MSM was so confused over his "unconventional" stances that they never dropped the deadly L-word on him. But libertarian would have summed up the whole controversy.
Unfortunately Dean's problem is that he wasn't electable - and not because he wasn't popular, but because he was himself mentally ill (and now part of big money as DNC chairman). It's too bad because Dean's pro-gun, pro-healthcare, selective business policies were the most balanced libertarian platform I've seen. And people seemed to like it.
Hooray for you! You made a link! Now you can proceed to making whole web pages! I suggest making one about your cat.
Yeah, I don't really have much in common with those who are in their little hidey holes around me.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22county+tax ation t ml
yields
http://www.etax.dor.ga.gov/ptd/adm/indexcounty.sh
which since you're from Georgia seems right up your alley.
i think even the oldest video capture cards won't accept macrovisioned video.
"The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."
And if what is broadcasted is public domain itself, such as, say, passages from the Bible? I know a couple of ministers who would be upset that their sermons couldn't be freely copied by listeners. Basically, this would take away all choice even from the person broadcasting as well, wouldn't it?I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
That's why I got a card for my box. I read a while ago about this 'flag' and bought a card.
Maybe I'll move to sweden, i heard they have sane copyright laws there (from thepiratebay.org, though. Don't know if I can trust those guys.)
Every time one of these DRM mandate proposals comes up someone has to organize a phone/letter campaign to shoot it down.
Save betamax - the anti induce phone campaign, was amazing, and turned heads as each and every senator recieved too many calls for their staffs to handle.
Why not undermine the whole underpinnings of "DRM mandate" and pull a save betamax to overturn the DMCA?
I just don't get it.. everyone runs around with spackle, wood, and nails whenever the content cartels take a sledge hammer to our rights, but nobody bothers to reinforce the same structure when it's not under attack!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Guess I'll just be stuck my old DVD's and a TV to watch them on...nothing really that good on TV anyhow.
Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.
Let us not for get in this age of globalization it will be hard for the government to pass laws that have any significant bearing. If people can't obtain something in the US then hello World Market! The only way to solve the problems in Washington DC is to elect people instead of politicians to office.
Is the industry so corrupted that no one can start an honest label/company?
No cat, but I got one about your mom thats making a pretty good amount of $$$
I agree with you... I am not quite as much of an activist of the LP as you are, I do share many of your sentiments.
I vote LP whenever I get the chance. Since that isn't most of the time, I, like many other Americans, end up playing the "vote for the lesser evil candidate"
Libertas in infinitum
If the goal is to eliminate corporate power and influence over government, simply eliminate government's ability to regulate business. Then the corporations and special interests will have no reason to buy legislation because the legislators cannot legislate in their favor and against their competition. Restrictions on contributions wouldn't be needed since the government would have little power to pander to contributors.
The last time the US gov had a lassie-faire mindset it caused the Industrial Revolution. A capitalistic free-market economy is a vehicle for progress and the IR proves it. Imagine what kind of progress could be made with our current technology if regulations were minimized.
Remember big business likes big government because the gov has the power to regulate in their favor. Small government has no such power thus the government can't pander to big business.
The problem is that the government has granted itself more and more power to legislate and regulate where it doesn't belong as defined by the US Constitution.
This is why big business likes big government. Might seem counterintuitive at first but think about it. If big business can buy influence and legislative bills, then they can stifle their competition.
For example, one has to jump through many many hoops to open a small business in this country. Why? Because the government has over legislated and regulated to ensure that every single rule is followed for business. Big business has the capital and resources to be able to handle all of these hoops because they have legal departments, paper pushers, accountants, etc etc. The sole businessman doesn't have all of these methods to be in compliance with the nessecary laws. Therefore they have to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort, and money to keep up.
If the government would stick to its original definition as set forth in the US Constitution and Declreation of Independence, then we wouldn't have any special interests, buying of influence, over legislation, draconion regulation, etc because the government wouldn't have the power to affect such things.
