Slashdot Mirror
Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door
ZeissIcon writes "Public Knowledge.org is reporting that the oft-defeated broadcast flag DRM scheme is being sneaked into Senator Steven's Telecommunications bill. Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill, and making no exceptions for fair use, this particular version calls for an Audio Broadcast Flag that would affect digital and satellite radio as well. The bill goes to committee on Thursday, so there is still time for public comment."
Senator is on the Commerce Committee. One last push from
you could get Congress to remove the entertainment industry
mandates from the bill.
IF YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
Please call your Senator (numbers below). Here's a sample
script:
STAFFER:
Hello, Senator Lastname's office.
YOU:
Hi, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to let the Senator know
that I don't think the broadcast and audio flag provisions
belong in S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers Choice and
Broadband Deployment Act. These are anti-consumer
provisions, which would give the FCC far-reaching powers,
and give the entertainment industry a dangerous veto over
new technologies. I hope the Senator will insist on
excluding these provisions on Thursday.
STAFFER:
Okay, I'll let the Senator know. Thanks.
Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353
IF YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE:
Go to our Action Center, and send a letter to your Senator
explaining why he or she should insist on the removal of the
flags:
<http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=223>
Text of the Bill:
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s1
To learn more about the broadcast flag:
<http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag>
To learn more about the audio flag:
<http://www.eff.org/IP/digitalradio>
From EFF
Bruce Perens.
Someone please remind me how this, alongside his plans to have the FCC regulate cable television, help his constituents in Alaska? I know there's a lot of scum out there, but Stevens has got to be one of the biggest Senators For Hire I've seen in a while. In the industry I follow, Stevens' bullying work on PET imaging (positron emission tomography) is truly stunning. How many PET centers/suppliers/manufacturers do you think there are in Alaska?
What a corporate tool.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
For those who would like to contact these people on-line:
Not at a national level. In the state of Minnesota, there is a well-upheld part of the constitution dictating that all state laws must be written on bills covering a single subject. For example, a law castrating the ability of law enforcement to deny gun permits was tossed out because it was appended to unrelated legislation. (Of course the folks who think that everybody should have a right to a concealed carry permit got it pushed through as it's own law the next year.) But the idea is there --- thou shalt not embed earmarks at 1:32AM. It also makes it harder to weld on controversial bits to slam-dunk bills.
He really wants that frigging bridge.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
It's obvious that the Republican government insists on the maximum corporate legislation possible, and the minimum personal freedom.
This must be why Republican Senator John Sununu is our avatar on the committee for removing the broadcast/audio flags from this legislation.
You have to understand that copyright is not a partisan issue. This is why no openly partisan organization should get involved in the debate over these matters (such as MoveOn.org did with network neutrality, killing any chance of Republicans supporting that issue).
The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around. Are you the Senator from California, home of Hollywood? Gee, I wonder how you stand on extending copyright terms. The representative from Iowa? Please, don't surprise me on your position on increasing farm subsidies. A Congressman from Texas? What, you voted for tax breaks for energy companies? Shocking.
You may find it absurd that anybody would support the oil companies (THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BRIBED!), but then have you lived in an oil-rich state? Some Representatives have the fortunes of large portions of their constituency revolve around those of the oil companies.
It's called Bringing Home The Bacon. And that's exactly what most of those legislators were elected to do, and they are very, very good at it. Bring money to your district; keep money in your district; punish competitors in other districts/states/nations.
The quid pro quo game, which allows everybody to Bring Home The Bacon, is why you get stupid crap like the broadcast flag inserted everywhere. If Senator Stevens can promise an appropriate number of other Senators that he'll vote for their own Bacon, eventually it'll get passed.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1236.aspx
Oh yeah, in Canada. They'd never get a bylaw through that would Ban:
Toys with electric motors
(explain THIS to a powercar kid)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Loudspeakers or other amplification devices
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Release or venting of air, steam or other high pressure noise creating material
(But that's when I have all the good fights with my wife!)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Loading or unpacking containers of materials
(You listening people who move in too late over a weekend?)
