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."

Comments

Obviously...

[demongeek]

Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill

Obviously you must be new here...

Re:Obviously...

[IAmTheDave]

Obviously you must be new here...

Because I'm not - and I hope no one else is - surprised in the least. I'm actually surprised it's attached to a telecommunications bill at all. I expected that the oft-defeated broadcast flag would be snuck through in a farm bill, or a bill that feeds homeless children (you wouldn't vote against a bill that feeds homeless children!!)

Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Re:Obviously...

[DigitalRaptor]

Nothing should be attached to any bill. Every issue should have to stand on it's own merits.

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. That way government is ever-shrinking instead of ever-growing.

Washington sucks big time...

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Because in a "Feeding Homeless Children Act," the broadcast flag provision wouldn't be the line veto'd.

Re:Obviously...

[Cadallin]

That second part is really kind of silly, better would be if all legislation had to have a Constitutionally mandated and specified sunset clause. Then all legislation would be like the federal budget, having to be periodically checked over. If it was 6 years or something similar (same as senatorial terms). Also it would help to remove cruft from the law books. On the other hand, it does make certain things rather volatile, but that might actually be a good thing.

Re:Obviously...

[patternmatch]

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

I think it was because it would give the executive branch too much power. Not a bad reason, actually...although it would be nice to have a line-item veto that could only be used if the item being line-vetoed was demonstrably unrelated to the legislation.

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Line-item Veto, from wikipedia:

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.

Re:Obviously...

[mOdQuArK!]

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed.

I think I mentioned this idea in another thread, but _my_ daydream proposal is to limit the total # of words in all valid laws to some maximum number N (where hopefully N is something reasonably small). When a legislator proposes a change to the laws (either by adding new ones or amending existing ones), the change would have to result in the total # of words fitting under the limit, otherwise the change will be rejected.

You'll also have to fit all of the agency regulations under the limit (otherwise the legislators would just shift all the verbiage into the various agency regulations.)

Re:Obviously...

[Kadin2048]

Well what would be better was if the Constitution just specified that all legislation on a bill had to contribute to a single core purpose, and that the purpose couldn't be overly vague (to keep the purpose of every bill from being "Making the United States a Better Place"). That way the Supreme Court would have the ability to just delete anything that got attached to a bill that it wasn't supposed to have been attached to. It wouldn't solve the problem altogether (and might make it worse -- politicians would just take lots of crap on and let the courts figure it out), but it wouldn't hand that much extra power to the Executive.

I guess at the end of the day it just depends: would you rather give more power to the President or to the Justices? Historically, the latter seems to have made a lot less total boners, but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

I also think that the USSC should have automatic review of all new laws passed, without having to wait for a challenge case, but that's a separate issue.

Re:Obviously...

[R3d M3rcury]

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Well, it's actually a pretty funny story.

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.

Re:Obviously...

[Crazyscottie]

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. I love this idea, but I think it would take a long time to have any noticeable effect. The only change would be the lack of publication of those "silly laws" books (e.g. a law that prohibits tying an alligator to a fire hydrant).

Re:Obviously...

[trickonion]

Okay, here is something like this in action. I live in WA state, and I love to read constitutions (yes yes my state is the one that make online poker illegal, regardless).
Refer to our constitution here, specifically section 19
http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/in dex.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayi d=Article-02

SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

that's the good shit maynard, some congressman with some balls needs to make that Amendment 28 (after pinning some stupid shit to the proposed amendment, cause Washington appretiates irony)

Re:Obviously...

[guywcole]

Ok.

Re:Obviously...

[Lord Kano]

Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?

It was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. It gave the president too much power. It made it too easy to craft obfuscated legislation.

Lets say that a bill provided 100 billion dollars of funding to be distributed as following.

80 Billion dollars to middle school education.
19.9 Billion dollars to Medicare supplements.
and "The remaining balance to weapons development"

It would seem that weapons development would get 100 Million dollars.

If a president line item vetos the first item, the "Remaining ballance" becomes 80.1 Billion dollars. Line item veto was a BAD idea and it should have been stricken down.

LK

Re:Obviously...

[AnyoneEB]

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

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.

Re:Obviously...

[Hatta]

Nothing should be attached to any bill. Every issue should have to stand on it's own merits.

That's a little hard to enforce, how do you define a single issue?

And there should be a law that any time a new bill is passed, 2 old bills / laws have to be removed. That way government is ever-shrinking instead of ever-growing.

A nice idea, but a little hard to implement in practice. A good way to ensure (1) that there's a reasonable number of laws AND (2) that nothing sneaks in that shouldn't, is to require that each and every congress person read and understand each and every bill that gets voted on.

If you're not reading and understanding the bill, you have no business voting on it. If you have no business voting on bills, you have no business being in congress. So lets have a pop quiz before every vote. Congresspeople who fail too many or don't show up get kicked out on their ass and their state has to send someone who cares enough to serve the public.

Heh...

[nbannerman]

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Slightly prophetic of slashdot, given the article!

According to this article...

[GonzoTech]

... As DC Circuit Judge pointed out at oral argument, the broadcast flag regulation would give the FCC the authority to regulate washing machines, if they were connected to a home network.

So I won't have to do laundry anymore? Why is this a bad thing?

I'm all about pushing this bill through now!

Re:According to this article...

[stratjakt]

You're unduly optimistic. They would mandate laundry, and if the far-lefties got in charge, they'd mandate that we all do China's laundry in a poorly thought out effort to reverse past stereotypes.

Re:According to this article...

[GonzoTech]

I'm very optimistic. Laundry would be mandated, yes.. but, once the liberals get us to the point of doing China's laundry, the conservatives will outsource it to India. Now that my friend, is optimism! I can see it now: India, home of the home network controlled laundr-o-mats!

Re:According to this article...

[stratjakt]

They are inherently evil, the word sinister is even derived from "sinistra", meaning left-handed.

Re:According to this article...

[EvanED]

Oh really? Which of the following powers allows the FCC to regulate my washing machine's communication?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

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;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

Because that's all the congress (theoretically) has power to do...

doesn't feel like it

[yagu]

Doesn't feel like it's going in the back door.