If the government doesn't have the power to regulate the markets, then no one will pay money for the government to regulate the markets because it would be futile. We should stop governmental creep and bloat NOW!
Libertas in infinitum
Extortion-racket Tier
Hilarious. And very true.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
My posting here will explain it for you:
2 51144
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184697&cid=15
Libertas in infinitum
Libertarians are extreme and hate all government and intererence with big business. For example they would dissemble the EPA and environmental laws because they believe its not the governments job. Also they oppose antitrust laws.
You're painting with a rather big brush there. Plenty of people with a Libertarian bent understand that big business is itself a creation of the government, and once you understand that you can't say with a straight face that big business (in its current form) should be left completely to its own devices. However, if you take away the the near-total avoidance of personal liability that a corporation's owners enjoy through government action, I suspect the anti-trust and environmental issues will largely sort themselves out.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I missed that one somehow, and yelling in front of your supporters cuts no mustard with me. That was a hack job, plain and simple. Listen, the Republican frontrunner for '08 is a doctor who openly admitted in his autobiography taking home cats from animal shelters so he could vivisect them. Note I did not say "dissect." Define "mental illness" again?
As far as "big money" is concerned, he was more than competent at fundraising during his own campaign and others afterward. The DNC could ignore his politics, but ignoring his ability to get average citizens to pony up cash was suicide and they knew it.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
I owned a tv, I just didn't have cable service in an area with no OTA service. :-)
Humorously enough, I first saw that article during the time in question. In my defense, I don't talk about it much, and I did it out of poorness rather than some sense of moral superiority.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I've gone about three years without cable living in an area where my TV reception depends on the weather (no line-of-sight signals), and even then I'm lucky to get three fuzzy channels...and it doesn't matter. I still watch the news to see the headlines, but that's mostly it. There's plenty of other things to do. Any shows that I really cared about, I can buy on DVD, anyway.
I agree about the cultural stuff. Recently, I saw a couple of sitcoms while visiting family, and I sat stunned wondering how anyone can find them entertaining. The jokes are so lame and the canned laughter is annoying. Most childrens' shows are just pointless timesinks, too. I feel bad for the kid when someone turns on the TV to cartoons and he/she just sits there like a powered-off robot.
If we've learned anything from immigration activists, it's that we need to march in the streets/
Maybe burn all our dvds and cds on the steps of congress. Or boycott disneyland this summer. I mean, if we really cared, we would do something. We had so many opportunities with starwars movies, and matrix and LOTR, but we all got in line, some of us early.
Face it, we're their bitch.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Yes, I have read that and it is not complete.
If you study late 19th century US Presidents before McKinley and Teddy, and general attitudes towards government after reconstruction but prior to the Spanish-American War, you will find a very laissez-faire atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
This is, among other things, what allowed the US IR to take place. Limited government regulations, new technology, economic boom, westward expansion etc.
Libertas in infinitum
Not to mention that if you ask for something ridiculously stupid, and ask enough times, chances are that you'll eventually get a compromise that's either ridiculous or stupid.
Here in the UK, I own a digital radio and a digital TV receiver. Both of them will record broadcasts. The radio is "The Bug" and records MP2 files onto an SD card. The TV is really a Topfield TF5800 PVR with two digital TV receivers and 160 gig hard drive for recorded shows. It even has a USB port if I want to copy shows off the hard drive.
To me, the MAIN FEATURE of digital radio and digital TV is that it can be recorded. I use this to listen to or watch shows at different times and on the PVR, I often pause or rewind the TV when I'm interrupted.
There was a very good hearing at the Senate where the future of internet radio, digital radio, copyright, fair use come into play:
...AND we should give no one absolute ownership of any wave.
Even if the content is being delivered via Digital Radio, or the internet, or a local network. We are still talking about the reality of digital content and protection for the artist. A network is a network is a network. If it is digital then it is being delivered using networking techniques, period.