Prohibited: 11pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
Using any power-driven device Prohibited: 7pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and stat holidays.
(Sorry Granny, You have to walk)
Power tools, lawn mowers, (excludes snow blowers)
(WTF, you're ok with Snowblowers which are 10 times as loud, but I can't get cracking on a backyard project on the few days I get free time?)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays.
Security alarm running for more than 5 minutes.
(Crooks will LOVE this one)
Prohibited: at all times, seven days a week.
Vehicle repairs
(Sorry hobbyist, you can't work in your garage until everyone's at work. You have a job too? Oh boo-hoo)
Prohibited: 9pm-7am, all day Sunday and statutory holidays.
Playing loud music
Prohibited: 11pm-7am, and before 9am on Sundays and statutory holidays
Now this is how I see it. Most people like me who have projects to do around the house and in the backyard NEED stat holidays to actually get to the projects. I can't believe the government went and snuck this into a completely separate bylaw brought up by old people who hated barking dogs.Yeah, this would NEVER happen in Canada.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
If you follow the link from the main article you find an even more interesting article laying out other problems with the bll. Not only does it bring back the broadcast flag but it also really doesn't do anything to help Net Nutrality in the first place!
If you have senators on the comittee don't just tell them about your dislike for the broadcast flag, tell them the whole bill needs to be scrapped.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Step 1: Go to www.senate.gov and look up your 2 senators. There are 2, and you need to contact both of them.
Step 2: I like to prepare for an important call by taking 3 deep breaths and reminding myself that I am in control. Sometimes I drink a shot of vodka, because I know I am little more loudmouthed that way, and in this case that is a good thing. (Trust me, my brother was a Senatorial aid for a long time. Loudmouths get attention.) These calls are actually extremely easy to make -- the aids get these kinds of calls all the time -- so there is really nothing to worry about, but I prepare anyway to make sure I am a calmer and/or prepared to be loudmouthed.
Step 3: Make a note of the bill. In this case, it is S.2686. This is very important.
Step 4: Make a note of why you are objecting/agreeing to the bill. In this case, you are objecting because there is a rider regarding the broadcast flag. That is all you need to say: "I object to this bill because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag." The good Senator will do the rest.
Step 5: Dial the number of each Senator and an aid will answer, e.g., "Hello! Senator Kohl's office!" they will say in an alert-sounding voice. Your immediate response should be: "I am a long-time supporter of Senator X, but I would like to voice my objection to a bill that is before the Senate." It doesn't matter whether you have supported this Senator or not, just say that you did. Nobody knows -- it's an anonymous system.
Step 6: State the name of the bill you are objecting to: "I am opposed to bill S.2686, because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag. I am very much opposed to that."
Step 7: The aid will ask you for your name and address. The reason they do that is to verify whether you can actually vote for the good Senator or not (oddly Senate offices from, say, Texas get calls from Idaho, so they want to filter that). Give them accurate information. It's not a harm in this case.
Step 8: Thank the aid for their help. They will probably thank you too.*
Step 9: Bask in the knowledge that you helped democracy.
*Despite the fact that the aids get 2,000 calls per day voicing all kinds of f'd up opinions, as long as yours is stated clearly and has specifically to do with a certain bill and this specific Senator, the aid will form an opinion about that bill, and will communicate that opinion to the Senator. I kid you not, this system works, just pick up the phone and call.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Farther on down the comment list, there is a comment with a simple script and a list of who to call. It took me all of 45 seconds to call my senator.
Don't just complain. Do something. It's your right, and it's your duty.
Because that's all the congress (theoretically) has power to do...
I guess the problem there is that you need a supermajority to get an amendment made in the first place.
You need a lot more than a supermajority...
You need a supermajority of both houses of Congress to even send it out to the states. After that, it needs to be ratified by, uh, a super-duper majority of the states (3/4, which is greater than the 2/3 supermajority).
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"
It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.