-Ben Dover

No, all seriousness aside, I see this eventually being a great bill for me as I would soon be able to divest myself of all of my technical artifacts and once again be a free human being. I can eBay my tivo (maybe), my comcast box, get rid of all of my mp3 players.

I once again spend time bike riding; canoeing; horse-back riding; picnicking; sightseeing; hiking; (starting to sound like a Tampax commercial, isn't it?)... all things I used to do in bulk and before I turned into a skinny pasty-skinned freak in front of my computer all day long.

God Bless you Senator Stevens!

Re:doesn't feel like it

[Karl J. Smith]

You may be kidding. I'm not. I've got lots of (legally purchased) games, movies, cds, etc. I looked at all the money I could be spending on a new HDTV, PS3, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD player, etc. They're all more hassle (due to DRM, crippled HDMI outputs, not-working-on-Linux, etc.) than fun for me at this point. After the Sony CD rootkit fiasco, I stopped buying Sony products. Even people I know with new Macs (that they like) are starting to complain that they're on machine #4 of 5 for their iTunes limit, and it seems like they didn't really buy any songs after all.

My solution: I bought a skin-on-aluminum frame folding kayak instead. Geek factor - high. DRM factor -low. No monthly upgrades to keep track of. I can do anything I want to modify it without any silly broadcast flags. All fun.

Congratulations media companies - you declared war on your paying customers and I surrendered. I won't buy your products any more, I'll do something else instead.

Re:doesn't feel like it

[StikyPad]

That's just because Mike Cox is so small.

Re:doesn't feel like it

[StikyPad]

And let that be a lesson to everyone to make sure you've checked the Post Anonymously box before you click submit.

Re:doesn't feel like it

[mrchaotica]

Even people I know with new Macs (that they like) are starting to complain that they're on machine #4 of 5 for their iTunes limit, and it seems like they didn't really buy any songs after all.

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.

Re:doesn't feel like it

[paedobear]

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.

How to tell when there is a problem...

[dubmun]

with our legal system: When random crap like this DRM can get implanted in the middle or a totally unrelated bill.

Has anyone contemplated legislation to stop this from happening?

Re:How to tell when there is a problem...

[The MAZZTer]

No, because then they'd just sneak DRM into that bill too!

Re:How to tell when there is a problem...

[nbannerman]

One of the obvious differences between the US system and the system here in the UK is that bills are typically introduced on a single issue. Amendments are discussed and then voted upon, but it is rare to see seemingly unrelated points being tacked on to bills.

As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.

Re:How to tell when there is a problem...

[FudRucker]

because that is the nature of governments to usurp more power at the expense of its citizens either by force or deception...

Re:How to tell when there is a problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sneaking?

[stratjakt]

If it was being snuck in how'd you all find out about it?

" I would like to add an amendment to the bill, 100 million dollars for the perverted arts. ..."

I say so what, let them pass it into law. Not letting people watch TV or listen to Radio can only server to raise the average national IQ. They should tack it into the next education bill, "No Child Left To Sit On His Behind"

I don't give a fuck anymore if I can or can't Tivo "CSI: Des Moines" in 1080p resolution.

But that's just one little bear's opinion.

Re:Sneaking?

[Vancorps]

Yeah, everyone was smarter back before TV and there was no such thing as thalidomide babies and lake Michigan never caught on fire. They also fought their wars like men standing in a line and marching toward the enemy firing their weapons taking the hits.

Regardless of what you think about TV/Radio stupid people have always existed and always done stupid things. People today are generally smarter than the times before tv. Look at the number of people who can read today versus the number who could read in the 1950's.

Of course you never underestimate the stupidity of a crowd of people. Even the smartest of people can turn into complete idiots when you put them into a crowd and that's largely regardless of the intelligence of the crowd.

With all that said, sneaking is trying to attach an ammendent to a bill which has nothing to do with the bill in the hopes it will get passed because people actually read the bill to begin with. Some representatives are apparently doing their jobs, or at least their aids are. Look at the PATRIOT Act and the number of legislators that never even read the thing much less describe how it affects us to this day.

I too don't give a fuck if I can tivo CSI, I don't get that wrapped up in TV although I sure as hell want to retain my freedoms so in the future if I do care I'll be able to.

You know...

[One Childish N00b]

You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them, rather than constantly trying to sneak pieces of legislation into any bill they can in a bid to force it through because it is clearly so unpalatable to everyone else that every time anyone spots it in the wild they beat it to death and chuck it to the kerb?

What must happen before the people we elect realise that when a piece of legislation is slapped down as often as this one has been, that the people don't want it, and that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't be a "tough shit, we'll just try again when you look the other way" thing? (and before you answer, I already know the answer - campaign 'donations' matching those the media companies chuck at them - when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

Re:You know...

[johneee]

It always seems so strange to me that politicians would do that.

I mean, (and I don't mean for this to become a "rah rah Canada" post) it doesn't seem to happen here, and I have to wonder what we're doing differently to make this kind of thing not happen. And why nobody in the US has ever done anything about a practice that really does smack of the worst kind of dirty and underhanded politiking.

I think getting rid of this piggybacking practice would really do wonders to start to change people's opinion of the political process. But perhaps that's just my simple-minded naivety.

Re:You know...

[voice_of_all_reason]

You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them

But they do. Big business votes for them -- assuming they push the right bills.

You don't seriously think they actually count all those ballots every four years, do you? Nah. They just invite GM and Microsoft and Exxon (etc) to the secret White House Underground Command center and discuss all nice and civilized who's turn it is in the Captain's Chair.

Re:You know...

[Chabil Ha']

"You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them..."

You are coming from a false presumption--that the majority of their constituents do not want the broadcast flag. Many people don't even know who their elected officials are--much less what a broadcast flag is and what it means to them.

I think sometimes here on /. we assume that the stories we read have the same relevent meaning to the rest of the populace. Sure, it's news for nerds. Stuff that matters...to nerds. It's like RSS discused in the Neilsen interview today. Ask the jow blow user what RSS is and they probably don't know. Ask 'em what a news feed is and they probably still don't know, but it's more meaningful than some obscure acronym meaning Really Simple Syndication.