You can still view the Senate Hearing here:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e042606_music.rm
Can copy and paste into Real Player (File->Open Location) to view!- or go to the C-SPAN 109th Congress page and look for:
Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing on the Music Industry (04-26-2006)
There was legislation discussed here that if interested in the digital economy and the attempts by some to make monopolies with tech, you might want to be aware of what is happening in Congress, and comment on as this is dealing with "distribution" control by certain interests.
I was hearing this and was interested that "copyright" is out of the discussions when they are talking about streaming or perforamance services.
What the Senate was missing is that the creative commons license (with metatags), with mandatory restriction as to what level of "metatag enabled creative commons copyrighted" music or other audio content, could allow for the restiction, or prevention, of playing of certain classes of megatag individual artist to control! Certain digital stream receiving devices by rules could be prevented from playing certain creative commons licensed content, and certain other creative commons licensed content could be played freely, but not recorded, other creative commons licensed content could be preformed (streamed), recorded, and played at the total range of freedoms allowed (this would allow artists who only want users to come to pay money at their concerts to use the performance and distribution channels as promotional tools (vs being not allowed any access to these tools at all)!
The Creative Commons License with MetaTag's ability to enable Controls, Filters, and Search ability, was not even discussed as a management tool during this hearing? I don't think that the players in the industry have this wonderful tool on the radar!
Question Asked: Are you proposing to manage and enforce Creative Commons licenses with DRM?
Question Answered: No - NO DRM!
DRM (plus DMCA and Traditional Copyright)... DOES NOT EQUAL Creative commons copyright license with metatag (PLUS DMCA)...!
Do the math!
One is restrictive by design, where the other allows by design!
Follow this please... (please excuse any spelling or typos etc)!
Instead of proprietary DRM... please see Creative Commons Metatag use as a substitute to DRM..! The two are not equal. The math with both is totally different with the main difference being that Creative commons metatag use is an OPEN and FREE option that involves the artist from start to finish! Why use DRM when we could use the Creative Commons License METATAG instead (that can be used to protect digital file from misuse, unintended use, and the MetaTax can not be changed or deleted due to the forces and case law that already backs the DMCA).
Let us all go with the wave, vs going against it.
The level of creative uses that surround the creative commons metatag license and the flexability of it's uses has not been explored enough, even by those in congress who we elected to be smart enough to figure this stuff out (maybe too many lobby folks at them, so they don't have time to think -joke)!
In the end, the artist of a creative commons licensed work has 100% of the choice of what level of "control of use" that that artist might so choose! This includes any artist of any level of the content (starting at the writer or creator going to the performer, all the way to the end users!
This level us use is
"It doesn't support copying yet--I think that they're working on that."
"Well, for all of the features that it does have, I can live with that little problem for a while."
And then `a while' becomes `forever'.
Eventually, acceptance sets in.
-rozzin.
The Prior Art for this is found in all Basic Networking Security tech, as it is *group allow execute* tech =Tons of Prior art!
Agreed - DRM today reflects only 2 levels of traditional and restrictive copyright use (deny and deny). Creative commons use allows for many different levels of artist allowed uses (allow all use, allow many different levels and types of agreed upon by license of varieties and choices by artist's of "some use", that is automaticly understood by user, by license, and with "allow only" coding could be also understood easily by a users computer, or classes of devices for certain commercial uses as defined by creative commons licensed works related commercial use laws for certain devices used in certain businesses, laws that don't exist today)!
The bonus is that PRIOR ART EXISTS ALREADY... as the software is just an IF, THEN loop. Or similar to enabling or allowing users via standard network file access permissions to any files on any network that has been built. As prior art - this is basic stuff and the tech is not new at all, as it is a simple *allow* *execute* *group name associated with level of license* of a creative commons copyrighted file THAT IS JUST EXACTLY LIKE THE TECH USED FOR CONTROLING ACCESS TO FILES ON ANY NETWORK THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF NETWORK SECURITY. Any Digital distribution system that would be using this creative commons permission "allowed for file execute or file allowed by filter", is using the same networking and security tech that has been in existence since many can remember! Computers on networks have been using login based permissions for one heck of a long time! Even the concept of a creative commons license level, as a "group", really, is not new, where it would only be allowing execution of a file given that the correct group is allowed (except that the metatag defines the group and contains the information as to the ID of the user group, or creative commons license level ALLOWED)!