This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
Don't tell them (since it's good that they're upset about DRM), but it's possible to deauthorize an old computer before getting rid of it by using the Prefernces screen in iTunes. If they no longer have access to the computers, it's also possible to reset the iTunes account to zero authorized computers and start over through Apple's website. That can only be done once a year, though, so they shouldn't do it until they actually have hit the limit and want to authorize their 6th computer.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Feel free to vote out everyone in Congress except Russ Feingold. He's the one Congressman that fits your bill.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
A basic Google search leads us to the following, and quite specifically names those opposed to the bill in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_o
So, before you go bashing the Republicans, you might want to get everything in order, and...make sure you are right.
Good day, Sir.
First, the parent suffixed the first statement (about being 1994) with "I think." Second, the parent implied that more Democrats opposed the line-item veto by saying that "it passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate" which would imply that the Republican Party wanted it. 1994 vs. 1996 doesn't matter - the point was the Republicans thought the line-item veto was a great idea, passed a law, and then cried to the Supreme Court when Clinton used it. And now, our Republican President has mentioned it again...
That law was actually passed for a nominally sensible reason, in that a lot of the older electronics had dodgier power supplies, coupled with the fact that the wiring in Japan tends not to be great (there are 3 seperate line-breakers on the circuit-box in my flat, but everything seems to be on one circuit. And it's VERY easy to overload it...) meant that the banning old electronics (everything made before 2001, not everything made more than x years ago - it wasn't a rolling ban) seemed to be a health-and-safety issue. The law ended up pissing off enough different groups of people that it ended up having no practical effect though.
It would if it were true. Try to find "tea" and "stamps" in the Declaration. That's the half-bullshit Disney-ized version of US history.
You should really actually read it some time:
Yeah, the tea was clearly the important part. It couldn't have been the large numbers of soldiers taking over homes, and quite literally getting away with murdering anyone they chose.
And, while I'm at it, it also explicitly says: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The Congress need not have anything to do with a new amendment. In fact, if the amendment is going to restrict the power of the Congress, then it is ridiculous to expect them to propose it. If you want it to happen, then talk to your state legislature. It is a lot easier to get heard by a more local representative anyway. Good luck, you will need it.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Looks like Senator Sununu is proposing an ammendment to strike the broadcast and radio flags from the bill. Call up your Senator and get them to support it!
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/479
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
Speaking of library records, my wife just had some fun at our public library.
She was taking our kids to a "Mad Science" event held at the local library. We like to do these kinds of things for the kids, to get them out and doing fun/educational things during the summer.
All over the library were signs that read "You MUST have a library card to enter these premises" "All children MUST have a library card to attend the event" etc...
Then there was this long line where in order to go into the room where the guy was giving the show, you had to present your card to a clerk. They were *literally* turning away six year old kids who were crying, whose parents had driven them all the way out to attend a *public* event.
What kind of post-911 society are we living in where you must present "papers" to attend a public event? And before you say "its only a library card", understand that you can't get a library card without giving all sorts of personal information, including address and identification/drivers license etc...
The librarians (in that library) have completely forgotten about what the purpose of a library is... and are more concerned with budget and control and policing than the free distribution of information.
Why even have the event? What sort of twisted person decides to turn away crying children from a public educational event because they can't show ID? Its not like they were giving away prizes or anything, it was just a bunch of kids sitting in a room watching a guy give a show on science.
Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of a much larger problem. Today, it seems that every low level beaurocrat or middle manager has taken it upon themselves to be the enforcing arm of our post-911 fear-thy-neighbor police state.
Why is it so important that the kids show ID? Is it because the library is funded based on how many library cards are issued? Or are they trying to prevent a terrorist from sneaking in to the mad science show disguised as a six year old child? I can see the latter point, I mean, I think the guy did do an simulation of an erupting volcano as part of the show, and we wouldn't want to give the TERRORISTS any ideas would we? I mean, imagine what could happen if we gave them unfettered access to Alka-Seltzer. It would be chaos.
I think the reason that this bothers me so much is because it is such a strong indication of how sick our society has become.
I mean, hell, librarians are supposed to be our first line of defense against this sort of stuff.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.