</Stepping off of soap box>

Re:You know...

[OldManAndTheC]

when did democracy turn into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

Answer: July 4, 1776

Re:You know...

[Yo Grark]

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

Re:You know...

[spun]

Pshaw. Just because they don't know about the issue doesn't mean they wouldn't care if they did know. I have explained this issue to non technical people, and everyone I have talked to about it (okay, less than a dozen non-nerds) is against it once they understand it. People don't like being screwed out of things they have become accustomed to. Just because your date used rohypnol and you didn't realize you were being screwed doesn't mean it wasn't rape.

Re:You know...

[ch-chuck]

I pledge alliegence to the broadcast flag of Disneyland of America.
And to the Corporation, for which it stands, one media conglomerate, indominable,
under Mickey, With movies and fast food tie-ins for everyone.

Re:You know...

[Wildclaw]

A big part of it is the result of the "Elite" mindset where the common citizen is seen as stupid and needs someone smarter and more intelligent to decide for him. The most common argument used to support this theory is "The tragedy of the commons"

Instead you get the opposite, "The tragedy of the wealthy", where all those not rich gets hurt by the decisions of the few rich in power.

Re:You know...

[wish bot]

Some of us - you know - need or expect some uninterrupted sleep after 11pm or before 7am without some random jock sawing up bits of steel outside our windows.

It's because of inconsiderate yobs like you that these laws are passed in the first place. If you had an ounce of respect for anyone other than yourself, and maybe discussed or negotiated with your neighbours for the few days you felt possessed like a madman to be working on 'projects' in your yard before 7-fucking-am, then the world would be a better place with LESS restrictions.

Gee...

[Billosaur]

I don't remember this from Schoolhouse Rock.

Re:Gee...

[Tweekster]

This one seems more fitting: http://www.esquilax.com/flag/simpsons.shtml

Public Comment?

[Unlikely_Hero]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I've never been able to find how to "publically comment" on these bills.
Not to mention, I have a strong feeling that the congresscritters probably don't even read the comments. How can we forcibly say to congress that we don't want this passed? (before anybody says writing them, etc, you really think they read the letters?)

Re:Public Comment?

[voice_of_all_reason]

How can we forcibly say to congress that we don't want this passed?

Nothing says "hay guys, listen up!" like a vest that goes BOOM.

(you did specify "forcibly", which is a funny word to use. Since force is also the reason laws are obeyed.)

Re:Public Comment?

[Fallingcow]

At this point, it looks like they're going to be tenacious enough with this thing that it'll pass eventually.

Get someone to write it in to enough unrelated bills, and it'll pass.

We'll never get enough interest in the issue to counter a determined, monied, well-connected foe like this one.

Honestly, 50%+ of the electorate is too dumb to understand this (or has so little understanding of the supporting concepts behind it that it'd take WAY too long to bring them up to speed), and another 48-49% just don't care, or at least they don't care enough to make it an issue in an election.

Re:Public Comment?

[bergeron76]

Writing _does_ work. Political Leaders know that for every letter they receive, there are 20,000 (or some other number more appropriate for their district) other people that feel the same way. It's just the person that wrote the letter felt strongly enough about it to write the letter.

Emailing them may work also, but I don't think it has the same significance as a letter in hand.

Re:Public Comment?

[toleraen]

Well, as the above poster said, doing whatever you can to draw attention to yourself and get your point across. Gotta make sure it's done in a positive way though...somehow your message probably won't look so good as you're ranting it on the way to gitmo.

Seriously, if a senator (err, their assistant) starts reading a ton of mail saying "hey, this sucks, this is why, vote that sucker down" (word it better), they're going to take notice. While they are not likely reading their own messages, I would be willing to bet that their assistants would bring up issues that are getting a lot of notice. If this issue isn't terribly time-sensitive, send a snail mail to their office. If it is (like this one), send an email. Get your friends to send an email. Have your friends get their friends to send soem mail. That's how you get noticed. If you sit and do nothing, no one's going to notice. Gotta give those interns something to do. Just google your senator, you shouldn't have any trouble finding their contact infos.

Of course, if your senator kicked as much ass as mine does, all you'd have to do is send them a thank you note.

Re:Public Comment?

[ntk]

>
> At this point, it looks like they're going to be tenacious enough with this thing that it'll pass eventually.
>

Well, bear in mind that the lobbyists have been trying to get this into the books for years, and still haven't succeeded. And there is a time limit for the broadcast flag law. If they can't get it passed before the analog cut-off date (or the point at which a large number of voters have broadcast flag non-compliant digital TV technology), there's simply no point in continuing to lobby for it.

In general, the longer time goes on, the harder it is to get a bill passed. You're not the only one thinking "My god, are they trying to get this through again?". Staffers in Washington feel the same way. If they can't get this through this year, in the words of one knowledgeable Washington commentator, "it'll be postponed until next year. Which is to say, never".

There's also the question of opportunity cost. The more effort the entertainment industry has to spend on each of the laws it tries to pass, the less it has to pass other, draconian bills. If the broadcast flag had passed on one of the other occasions that it was attempted, the MPAA would be free to throw all its weight on analog hole legislation by now. Politicians are waking up to the fact that these regulations are unreasonable -- and that there's more political capital lost to appearing to kowtow to special interests than they thought.

Sneaking in the Back Door, huh

[Skadet]

...Sneaking in the Back Door

I tried that once. My girlfriend didn't appreciate it.

Re:Sneaking in the Back Door, huh

[One Childish N00b]

The sad thing is that is a far more apt metaphor than you probably realised...

Thanks! And keep the alerts coming!

[erroneus]

We all need to know about this stuff each and every time. And for anyone who is in this particular senator's constituency, I urge you to send a strongly worded letter (complete with a copy of voter registration if you have it) that he is INDEED being watched and that it will be made clear and obvious to all where his money is coming from and what laws it is being used to pay for.

I believe all of congress and the senate need a wake-up call when it comes to these practices. They should all be put on notice that there are people who are watching, and the numbers are growing.

You know what?

[grasshoppa]

I say let it. Let's vote in all this DRM and sneaky sneak violations of rights in the name of corporate interests. It's a lesson we are bound and determined to learn the hardway, so let's get this over with.

Re:You know what?

[Volante3192]

Seriously, the public outnumbers congressmen around 525,000 to 1.

Time for some civil disobedience. The jails can't hold all of us if we break this crap. Courts would be tied up for eons, putting precious patent cases on the back burner even if they DID start waving jail time. Citizens that actually have clout would get burned eventually.

I'm getting very comfortable with the idea of letting Congress passing whatever crap the corporate culture pushes under their noses because eventually a substantial portion of the public will get pissed off and force them to change.

To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."

Re:You know what?

[kcbrown]

To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."

They can if they have control over a modern military with a few hundred thousand troops and lots of big guns.

And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.

Re:You know what?

[TheoMurpse]

And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.

I'll agree with you on this; the military would simply send soldiers from NY to CA, from CA to TX, and from TX to NY. These staters don't see the respective states as the same people anyways. A New Yorker would be much more willing to shoot someone who lives over a thousand miles away rather than someone who may be a neighbor. I think the Romans used to do this to quell uprisings, but I'm not sure. However, it would be nigh impossible to truly occupy and be victorious over a state like Texas, where so many residents possess multiple guns. You think Iraq is bad? Try taking a state full of your own citizens, armed more heavily than Iraqis, with a better health infrastructure than Iraqis. I'd be willing to bet that Texans on the whole are better-trained as well, what with many of us growing up really using our guns on a weekly basis to hunt and kill (admittedly not humans).

I'll admit that I really have no idea about the training of the average Iraqi, but I'd be willing to bet that more Texan women can use a gun than Iraqi women due to religious practices. Texas is also larger than the whole of Iraq by a good 100,000 km^2 or so.

Just chalk this whole post up to statist pride ;)

Mod parent up!

[khasim]

As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.

So, Party A passes a law to curb this ... and abides by that law.

Eventually, Party B becomes the majority ... and they pass a law allowing it again.

So ... because Party A was "good", they don't get all the benefits (attaching riders to unrelated bills to make campaign contributors happy) but they do get all the responsiblity.

A two party system sucks. This will, eventually, always happen.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Haeleth]

So, Party A passes a law to curb this ... and abides by that law.
Eventually, Party B becomes the majority ... and they pass a law allowing it again.

I thought you Americans had a neat system specifically designed for making laws to limit government power, whereby a law could be passed which needed more than a mere majority to overturn, making it more resilient to power shifts. It's called the Constitution.

I guess the problem there is that you need a supermajority to get an amendment made in the first place... :/

Re:Mod parent up!

[dgatwood]

Well, you need a supermajority, but not necessarily at the federal level. If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way. This probably just requires a simple majority in at least 34 state houses. It would probably be a lot easier to conveince the state government to rein in the feds than to convince the feds to do it themselves....

Just because it hasn't ever been done doesn't mean it can't or won't be done if the federal government takes things too far....

Re:Mod parent up!

[EvanED]

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).

Please Do Something About This Right Now!

[Bruce Perens]

The Committee markup of this bill is on Thursday, and your
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=s10 9-2686>

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

Politicians must hate the internet

[Serveert]

Nowadays when you try to sneak something like this in the rascally public can learn about it in a matter of minutes. :(

How does this help Alaska?

[hambonewilkins]

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.

Worst Congress Ever

[Stalyn]

They spend days arguing about Gay Marriage instead of Energy Policy. They refuse to do anything about Immigration. They vote down the Voting Rights Act in committee, they vote down Net Neutrality. Then they resort to what could be deemed "political masturbation" when they argue about resolving Iraq.

Seriously I know the Dems aren't much better but the only other alternative is to lynch them all. Which is getting more appealing everyday. Yeah.. yeah 3rd parties, well I wish getting voted in America had nothing to do with money but it does. 3rd parties will never succeed until either the average US citizen gives a crap or we publically finance campaign elections. Both will never happen. Maybe I'll just move to Sweden.

Re:Worst Congress Ever

[tomhudson]

Reform the process:

1. Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.
2. Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.
3. No contributions from business.
4. Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.
5. No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.
6. Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.

Re:Worst Congress Ever

[SydShamino]

# Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.

This won't work - it means they'll bring home more bacon to pad their consituents, or they'll bail to the private sector sooner / for less. Seriously, it isn't easy to be elected if you aren't independently wealthy or in a job you can pick up and drop at your leisure - lawyer, public relations, corporate figurehead. Cutting political salaries will just make this worse.

I'd rather increase congressional salaries dramatically, and even pay them for a few years after they leave office, and then A) ban them from lobbying congress for 10 years after leaving office, and B) prevent them from being hired by any company who benefitted from their legislation for 2 years after leaving office.

# Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.

This one will never work, due to the first amendment.

# No contributions from business.

Other respondents say this won't work due to the first amendment, but I think it can, because the first amendment does not support businesses, because businesses are not people, contrary to the way the judiciary has interpreted it for the last 100 years. If it was fixed so that the speech of a corporation (or those acting on paid behalf of a corporation) were limited to non-fraudulent advertisement, we'd be in a lot better shape. If the first amendment does stand against this, I'd modify the constitution.

# Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.

First amendment violation, and not a good idea, either.

# No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.

Sure.

# Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.

Sure.

if you'd like to contact them on-line:

[yagu]

For those who would like to contact these people on-line:

• George Felix Allen (Virginia) 202-224-4024
• Senator Barbara Boxer (California) 202-224-3553
• Senator Conrad R. Burns (Montana) 202-224-2644
• Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington) 202-224-3441
• Senator Jim W. DeMint (South Carolina) 202-224-6121
• Senator Byron L. Dorgan (North Dakota) 202-224-2551 (generic contact)
• Senator John Eric Ensign (Nevada) 202-224-6244
• Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) 202-224-5922
• Senator Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii) 202-224-3934
• Senator John Forbes Kerry (Massachusetts) 202-224-2742
• Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (New Jersey) 202-224-3224 (generic contact)
• Senator Trent Lott (Mississippi) 202-224-6253
• Senator John S. McCain (Arizona) 202-224-2235
• Senator E. Benjamin 'Ben' Nelson (Nebraska) 202-224-6551
• Senator Bill Nelson (Florida) 202-224-5274
• Senator Mark Pryor (Arkansas) 202-224-2353
• Senator John D. 'Jay' Rockefeller IV (West Virginia) 202-224-6472
• Senator Gordon Harold Smith (Oregon) 202-224-3753
• Senator Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) 202-224-5344
• Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) 202-224-3004
• Senator John E. Sununu (New Hampshire) 202-224-2841
• Senator David B. Vitter (Louisiana) 202-224-4623

Re:if you'd like to contact them on-line:

[ntk]

Hey, Danny from the EFF here. In this case, you should call them, as a message or email probably won't reach them in time for the Thursday vote.

Re:Thanks! And keep the alerts coming!

[voice_of_all_reason]

I urge you to send a strongly worded letter

Screw that, I'm sending a horse's head.

Nothing short of a revolution

[roman_mir]

Nothing short of a revolution can change the status quo.

The revolution must be then used to dump the current laws and remove those, who are currently in power, and update the constitution to include the new realities and possibilities and to prevent as much as possible of this degradation of human rights and of this invasion into individual freedoms.

Of-course it is the most important job of the corrupt government to prevent such a shakeup by all possible means including dumbing down the population, removal of all individual rights and even responsibilities (those who understand their responsibilities also insist on their rights,) introduction of laws that take away all freedoms that really matter and nurturing the environment of conspicuous consumption, which is enough to satisfy the current bodily needs and to substitute any mental needs/activities.

As it is right now television is great for mass control and the Internet is terrible at it. What the US government doesn't understand is that by creating tight regulations around usage of the TV programs, they are just pushing people to use more of what the Internet offers. If I was the government, who wanted to keep tight control over population, I would promote more cheap and accessible TV for everyone and would discourage usage of the Internet.

Maybe the equation will balance itself out, or maybe those in power will try to control the Internet in the same manner as the TV (this will be much harder.)

The Internet can lead to organization of opposition and may even be able to provide the means to conduct something of a revolution for the future generations.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[evilviper]

Nothing short of a revolution can change the status quo.

Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it?

I mean, sure, a few million people will have to die in the revolutionary war, and it will throw the country (and yes, the world) into a depression unlike any that has been seen before, but that's a small price to pay for my satellite radio copies.

The alternative... starving the media companies by NOT BUYING ANYTHING FROM THEM AGAIN, is too horrible to even contemplate. You can't expect me to watch PBS. I'm not an animal!

And don't even discuss the idea of voting against those senators (like Feinstein, CA) who have been the most corrupt politicians for years. I mean... VOTING?! Good God man! Don't you dare suggest it.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[roman_mir]

I think it is more difficult than that, if anything, the current US government is at least very strong millitary speaking. They are not about to allow an armed revolution to take place.

That is why they are working on the terrorist laws and removal of all of the Freedoms. The terrorists are a great excuse to turn an entire country into one giant prison cell.

The soldiers in the millitary of-course should be recruited from the lowest classes of the population, so that they could be controlled easier and rewarded in a cheaper kind of way.

What will bring down this government? Will it be wars with external enemy, kind of wars that the general population will not be comfortable with?

Here is one possible future of the US:

A giant WAR machine driven by corporate interests. Cannon fodder recruited from the poorest classes, easily satisfied by a few handouts and a promise of pensions. Social structure that is falling appart: growing taxes, inflation, growing oil prices, more and more expensive healthcare. The widenning of the gap between the rich and the poor.

What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the highest bidder - corporations? The country's economy will start to fail, the millitary will be used for corporation profit regardless of the concern for the country, because corporations are international and have no loyalty to any nation at the same time. The country will become one giant prison with a very powerful war machine. Where will this lead? Well, if history teaches us anything, it is that those who command the millitary have the power.

It will take one strong millitary leader, and the country will become a dictatorship that will start a war to 'improve' the declining quality of life. By then the county will lose most production capability that is not aimed at millitary purposes. Why wouldn't this country attack other successful economies? Strong millitary leaders don't last though, and this one may fall and give place to a committee of some sort, who will try to rebuild the republic. All of this will be accompanied by years of economical degradation and depression.

But the US is big and there are plenty of needs to be satisfied, and it will be small businesses that will have to satisfy them.

You can see that I believe that things happen in cycles because anything that is too linear creates great disbalance and cycles allow to balance things out on a long enough time scale.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[Arcane_Rhino]

...the US Constitution allows too much interpretation...

I disagree. Accepting that it was written in the vernacular of its time, I think it is very clear. It clearly delineates Federal responsibilities, outlines the specific personal (popular) liberties that shall not be abridged by the States or the Federal Government, and leaves the rest to the States, specifically, local populations.

The trouble is that it has been ignored and changed (mostly ignored) in the last 150 years (particularly the last 50) to enable an domineering Federal Government.

I am not sure writing a new constitution so it can be ignored as well will be of any use.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[roman_mir]

Yes, a revolution is the perfectly rational thing to do, in the face of being unable to copy media with your home-made tivo. That was why they wrote The Declaration of Independence in the first place, wasn't it? - let me be perfectly clear on this: I don't care about media controling mechanisms, I actually believe DRM can be a good tool for certain tasks. I am not really talking about the broadband flag here either, I am talking about degradation of human rights and freedoms that we have been observing for the past decades.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[jez9999]

Well I think the revolution leading to the Declaration of Independence was largely sparked by having to pay taxes. Significantly more serious than the loss of freedom to use your digital media, and the monopolistic prices you have to pay for it? I think many would say no, especially when media is so important to many in this day and age.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[Cadallin]

Exactly what about "A giant WAR machine driven by corporate interests. Cannon fodder recruited from the poorest classes, easily satisfied by a few handouts and a promise of pensions. Social structure that is falling appart: growing taxes, inflation, growing oil prices, more and more expensive healthcare. The widenning of the gap between the rich and the poor.

What happens next in an environment, in which those in power don't believe they have any obligations to the nation, but only have obligations to the highest bidder - corporations? The country's economy will start to fail, the millitary will be used for corporation profit regardless of the concern for the country, because corporations are international and have no loyalty to any nation at the same time. The country will become one giant prison with a very powerful war machine."

HAS NOT been true for the last 30 years or so? That's exactly how it is RIGHT NOW. Of course the USA has always had these tendencies. It's important to note how many the wars in our history are driven by either: corporate business interests, or impending bank failure; and that's going all the way back to 1800.

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[Chowderbags]

Oddly enough, the British government actually *reduced* taxes on tea (eliminating the usual colonial tax in the American colonies), to undercut merchants and smugglers so the British East India company could have a monopoly. However, they started to crack down on people not paying their taxes, and that combined with the large number of smugglers who made their living selling tea, led to the Boston Tea Party.

So in effect, the government, in an attempt to grant a total monopoly to a floundering company, created seemingly decent legislation that didn't seem too harmful, yet people doing an illegal act started a revolution because they didn't like it. It's happened before, what's to prevent it from happening again?

Re:Nothing short of a revolution

[evilviper]

Well, actually, they wrote it because some Boston businessmen had to pay a little extra for tea and stamps. Kinda puts things into perspective if you think of it that way.

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:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

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;

US Senate is anything but for the people.

[Shivetya]

These people are professional politicians. They are beholded to special interest groups. They only acknowledge the people who voted for them every 6 years. When the 17th Amendment effectively removed the appointment of Senators by State Legislatures if started a downward spiral. Now they were not beholden to the State they served and soon they became even less enamored with following the direction their state took. Now they care little what the people in each of their respective states thinks. Its all about amassing personal power and reelection. They serve those who line their pockets.

This isn't to say they are all bad. There are some true Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. They are just outnumbered by those who serve neither people or party. They are quite willing to sell our rights to the highest bidder. They will make sure to excuse themselves from any law they feel like for they no longer see themselves as the people. They are above us and the laws they pass show this belief.

To me Bush's biggest fault isn't the Iraq war, its not standing up to the Senate and using the veto power of the office to protect the people from abuses of power like this bill. They will continue to strip our rights while at the same time taking our money and building legacies for themselves. What is worse is the media will support them and many will have their anger directed at corporations and such while the true theft occurs in our halls of power.

The only way to reign in the power of the Senate is through your state legislatures. They can effect many changes. However the Congress has show quite a disregard for the 10th Amendment and managed to use the courts to effectively take power from the states who are the people.

So, do you know your Senators? Your district's representative? Send them teabags, send them letters, send them e-mail. Show up at their "townhalls" and give them an earful. How many had to resort to Google just to find out who represents them???

Quid pro quo for the bridge to nowhere

[DanTheLewis]

He really wants that frigging bridge.

Re:Power Sucks

[Dachannien]

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).

You have your problems mixed up.

[Stickerboy]

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.

Re:You have your problems mixed up.

[kcbrown]

The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around.

You wish.

No, legislators work for only the people who made their election possible. That's not the voters, the voters are just pawns who must choose from the choices presented to them. No, the legislators work for the corporations, particularly the ones who control the media, because he who controls information controls everything.

There is no solution to this short of violent revolution, and violent revolution simply cannot work against a modern, well-equipped military. That means it simply won't succeed even if a reasonable number of people are stupid enough to band together and try it -- it'll only get them and their families killed, which will work nicely towards removing the tendency to revolt from the human gene pool.

It's time to face reality, folks: we've lost, and lost for good. All we're doing now is slowing the slide into darkness and despair, and not even slowing it by much.

Naaaaaar!

[DoktorSeven]

The Pirate Party of America will keelhaul those scurvy scoundrals for takin' away arrrrrr libarrrrties!

Not to worry, you already have to have papers

[WillAffleckUW]

under our new Department of Freedom, you're required to carry papers and be subservient to the Party Police, here in America.

So a Broadcast Flag being implemented through back-door legislation is the least of your worries.

I'd be more concerned by the fact that your library records are already being given to the Department of Correct Thinking ...

Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who these Party Police think they are, but I for one will not stand idly by while they endanger our right to party.

Re:Not to worry, you already have to have papers

[claytongulick]

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.

we've been down this road in the 90s

[Anonymous Coward]

The Washington Post and New York Times were given large chunks of the spectrum in 1993 if they were silent about NAFTA and GATT. It was an easy deal.

Similarly, the media is silent now about this monkey business, because they expect to profit immensely by the broadcast flag and other crap.

They'll choke to death on these flags, of course, just like those spectrum licenses are almost worthless (look at the ratings of CBS news).

Re:Power Sucks

[Doc Ruby]

"maximum corporate legislation possible "

Sununu is defending his "constituent" (briber^Wcontributor) telco corporations from liability for the broadcast flag. That doesn't make him wrong to oppose the flag, it just makes it less obvious which corporate legislation he insists on. If he insisted on copyright holder laws, he'd get less "support" from telcos. If he really protected consumers, he'd replace the broadcast flag legislation with other legislation that blocks it, rather than leave the vacuum. The vacuum gives Sununu an issue to bargain with the telcos in the future.

I'm not talking about a "partisan issue". I'm talking about a partisan government. Republicans control the government so exclusively that they exclude Democrats from even debate, or even reading the bills before votes. With that power, Republicans insist on the maximum corporate legislation possible - with possibility defined mostly by conflicts between corporations over "market access", without any regard to the people we elect them to protect.

Republicans already have taken the telco position against Net Neutrality, despite its obvious rigging the market for telcos. If MoveOn, which depends on Net Neutrality for its existence in face of telco power, didn't oppose it, the Republicans would have found their common interest with telcos even easier to execute. Shutting out MoveOn from such political activism is the result of abandoning Net Neutrality. Republican kneejerk "enemy's enemy is my friend" is the hallmark of what's wrong with their control of the government.

Blame Alaska

[DanTheLewis]

This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.

I agree with you; like I said, he gets the bridge to nowhere, he sneaks in the broadcast flag for someone else. It's the pork fat that greases the engines of democracy.

What I find even weirder (trans: more hypocritical) about this is that Stevens dissed on the broadcast flag in the January hearings. Stevens, we hardly knew ye.

Your fault, Alaska! Your fault!

The whole bill stinks

[SuperKendall]

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.

Bart's Comet

[pkulak]

Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.

That's why they want to kill net neutrality

[spun]

I'm pretty sure that if politicians enact laws allowing backbone providers to decide what data passes over their backbone and how fast, it will take at least ten minutes to load any page critical of said politicians.

HOWTO: Call your Senator

[Wylfing]

I just did it. Here is the HOWTO:

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.

Re:HOWTO: Call your Senator

[DamnStupidElf]

Step 0: Read the bill first!

Specifically section 454.c.1.B which requires that a review board create regulations that respect fair use for audio broadcasts. I don't see a reference to a video broadcast flag being enacted by the bill, just a requirement for commissions to make some more rules. It also recommends that the commission investigate abuses of Internet routing under Title 9: "Net Neutrality". The commission will be composed of IT, software, recording, broadcasting, satellite, and consumer electronics industries along with public interest organizations. If anything it's just a wrapper bill around a process to actually work on issues like DRM and net neutrality, not specific regulations.

If anything, I wonder if the submitted article isn't just a shill trying to marginalize rabid Internet users who will oppose any legislation based on hearsay with no references to specific sections of the bill. If you call your senator and claim they are trying to enact a broadcast flag, your senator will not listen to you the next time you call because you obviously did not take the time to actually look at the bill.

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."

This is a perfect example of rabid, unguided sensationalism. What exactly do you oppose? Would a bill making the broadcast flag illegal fall under that broad statement? More importantly, are you opposed to the broadcast flag in particular, or DRM that prevents fair use in general?

If I was going to try to call my Senator (who happens to be Stevens) the night before a vote, I might try to make a reasoned argument instead of something a staffer will autoreply to. As it is, I don't see any terribly bad things in the bill. On the other hand, Stevens also introduced that bastard child of the DMCA, the SSSCA... He got a long email about that one.

Don't Just Complain on /. - DO SOMETHING!

[Yogler]

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.

Already There?

[nurbles]

I regularly use XP/MCE to record StarGate and DrWho on SciFi channel with no problem. A few weeks ago, Media Center stopped recording the first half of the DrWho season finale about 30 minutes into the episode. XP/MCE logged a reason of:

Doctor Who was not recorded.
Recording of this content is prohibited by the content provider.

So far, that was the only episode this has happened with, but XP/MCE flatly refused to record the episode on any of its repeat airings, citing the same reason. Since then, XP/MCE has recorded the second half episode and some repeats without a problem. I'm wondering if this might've been a test of the infamous broadcast flag or if there's something worse afoot in the part of Microsoft that is beholden to the Hollywood Nazis.

Bought and paid for

[doodlebumm]

Congress will never enact a line-item-veto, nor get rid of these attachments to bills. That is because they cannot guarantee to the corporations that buy them (the congressmen and senators) that they can get something passed. You can't line your pockets if you can't get elected. You can't get elected if you don't have campaign contributions. You can't get campaign funding if you can't guarantee getting a bill passed for some group/corporation. You can't guarantee if you can't deliver crap through the back door. Evil men have taken a well designed system (what the founding fathers created) and perverted it into a sickening mess.

The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform, line-item-veto, Congressional term limits, and (my one of my personal favorites) no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary). Then if they don't follow through, recall or vote them out in the next election.

Re:Bought and paid for

[Talchas]

no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary)

This is not only currently law, but part of the constitution. See the 27th amendment. Unfortunately they ignore this repeatedly with by calling it a cost of living adjustment, and the courts back them.

Re:Bought and paid for

[absoluteflatness]

Congress will never enact a line-item-veto

Congress did enact a line-item veto, during the Clinton administration. The first time he tried to use it to get rid of some frivolous spending item, the state in question (New York I think) brought suit, and the line-item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court as violating the doctrine of separation of powers. In my opinion, that's the correct decision, since it essentially gives the President some amount of direct control over the contents of individual bills.

Re:Bought and paid for

[Jeremi]

The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform

Hm, you forgot (or at least didn't mention explicitly enough for my taste ;^)) the most important thing: public campaign financing. Seriously -- running for elections is a required part of any politician's job, and any system that requires candidates to campaign but doesn't give them the resources to do so is doomed to corruption. It's like a 3rd world country hiring policemen but then not paying them enough to be able to buy food or equipment -- the honest people will quit because they aren't able to do their jobs, and the dishonest people will find "creative" ways to get the money, and we are back where we started.

And just to head it off the "why should taxpayers have to pay for lousy elections?" response ... the answer because someone is going to pay for the elections, and the candidates who win the elections are going to be serving the interests of that party. So that party ought to be us, the taxpayers.

Re:Bought and paid for

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

A line item veto doesn't give the President any more direct control over the contents of bills than a total veto does. Congress retains the power to legislate that line item in another bill. When invoked, the line item veto simply forces a majority in congress to explicitly validate what some legislator wanted to have quietly enacted on the merits of another issue.

By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.

A fair compromise would be to limit the line item veto's power with a test of how integral the item is to the purpose of the bill. A President shouldn't use such power to redesign the main provisions of a bill, but given today's congress, I would take that defect over the current situation.

Re:Bought and paid for

[kassemi]

Simple solution - Pay congressmen the federally mandated minimum wage.

Re:Bought and paid for

[dada21]

Terrible idea. Campaign finance reform only creates cronyism and preferential treatment of a select few (2 party system). How I spend my money is how I express myself, and it should be completely unregulated. There are 3 reasons why we have a 2 party system: 1: the debates are closed, 2: the money that is acceptable in a campaign is heavily regulated to prefer the 2 main parties and 3: it is harder to get a third party candidate on a ballot in terms of ballot signatures.

Campaign finance has only made it harder to get rid of incumbents, not easier. Don't think that taxpayer funded campaigns would make a difference -- we already live in that world, and it is a failure.

I don't believe in campaigns anyway... Just vote like I do.

Re:Bought and paid for

[quantum bit]

By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.

Any president who wasn't a spineless pawn of a political party wouldn't let himself be held hostage by that. A smart one would turn it around and hold the pork barrelers hostage.

The proper response is to have a strict policy of "Any bill with unrelated crap attached gets automatically vetoed. No exceptions.". Given the current way Congress likes to operate, that would mean that everything would be vetoed and the government would come to a screeching halt unless they shaped up.

A good speech is all it would take to have the public on the side of the ballsy president for standing up to the political machine. If somebody did that they would sure as hell have my vote...

Unfortunately in a two-party system it would never happen.

Line-item vetoes would make vetoing too easy.

[ThinkingInBinary]

Why did line-item veto's fail again?

Because otherwise legislators would have no way to sneak their otherwise unpassable legislation into other bills and get it passed. It's akin to a filibuster in that it is an annoying thing to do practically, but the ability needs to be there for the rare cases when it's the only way to get something done. (I would argue, though, that filibusters are used for useful things, while sneaking unrelated amendments into bills is rarely used for anything that isn't evil.)

I agree with a sibling post that says line-item vetoes should be allowed if the line item is unrelated to the bill itself. I would go as far as to say that amendments to a bill should be required to be related. If they're not, they simply don't belong there. End of story.

Doesn't belong?!?

[NobodyExpects]

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

What do you mean that the broadcast flag isn't related to the telecom bill? Aren't you the nation that passed the DCMA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) that covers the highly related issue of double hulling US registered ships?

Broadcast flag.

[PrefersVMS]

OK. quit griping. quit flamin'. DO something constructive. How about going over to the EFF site https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionI dr003=0qdwvz7h91.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction &id=223 Fill in the info, and send it off. If all of us would do this EACH AND EVERY TIME Hollywood tried this, it just might make someone sit up and take notice. Although I did add a few sentences that I'm sure will make my Senators & Representatives sit up and take notice. If they don't stop monkeying around and playing buddy-buddy to these repressive ideas, then perhaps it is time to recall all of the senators and representatives from Washington. Put limitations on terms -- no more than 8 years of service. Not just continous or fragmented, but total years of service. No more big cars. No more living in mansions. No more junkets. No more "special" retirement fund -- they get social security, just like the rest of us. No more special privileges. Perhaps a pay cut back to realistic levels. You get the idea. If they want us to swallow their bull, then they will have to face the consequences. YOU. The voting public have the power AND the inclination to affect change. If you don't take action? Then Hollywood wins. So quit your whining and do something about it.

Found it!

[Mateo_LeFou]

"To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"

Arrr! Foiled again, mateys.

Futile.

[Wolfkin]

The good guys have to succeed every time. The bad guys only have to succeed once. Eventually, the good guys will fail.

It's important to internalize that enough to prepare ahead of time for when whatever you want to do ("X"; it doesn't matter what "X" is) becomes illegal.

Umm...I think you missed something

[Bonewalker]

According to wikipedia, more Democrats opposed the line-item veto than Republicans. Oh, and it was passed into law in 1996, not 1994.

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_of _1996

So, before you go bashing the Republicans, you might want to get everything in order, and...make sure you are right.

Good day, Sir.

Re:Umm...I think you missed something

[R3d M3rcury]

According to wikipedia, more Democrats opposed the line-item veto than Republicans.

...and your assumption is that this is a bad thing?

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of the concept. I would rather these people do the job that I'm sending them to Washington to do. Currently, there's the agreement in Washington--I'll support your pork if you'll support mine. What Congress is trying to do is make sombody else the bad guy. "Well, gosh, I tried to get everybody in America to pay for the Ball of Twine Museum in my district. Unfortunately, that mean ol' President vetoed it. Blame him, not me!"

This is their responsibility. If they abdicate it, then why the hell are they there?

Oh, and it was passed into law in 1996, not 1994.

Fair enough--I was going off of memory. I remember that the line-item veto was part of the Republicans' "Contract With America" back during the elections. When they passed it, I don't know.

Mod Parent Up, please.

[mr_mischief]

I've been saying this for years.

One bill, one purpose. One bill should be able to do any of these things:

1. regulate one certain narrowly defined type of behavior, including punishments for it and including assigning a specified portion of tax revenues to enforcement of the regulation (or the buidget appropriation for it)

2. set up one certain narrowly defined helpful government program, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to it (or budget segment)

3. honor one person or group of people, including assigning a portion of tax revenues to cover whatever announcements, plaques, monuments, or whatever are deemed necessary

4. give Congress or other federal employees raises which come due after the end of each Congress member's respective term (No one should be able to give a raise to a buddy in some bureau while the Representative or Senator is still guaranteed access to power.)

5. Give Congress longer vacations, effective immediately. It's become obvious we're usually better off when these misanthropes aren't busy exerting their might as pocket monkeys of the big corporations, anyway.

6. ban lobbying by professional lobbyists. ban corporate-paid Congressional fact-finding trips. Ban the peddling of influence altogether, under penalties of imprisonment and fines. Imprison the Congress member along with the lobbyist if this is broken. If these yahoos start going to jail for listening to their wallets, maybe they'll start listening to their consitutents like they should be doing.

Re:give the FCC authority

[Jeremi]

This cracks me up because the same people opposing Net Neturality with their "hands off the internet" BS are right here, front and center, saying "hands on every device that can access the internet!"

Who are these people you are referring to? AFAIK the net-neutrality advocates and the broadcast-flag advocates are entirely different groups.

Umm...no he didn't

[BoiseAlf]

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...

Sununu Ammendment to strike flag!

[Symbiosis]

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

Danger, Will Robinson, danger!

[Lord of Hyphens]

If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way.

Ever notice that there's no stipulations as to exactly what can happen at a constitutional convention? At all? It feels like we're just handing our Constitution over to the delegates and saying "do whatever."

Personally, I think that's one of the reasons why that "second route" to an amendment has never been used... ignoring the fact that you'd need a lot more political firepower to get 3/4rds of the state legistlations to do anything (and IIRC, it is 3/4 of legistlatures).