Creative commons license filtering is not DRM at all.
http://creativecommons.org/
For example - How the artist is protected is evident. If you go to MagnaTune.com and click on buy something you will see options! If you want to play in a bar, or on a telephone music on hold device, or whatever there is a price for that sone listed there. Does the creative commons license extend to this level of allowed use (where it could say that certain classes of commercial use are allowed - like is available at Magnatune)?
Magnatune offers fully automated licensing of rights-cleared music in a wide variety of genres. "Automated licensing" means that with a few clicks of the mouse, you can get high quality music and a valid legal agreement to use it. There's no waiting, no negotiating. All licensing quotes are exactly the same for all buyers, and we will not ask to see your work to approve the use."
Magnatune is just an example and this is no ad for their services.
---> Hmmm, so allow by artist's choice of creative commons license and terms with that license. Filterable for enforcment... No DRM court.
You could have mentioned Vieques while you were at it.. http://www.viequeslibre.addr.com/
Perot would have been a great president.
I'll be voting 3rd party in 2008 out of spite, but what I wouldn't give to have a real choice...
From your link: It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a dessert topping!" "No, it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!"
Real persuasive there, buddy.
Personally, I'm splitting my vote between the Libertarians and teh Greens (if the Greens are even on the ballot this election). I'm sick of the Republicrats.
TiVo will be releasing the Series 3 later this year and it's cablecard capable. It will record 2 digital streams simultaneously.
I'm unclear from the article if this bill would affect TiVo as much as it would affect your ability to buy a PCI card to put in your computer and do the same job.
[In a democracy the people are the deciders!]
Second: write a letter mentioning that you are a taxpayer and a voter (even if you are not) and that you want them to oppose the "Digital Content Protection Act of 2006." You can even add that as a hard working taxpayer, time-shifting programs whenever and however you want is an important quality of life issue for you.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
They can have my StreamRipper when ........
BTW, there are some totally Libertarian-compatible ways to reduce concentration of power. Regulation isn't the only thing that excessive government has given us; limited liability and corporations are also a creation of government.
There's no reason that a libertarian state could not remove these creations or demand that limited liability companies sacrifice certain rights in exchange for their very special government-granted unnatural powers. I'm not saying all libertarians are in favor of this, but it's totally compatible with the philosophy.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Looks like someone failed a few classes on government. Communism is an economic system, not a form of government.
Libertarians would have no problem with companies restricting your use of DVR technology through technical means.
A Libertarian should have a problem with it. A real Libertarian would want corporations abolished. They are grants by the government originally designed to shield liability and simplify paperwork. They are now legal entities with just about all the rights of a person with none of the responsibilities. A real Libertarian would abolish corporations. They may be convenient, but they are an artificial construction of the government interfering with the free market. They wouldn't mind a *person* making something with DRM on it, but anything a corporation does should be opposed.
But most Libertarians are just Republicans that don't like the Republican party. So they are still for corporations, they don't mind "tort reform" (as long as it screws over people in order to increase the power of corporations harming people), and they certainly aren't for the privatization of roads or are pro-choice.
Learn to love Alaska
Unfortunately, if you're voting Libertarian, you might as well be throwing your ballot in the garbage can.
Like you weren't throwing it away when you voted for Bush or Kerry...
Learn to love Alaska
I'm more of an anarcho syndicalist myself, so I have some problems with the way libertarians approach property, but libertarians are a type of anarchist, too and really not that different. I just have a problem with the libertarian fanbois and hangers on, who I suspect are closet Republicans like you say. They seem to just want to set the status quo into stone.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton