Congressman Hollywood Wants To Make DMCA Tougher

Stormy seas writes "Congressman 'Hollywood' Howard Berman (D-CA) used a House subcommittee hearing today to express his view that the DMCA was in need of a rewrite. In his view, it doesn't go far enough. During his opening remarks for a hearing on the PRO-IP Act, Berman said that the DMCA's Safe Harbor needs further scrutiny and that it might be time to make filtering mandatory. There's more: Berman also 'wants to examine the "effectiveness of takedown notices" under the DMCA, and he'd like to take another look at whether filtering technology has advanced to the point where Congress ought to mandate it in certain situations.'"

Comments

Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it about time for us to move to open source governance?

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

But then who would we have to blame for everything? Ourselves? That sounds horrid!

P.S. Seen this yet? It looks like open source governance might actually be happening. On a global scale, no less. Just don't let the powers that be find out. They might try to close down the internet. :)

Re:Open source the government

[AKAImBatman]

I was going to make a flippant remark about how you could implement the new government and call it "Communism", but it occurred to me that a bit of education would be better.

You see, Direct Democracy (rule by consensus of the masses) has been considered many times in history. Unfortunately, no such democracy really got off the ground or survived. There are simply too many competing interests to make it viable. In the few instances where there is a consensus, a Tyranny of the Masses can often create worse conditions for some individuals. Effectively, you have no real justice.

Representational Democracies are intended to blend the best aspects of consensus with the best aspects of a Benevolent Dictator. (An example of such a dictator was Emporor Trajan of the Roman Empire.) By electing someone to represent their views, the majority is able to have their viewpoints expressed but with their competing interests solved at the level of the representative. The representatives then work out their differences and come to an agreement that (if they're doing their job correctly) generally pleases the people they represent.

Of course, what is to stop the representatives from carrying out tyranny against people they do not represent? What is to prevent them from creating unjust conditions for individuals in their attempts to improve the life of the majority of those they represent? Worse yet, what is to prevent an official that the representatives grant power to from using that power to take control? (e.g. The Roman Republic being overthrown to become the Roman Empire.) That's where checks and balances step in.

In modern democracies, these checks tend to take the form of legalistic means or division of power. The U.S. Constitution, for example, grants basic rights which are then upheld by the courts. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to ensure that the representatives never override the intent of the basic rights granted by the Constitution. Another example is the control of the military. The direct control of military assets in the U.S. are divided among individual states. Funding for those assets is controlled by Congress. Use of the assets is controlled by the President, but War may not be declared without the approval of Congress.

This division of power ensures that neither the President or Congress can turn the military on their own people. Those in the military report to the President of the United States, but their actual responsibility is to the citizens and the states. (In ancient Rome, the responsibility of the soldiers was to their commander. A mistake that allowed Julius Caesar to seize control.)

What I'm getting at is that the design for modern governments has been well thought through. There are a lot of reasons behind the layout of our governments, and they are (to date) the best balance for free societies that history has been able to produce. Simply throwing away the government in favor of anarchy ignores the thousands of years of history that have lead to the abolishment of empires and dictator rule.

Today's governments can still be improved, but let's make sure we're making those improvements with a full awareness of what our ancestors learned.

Re:Open source the government

[guruevi]

Theoretically they are somewhat decent forms of rulership. However, as it stands today, practically, the ones with the most money can buy their way into the legislature. And the division of powers and the creation of laws by the rich combined with years and years of bureaucracy have made it so difficult for the poor to which some legislature is against (the rich benefit from stuff like the DMCA because they are the ones that own or can buy the intellectual property these laws protect) that they can't protect themselves against it. Ever noticed how many individuals can get an audience before the supreme court (that's where you go to get federal legislation overturned)? Usually it's an organization with deep pockets and loads of knowledge with people dedicated to that process (like the ACLU, religious groups or companies).

Re:Open source the government

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

I would like to know your thoughts on the technocratic element in a modern government.

Technology has never been as large an effector in society as it is today. I see modern technology as being able to allow more fine-grained governing while also dealing with the mammoth problems that come from large populations and legal systems.

Technology is becoming more and more a part of the governmental process worldwide, does it make sense that we should require our leaders to have at least some level of technical sophistication to properly utilize and understand this new aspect of government?

Have our ancestors ever faced a question like this? One of dramatic technological impact on government and society?

Re:Open source the government

[Trailer Trash]

The U.S. Constitution, for example, grants basic rights which are then upheld by the courts.

The founders were smarter than that. The US Constitution instead assumes that people have these rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence), and limits government interference with them. Read the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law...", later clarified to mean that no branch of the government at any level can do those things (interfere with speech, religion, the press, gathering).

Re:Open source the government

[steelfood]

The U.S. Constitution, for example, grants basic rights which are then upheld by the courts. Not to be terribly pedantic, but it's been mentioned here on numerous occasions that the constitution doesn't grant rights. Our rights are innate to our existence, and thus the constitution only mandates that laws are not created that might abridge our innate rights. And, it lists a few of the big ones, though it recognizes that there are others. At most, the constitution enumerates what aspects of governing the federal government can control, leaving everything else to states and the people.

Our representative democracy was designed such that the government feared the people. The failure of representative democracies is often that the government would only pay lip service to the people while it strengthened itself. The failure of our current representative democracy is that of education. Most of the US is uneducated, and know squat about its history, much less the ideal it embodies. And the few who are educated and do know can't be bothered to care.

Re:Open source the government

[cayenne8]

Ok Californians, can ya'll PLEASE vote this bozo out???

When is this asshat up for re-election?

Re:Open source the government

[Zordak]

Wow, I had never heard of that, but it is truly one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Every two years just like every other congress person. Ever bothered to read the Constitution?

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a cogent discussion of the differences between American republicanism and direct democracy, however, it does not (as you imply) apply to all 'modern' democracies. The concept of checks and balances is by no means unique to the American system but it is an idiosyncrasy in the international sphere. Our presidential system (which is really what you are describing) is much less common among modern democracies than is the parliamentary model, which is based not on separation of powers and individual accountability for the executive but rather on fusion of powers and mutual accountability at the head of government level. Observing the British Parliament, and popular perception of it, you will find that the Prime Minister has power virtually unchecked by formal law, leading many in the press to bemoan the free exercise of power by that office. It is also worth noting that the form of separation of powers considered most important by our founding fathers was not the separation between branches of the federal government but the division between the federal government and the states, which was to a great degree a rejection of the British unitary model, in which ALL governments (national, city, and local) have only dependent power upon the will of Parliament. That model, with its attendant rejection of that crucial form of separation of powers, is by far the most common amongst modern democracies.
To address a few other points:
1) The constitution does not grant rights, and the courts cannot uphold them. They are considered 'intrinsic' and are therefore beyond the scope of law to judge. It is the burden of the legislature to prove that its actions do not interfere with the enumerated rights or, very importantly, with the non-enumerated rights guaranteed- but not provided- by the tenth amendment.
2) Separation of powers does not give you certainty that the military will not launch a coup, or that the military will not be used by one branch of government against another. A case in point is the Nullification Crisis of 1832, another would be the 1876 elections in the Southern states.
3) The argument that modern governments (and, by extension, our government) are well thought through is to some degree bolstered by the extraordinary longevity of our constitution, but we must recognize that the elastic clause (article 8, section 18, U.S. Constitution) is not the iron band it once was. The original form of government envisioned by our forefathers is, mercifully , dead. We have since performed massive, but piecemeal, renovations on that framework, and have in doing so created a new form of government which we do not understand very fully. Personally, two quotes come to mind- the first, from the Langoliers, is that "I'm not sure that knowing what that is will save our asses, but I'm damn sure that not knowing will get us killed!", and the second, from Joel on Software, is that "it is easier to write code than to read it", in this case meaning that we had better understand what is changing, and why, if we are to preserve the freedoms we hold dear.

Re:Open source the government

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Who let the jews steal our music?

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth mentioning that this only applies to the House, and not to all of Congress. Senators serve a 6 year term, with 1/3rd being up for election every 2 years. I'm sure most US slashdotters would know that, but just in case...

Re:Open source the government

[HoosierPeschke]

Most of the US is uneducated, and know squat about its history, much less the ideal it embodies

As I was always taught that learning history was to prevent mistakes from happening again. I believe in the old adage, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". The question now is, when?

Re:Open source the government

[mr_mischief]

Yes, they have. Black powder, repeating rifles, the steam engine, the radio, interchangeable parts, the assembly line, the affordable and reliable motor car, the airplane, the telegraph, the telephone, cocaine, television, LSD... technology is more than the Internet and public-key cryptography. Many advances that have changed life and civilization have had to be considered by our ancestors.

The governments of the world, if they were not effected by technology, would still be fighting wars using rocks and sticks and would not be taxing or regulating driving a car. Stories like Watergate may have never broken, and Tienamen Square almost certainly not. Our entire economy would be quite different if it wasn't for large sea-traveling things called ships which allow for import and export of goods.

People are running political campaigns online now. The people in Washington are trying to get a grasp on what "digital" means in connection with "copyright". They realize that it doesn't take thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours to make a printing press followed by a substantial effort to make a pamphlet. They also realize it takes just a few moments to get an entire book, movie, or music album copied now. That's why they're trying to adapt. They're clueless about it, and are doing a generally bad job. The next generation of people won't be.

The thing I find most humorous is this is largely the rebellious, rioting, demonstrating, power-fighting generation of the 1960's that is trying to squash the expression and civil disobedience of a younger generation. What's that old saying about maturity, that "Youth is when you blame everything on your parents, while maturity is when you learn everything is the fault of the younger generation." See, the problem is the 60's generation didn't grow up -- they just sold out. They changed what they believe and are still blaming everything on someone other than themselves. Meanwhile, the people who think it's wrong to upload copyrighted content for the whole world but who borrow an MP3 or two here or there are being made villains in the press and before Congress like they're pressing disks and making millions of dollars in some back alley.

Re:Open source the government

[PopeRatzo]

I would like to know your thoughts on the technocratic element in a modern government.

There's another element to this: Never before has there been such a large class of technically capable and savvy people, mostly young, and almost entirely middle class. Plus, they're mostly educated enough to know that they are being turned into digital serfs by an increasingly powerful and arrogant ruling class, who mostly are NOT technically savvy and capable. Add to this a still pretty-much wide-open internet, which allows for the instantaneous dissemination of ideas, opinions and raw information (aka "unfiltered news") and you've got a volatile situation.

It's also the reason that there is such a concerted effort to lock down the Internet and make it into a "superTelevision" where only those who pay get access and the rest of us are passive "consumers".

It means we have them scared and we have a rather small window of opportunity to take some action and remake this society into something a little less ugly.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Plato discussed this in "The Republic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Republic). Basically, he said that societies alternate between the four main forms of government:
timocracy (society of honor), oligarchy (the rich rule), democracy (we all rule) and tyranny (one rules).
Self-interest cause timocracies to degenerate into either oligarchies or tyrannies. Oligarchies degenerate into tyrannies as as oligarchies see the need to co-ordinate and work against a common enemy or as one member outmaneuvers/outpowers the others. Tyrannies change into democracies as people revolt. Democracies change into timocracies, oligarchies, or tyrannies as they either take their freedom for granted and non-democratic behaviours to take hold or abuse it to persecute minorities (the Tyranny of the masses) or decay into decadence and need "someone or some group to fix things".

Platos "solution" to the problem is straight out of a B-movie dystopia, so it's not a solution anyone would like.

The American founding fathers were aware of the fragility of democracies and tries to design enough checks and balances to ensure that things wouldn't tilt too far away from the democractic ideal. But even they realized that it might not last forever, so they put the "right to bare arms" in the constitution to ensure that if things got too bad, a revolution could set things right.

But this is a different world. Puny weapons can't compete against weapons of mass destruction or chemical warfare so this right is pretty pointless and only serves to encourage inter-city violence. Globalization allows the super-powerful to gain influence *outside* the American countrol and use their influence to overpower the US. Politicians get praised for their visible programs (e.g. tax cuts or spending) but people don't see their invisible damage (e.g. increasing the govenment debt and thus putting the US in foreign control) and get blamed with they do the right long term things (e.g. pay the debt even if that means tax hikes and spending cuts to get American finance back in American's hands). Computers increasingly provide for 24 hour survallence. And although the amount of data to process is huge, algorithms are being refined to guess if you're trouble and deal with you. The algorithms don't have to be 100% accurate, just "accurate enough" to narrow down the "potential trouble makers" to a small enough group to be handled. Media consolidation has allowed "the one true message" to be sent to all people through enough apparently different sources that they appear to support each other (so they must be true). And TV is turning the US into an "entertainment society" like "Brave New World" where it doesn't matter if you're a mindless slave, as long as you can get your fix of Jerry Springer or "Reality TV" or Internet Porn.

So things look pretty bleak, but there are some signs of hope. On the plus side, the internet allows the free flow of information that's hard to restrict. Stenography and P2P makes filtering even harder. Non-violent influence also carries a lot more weight than it did back in the Founder's day so non-violent revolutions are possible (e.g. like the "Velvet Revolution" or the failed Soviet Coup attempt the tried to reverse Gorbachev's democratic reforms or Gandhi in India) and those methods are well understood (for now at least).

So I have no idea where things are going, but we're definitely living in interesting times.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a democrat stronghold. Anyone with a D generally doesn't get voted out. And this old geezer has been there about 25 years.

Re:Open source the government

[mmurphy000]

In the few instances where there is a consensus, a Tyranny of the Masses can often create worse conditions for some individuals. Effectively, you have no real justice.

There is no form of government that prohibits tyranny. Tyranny of the majority is simply the manifestation of tyranny in a direct democracy. What I haven't seen demonstrated is that tyranny is more probable with direct democracy than other current forms of government.

By electing someone to represent their views, the majority is able to have their viewpoints expressed but with their competing interests solved at the level of the representative.

Your statement demonstrates one of the key problems with representative systems: does the representative represent her constituents, or is the representative supposed to represent all interests (and is just one set of constituents' person involved in those discussions)? In other words, is the representative a proxy for the will of the constituents, or a free agent that is supposed to take the whole nation (or state or county or whatever) into account?

The direct control of military assets in the U.S. are divided among individual states.

Ummmmm...only the modern equivalent of the "local militia" (National Guard). For all practical purposes, the US Federal Government controls the national military assets. In other words, if Army General A says "shoot" to an active military unit and Governor B says "don't shoot", my money says bullets will fly, because the military will honor the general over the governor, even if the military unit in question is from the governor's state. Similarly, if the US President authorizes a nuclear strike, the governors of the states with the ICBM launchers don't get a vote, AFAIK. The biggest question is what happens with inactive military units...which is why a state of perpetual war (e.g., the current literal manifestation of the War on Terror) is such a scary proposition, no matter what political party is in charge..

What I'm getting at is that the design for modern governments has been well thought through.

That being said, it was well though through in a time when bandwidth was severely limited. A world of near-instantaneous communication among all interested and affected parties was inconceivable at the time of our Founding Fathers. Therefore, while I agree that the historical lessons need to be learned and applied to the modern era, that does not mean we need to be stuck with "politics as usual" just because some new ideas weren't referenced in the Federalist Papers, for example. What I suspect we'll wind up with, at least in the next phase of the evolution of American governance, is closer to direct democracy — there will be enough online expression of opinion and coordinated recall efforts that elected officials will feel greater pressure to follow the will of their constituents. But, that's just me.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, Direct Democracy (rule by consensus of the masses) has been considered many times in history.

Right. Back in the day, Thomas Jefferson was like "Dude, how about we set up a web site where people can vote directly on legislation and stuff?" but then George Washington was like "No, man, that'll never work. We should have elected representatives, or something, to vote on the legislation and stuff."

Then Thomas Jefferson was like "OK, whatever dude, I've got to go to my $500 a plate political fund raiser. See, people want to meet me and stuff but I don't just let them walk up to me on the street and talk to me about politics and stuff. I make them 'donate' $500 to me first. Pretty cool, huh?"

Whatever the wisdom of the founding fathers, their decisions were based on a very different world than we have now.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Innate rights are creative fiction. You have those freedoms that your neighbors are willing to die to protect from outsiders and nothing else. There is no creator of man to bestow upon it anything. You can say it until the heat death of the universe and it doesn't change anything.

Tyranny doesn't come from the government; it stems from differences in power between populations. Tyranny simply uses the trappings of government to legitimize itself. It uses ideals and rhetoric to convince its subjects of the purity of its actions, even when it amounts to claiming that days is night.

The founders did not genuinely establish a government to "fear its people." They in fact went to great pains to reign in the mob so that they could maintain their land interests and control over the republic. When there was any sort of revolt against the government, it was violently put down.

The "problem" today is that people are not willing to fight for much. Certainly none of them are prepared to die for copyright legislation. They aren't even willing to pay for entertainment products; they sure aren't going to take a bullet for them. Their lives are relatively comfortable, even when they find themselves working 2-3 jobs to pay for all of the trappings of modern life.

You aren't either. You just want to feel intellectually superior to other people without having to do anything yourself. You certainly aren't going to lead any rebellions to protect your "innate rights."

Re:Open source the government

[cwills]

The U.S. Constitution, for example, grants basic rights which are then upheld by the courts. No... The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights. It works the other way around. The government only has those powers granted to it by the constitution.

The two amendment's that spell this out are:

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified on 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified on 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As for the responsibility of the SCOTUS..

It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to ensure that the representatives never override the intent of the basic rights granted by the Constitution In the U.S. Constituion there is no spelled out responsibility of the SCOTUS to perform a constitutional review of a law, however there was a very early case (Marbury v. Madison - 1803) in which then chief justice John Marshall claimed the power of judicial review.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Any reason why? Posting a comment like that does not really inform anyone, does it?

If you are thinking "Wikipedia for government," you are wrong. The actual attempts at open source governance (see the external links in the WP article) are much more sophisticated than an open wiki, and generally they are quite well thought out.

Most people said "stupidest idea ever" about open source software too. Remember?

Re:Open source the government

[enjerth]

The failure of our current representative democracy is that of education. In part, I would agree. But I'd like to point out that it's likely that the failure is the direct result of letting every Tom, Dick and Harry vote. It was not always so.

If voting were limited once again to landowners (or real estate), people who are educated enough to have and keep a home, things would turn around pretty quick for the better.

Not against women voting, or "men of color", but it'd be nice if there were a responsibility requirement.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, Direct Democracy (rule by consensus of the masses) has been considered many times in history. Unfortunately, no such democracy really got off the ground or survived. There are simply too many competing interests to make it viable. In the few instances where there is a consensus, a Tyranny of the Masses can often create worse conditions for some individuals. Effectively, you have no real justice.

I didn't know Switzerland failed to survive. It the most well known example of direct democracy. You just wrote that paragraph without checking any fact. With two minutes searching on the Internet, you could have come up with this example.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it remains at Score:5 Insightful. Go figure.

Re:Open source the government

[Hucko]

They're clueless about it, and are doing a generally bad job. The next generation of people won't be.

Not that I have seen. In fact, when I have explained the situation to the elder generation they have asked so "why does it cost so much?" The younger generations claim, "But the artist/author deserves to get paid..." totally ignoring that they are not getting the bulk of the profits in either case.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

The design of my first 8-bit, 64KB computer was well thought through, as well, but I don't think even its biggest fan would advocate building a 64-bit quad-core workstation on the same architecture.

The first census here counted 4 million Americans. My state has more than that now. Heck, there are 2 *cities* which *each* have more than that population. The geographic area of the country is several times larger, as well.

Is there any shame in saying "well, maybe it didn't scale up 2 orders of magnitude so well"? If I built something for 20 people, and along came 3000 people, it probably wouldn't work as-is. And I'm OK with that! So throw it out and build something better suited to it. Social structures tend to scale very poorly; imagine one teacher for 20 students, and then for 3000 students.

Sure, direct democracy in the past hasn't lasted. Before 1776, representative democracy hadn't lasted, either. The experiment started by Adams, Washington, Franklin, and the rest has worked remarkably well, for over 10 generations. Bravo. But I don't think anybody would claim that nothing has changed.

Nobody is proposing to "ignore thousands of years of history". (If we were, we might be proposing something that sounds good but failed, like socialism!) We want to learn from it, and build something better. Maybe it's never been done before, but the last time we tried something new in this country, it worked really well. It seems weird to argue in favor of the status quo when it was itself revolutionary in its heyday.

If you want to argue from history, I'd say having rulers thousands of miles away deciding policies for you hasn't worked out, and that's exactly what we have today. To pretend that nothing has changed since 1776, on the other hand, would be to ignore history.

Re:Open source the government

[Dun Malg]

If voting were limited once again to landowners (or real estate), people who are educated enough to have and keep a home, things would turn around pretty quick for the better.
Maybe, or maybe we'd see a sort of tyranny of the landed gentry. What is the definition of a "landowner"? Does one need to live on the land? Does it need to be a certain minimum size? Back when the constitution was drafted, becoming a landowner was a fairly simple process: 1) go to frontier. 2) clear some land, 3) live on it. This was hard enough that it was only available to responsible folk willing to work hard. Now, there isn't a square meter of land that isn't owned by somebody, and given the non-rural nature of modern society, buying cheap land to live on is nigh impossible. Cheap land is available, but not anywhere where employment (and thus cash flow) is. Of course, the franchise could be granted even to those not living on their land, but then you'd have "voting rights" companies spring up, selling people 4 square centimeters of property in Montana for $5.95, thereby making them eligible to vote. The net result would be little better than we have already.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Switzerland failed to survive. It the most well known example of direct democracy.

Apparently, you are unaware that Switzerland is a Federal Republic. You know, a representative form of democracy? True "direct democracy" of the type the GP is referring to does not exist at a large scale level. It tends to only work at a local level.

Switzerland places a variety of bills before the people, but the people still only see bills that their government chooses to show them. For that reason, it's sometimes referred to as a "half-direct democracy" or "modern direct democracy".

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

The design of my first 8-bit, 64KB computer was well thought through, as well, but I don't think even its biggest fan would advocate building a 64-bit quad-core workstation on the same architecture.

Err... your Quad Core computer is a highly advanced form of the architecture found in your previous Commodore 64. It seems to me that you're proving his point, as the US government is a highly advanced form of the Republics of Greece and Rome.

Before 1776, representative democracy hadn't lasted, either.

WTF are you talking about? The Roman Republic lasted nearly 500 years. Carthage lasted nearly 800 years. The Indian republic of Licchavi lasted a millennium. Not to mention the various Grecian democracies. Why don't you pick up a friggin' history book?!?

Re:Open source the government

[MsGeek]

He's in a "safe district." It always votes Democratic. He was elected with an 80% majority last time around. There has never been a credible challenge to him, whether Democratic, Republican or third party.

I oughta know. I live in his district.

I'd challenge the bastard in the primary but I don't have the money to do it.

Re:Open source the government

[Copid]

California is a democrat stronghold. Anyone with a D generally doesn't get voted out. And this old geezer has been there about 25 years.

Not so with congressional districts. The state has two very strongly divided groups, and like all good gerrymandered states, every congressional district is either a D or R stronghold. Seats in the House are like that across the country. That's an interesting result given that the House was supposed to be reflective of the whims of the people due to short election cycles while the Senate was supposedly the more deliberative body with its long election cycles. You can't gerrymander an entire state's border, so it's working out that members of the House have to listen to their constituents a lot less carefully than their counterparts in the Senate do. Funny how things work.

Re:Open source the government

[cgenman]

People often forget that Anarchy within months breaks down into feudal warlordship. I.E. if you oust a government, another one will rise very, very quickly.

In other words, you can shatter the current system, but you can't shatter the global truth that money leads to power. Generally, a ruling system has to be more built up to separate the two, rather than less.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived there for two years and it is both a federation and a direct democracy.
These are not contradictory. Referendum my be organized at the national
or at the cantonal or at the town level. Referendum called
"votations poulaires" occured fairly frequently (IIRC, one every three weeks
with two or more unrelated questions).

but the people still only see bills that their government chooses to show them

Wrong again. Can't you check your facts ? If an individual can gather
enough signatures (I don't remember the exact number) for a law project (or for repelling
a parlementary law), then a referendum on this law project must be organized.

The only limitation is that only legislative propositions may be put to referendum.
A referendum cannot overturn a judicial decision.

Re:Open source the government

[squiggleslash]

But even they realized that it might not last forever, so they put the "right to bare arms" in the constitution to ensure that if things got too bad, a revolution could set things right.

The founding fathers believed T-shirts are going to help us bring down tyrannical governments? That does kind of make sense, they've proven very effective as a way of fundraising for political groups, and as a canvas upon which political slogans can be communicated.

Re:Open source the government

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are mostly wrong. Switzerland is an example of very well-functioning direct democracy. Also you're wrong about its effects on people. You can get more information in the book at http://democracy-international.org/.

Re:Open source the government

[swillden]

Maybe, or maybe we'd see a sort of tyranny of the landed gentry. What is the definition of a "landowner"? Does one need to live on the land?

As long as we're dreaming, I prefer Heinlein's notion of a two-year military or civil service requirement. Voters who have to earn the right by working a low-paying, potentially dangerous job for a couple of years would take the right seriously.

Re:Open source the government

[tbannist]

...

It the current system is a failure and t used to be the way you'd prefer it to be, then it should be obvious that that the model you prefer has already failed. After all, we're here now and the system you'd prefer led us here.

I think the problem with the current U.S. governmental systems are not ones of who can vote or who can not vote. Saying "Poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote" is just code for "I'm a Republican asshole". The problem is quite clearly systematic.

Because of gerrymandering 95% of your elected representatives are guaranteed to be elected. This is why your government is run like a plutocracy. It's because only 1 in 20 congress critters are democratically elected, the rest are appointed by wealthy interest groups.

Re:Open source the government

[mr_mischief]

There are two simple reasons music on CDs costs so much. There's money in mking a theft-resistant container, shipping it, storing it, having a big brick-and-mortar store (often at mall rent rates) and people to move them. That's a lot of markup. Another is that the record labels want to maximize profits and essentially fix prices with one another.

The whole issue with getting the labels to change their ways is that it's the very infrastructure that made them that is currently destroying them. They keep thinking it's the new technology that's hurting them, but it's their failure to adopt it that's doing so. Moving from technology to technology used to be their strength, after all. They changed from 98 and 78 RPM records to 33 and 45. They moved from 4-track reel-to-reel to 8-track tapes. Eight-tracks went out with the surge in cassette tapes. Vinyl mostly went away with CDs. Yet, for all that, they appear unwilling to move to SuperAudioCD, DVD Audio, or Minidisc. They largely seem unwilling to go to MP3, OGG, or AAC or unhappy about the whole idea. They're attacking fans of their talent pool for just about anything to do with technology.

I'd be fine with them cracking down on heavy sharers of their copyrighted work. To say stupid things like making an MP3 for myself to use from a CD I own is stealing is stupid, wrong-headed, arrogant, and not in line with copyright laws. In fact, any company that has said it's okay to make personal copies for a second device or to make backup copies who has turned around and said it isn't has committed promissory estoppel and cannot enforce any thing of the sort because they can't sue you for doing something they told you was okay. That's even if the law was on their side.

One thing people need to realize is that if you download files with certain P2P software, it places those files by default into the directory you're sharing back out. That changes a minor copyright issue (grabbing files from someone) into a major one (offering copyrighted files to the public). It'd be better to just not make illegal copies of other people's copyrighted work without their permission at all. P2P users who use the technology for legal purposes are getting pretty pissed at leeches who keep the P2P networks on the defensive. But if you think you're just grabbing a song or two here or there and not sharing anything, and that's acceptable to you, then be careful enough where you save the files so that they're not shared back out. Oh, and if you think it's okay to take what's shared but not to share it back out, who do you think you're condoning by copying it from their share?

Re:Open source the government

[Darby]

Displaying religious symbols does not interfere with a person's religion.

Sure it does. It forces me to pay to promote one of the particularly delusional and murderous religions.
The fact that it's in the *courts* of a nation who's primary differentiating principle is that delusional religious nonsense, and ignorant religious hatred have *no place whatsoever* in the laws of a civilized nation, is a direct assault on this nation by the radical extremist nutjobs who despise everything this country stands for.

So, yes, putting some bullshit from the bible (which is lies for fools) in a court room which is intended to provide justice based on reason (the diametric opposite of religion) is absolutely a violation of the constitution. And one that cuts to the very heart of the basis of this nation.

How am I supposed to expect a fair trial in a place with Bible bullshit on the walls. You do know the bible calls for brutally murdering people for a variety of idiotic "crimes", based on whims, right? That's contrary to the purpose of our courts and you should really be able to figure that out for yourself. It is that simple.

Of course, you think your delusional fantasies are real and therefore it's ok to shove them in people's faces in a freaking court of law of all places. If your religion is so delusional and crap, the answer isn't legislating it into places it has no purpose. The answer is the grow up and deal with the fact that like Santa and the Tooth Fairy it was just a pack of lies to scare idiotic children.

Man up, admit you fell for something stupid and move on with your life.

Re:Open source the government

[Mikeytsi]

Well, apparently YOU haven't, because you're wrong.

The House of representatives is every two years, the Senate is every six. The senate elections are staggered so 1/3 of the seats are up for election every two years.

RTFC:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

Re:Open source the government

[DiamondMX]

Ah, I wish I could give you +1 'Right' and -1 'Shameless Flamebait' at the same time. Nice rant though.

Re:Open source the government

[Darby]

Ah, I wish I could give you +1 'Right' and -1 'Shameless Flamebait' at the same time.

Yeah ;-)

I just get so sick of these people repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times and how hard it's slapped down. They can't be reasoned with on such topics, since you can't be reasoned out of a position reason couldn't have led you to, so at least it makes me feel a little better.

Nice rant though.

Thanks!

The more things change ...

[PhxBlue]

And to think, I was happy when the Democrats took control of Congress back in November.

Meet the new schmucks, same as the old schmucks.

Re:The more things change ...

[pilgrim23]

Best Gu'bmint money can buy....

Cash or charge please...

Re:The more things change ...

[east coast]

Meet the new schmucks, same as the old schmucks.

There is a saying in poker: If you look around the table and you can't tell who the sucker is... it's you.

Why do we still think that we can swing between two parties that are the same in so many ways and have real change? Who's the real schmuck in that case?

Re:The more things change ...

[thosf]

This only helps THE "REAL" PIRATES:

Although articles abound (expecially those originating from the offending industry) claiming huge losses because of the so-called "piracy" in the music industry, it also was absent the reasons why downloading is so popular.

First of all, the "music" (a loosely used term) that the music industry foists upon us - the genre called "(C)rap" - is not very popular outside of the audience that has an intellect that is easily overwhelmed by common cockroaches. So who in their right mind would want to download this ooze?

A small CD replication firm has given me a per-unit CD price quote of 24 cents in a 25,000 quantity. Based on the numbers the recording companies sell (in the millions) I suspect their actual product cost is about 10 cents each. At an average retail price of $19.95 for a music CD - of which about 25 cents is for artist royalties - that leaves about $10 profit for the recording companies after the wholesale costs are subtracted. When you sell something at 100 times your cost, I can't help wondering who the "real" pirates are in this industry.

If the energy companies sold power to California at 100 times their cost, this would be a much different conversation. I guess laws regarding greed don't apply to the liberal-dominated entertainment industry.

No wonder many new artists (including myself) are opting for publishing direct via the internet. Even if we sell less copies, we make much more than the 10-cent per unit pittance the record labels "give" us.

In spite of an economy that has been declining for almost two years - with a corresponding decrease in consumer purchasing power, the music industry's greed has basically put themselves out of business. Lowering prices a few percent won't bring people back in the stores.

Henry Ford senior had it right: "the only thing that makes something not sell is too high a price."

Re:The more things change ...

[KiltedKnight]

And you are surprised by this ... how ?

The vast majority of elected politicians have been in their offices for so long, they don't know what it's like to live in the real world under the laws that they have created, modified, or otherwise butchered. They're protected from these things. Then, every November, we go back only to send the same clowns right back in or send a clone in who may or may not be wearing the same letter (R or D) on his or her jacket. Once they get there, they're all the same... not really trying to do their jobs, but doing just enough to make sure they get all the special interest money to get reelected.

What will it take for the "middle" to finally get out there and say, "Enough is enough! We're tired of the status quo and want someone who has personal integrity and will do the job we sent him there to do"?

Re:The more things change ...

[jedidiah]

So the law is fine so long as "it doesn't kill anyone".

You or your kid get caught doing something that they media
cartels don't approve of. It doesn't even have to be immoral
(much like drugs). So you get caught doing this dastardly
thing (like playing DVDs on your video ipod) and get all of
your computer equipment confiscated.

It's all OK because no one was killed... right?

Statutory damages are already out of hand.

There is already a federal enforcement agency to handle this stuff when it's a crime (FBI).

Letting governments sue on behalf of coporations is really, really bad.

Got something to protect? Then make an effort to protect it? What? It's too much effort for you to protect? Then mebbe you shouldn't be ruining lives over it.

Re:The more things change ...

[Kelson]

Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill.

And since his district includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, it's likely that anyone who replaced him would be just as favorable to the film industry.

Re:The more things change ...

[FlatEric521]

The vast majority of elected politicians have been in their offices for so long, they don't know what it's like to live in the real world under the laws that they have created, modified, or otherwise butchered.
It is more than just their separation from the real world. Congress seems to believe that it is their job to pass new laws on a regular basis. It doesn't seem to really matter what direction the new laws seem to go, just as long as we get that new law.

I also think that Congress does not tend to stop and think about potential consequences of their actions. I'd bet some lobbyist told this Congress-critter that this would be a great thing for Hollywood (which is in his district) by maying a list of advantages about how great it is. I'd also bet this same congress-critter never stopped to wonder how many items on that list of advantages are true and if there is a list of disadvantages that needs to be examined as well.

Re:The more things change ...

[Trailer Trash]

Are you surprised? I mean, seriously, this didn't just start after they got the majority in Congress.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The one thing that hasn't been addressed here is that while the Democrats are as crooked as the Republicans, as any politician is . . .

We are actually hearing about stuff like this going through. In the previous incarnation of congress many small bills with wide effect went through without being reported on. I would rather see the corruption exposed than hidden.

Re:The more things change ...

[ArsonSmith]

Because we all know that the price of burning a CD is all that is put into making a record.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The technological solution to the problem he describes isn't an American Great Firewall of China, it's to hack the electronic ballot and get a third party candidate elected in his place.

Re:The more things change ...

[Zordak]

And to think, I was happy when the Democrats took control of Congress back in November.

Boy were you naive. These guys believe in equal opportunity. They have bought representation in both parties.

Re:The more things change ...

[AndersOSU]

Seriously. Any accounting model that doesn't take into account the labels blow and hooker fund is fundamentally flawed.

Re:The more things change ...

[Thuktun]

Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill.

And since his district includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, it's likely that anyone who replaced him would be just as favorable to the film industry. ...but without the 24-year tenure in Congress giving him chairmanship of a critical committee.

Re:The more things change ...

[bendodge]

If only Ron Paul would get elected and put a stop to such nonsense.

Re:The more things change ...

[Retric]

Reread what he said. I suspect their actual product cost is about 10 cents each. At an average retail price of $19.95 for a music CD - of which about 25 cents is for artist royalties - that leaves about $10 profit for the recording companies after the wholesale costs are subtracted.

Anyway, if the CD costs 25c and the music costs 25c then what's left? Promotion and distribution which is what RIAA members do. They find "talent" promote that "talent" and distribute the product. The real reason you get so much crap music is the Universal, Sony etc are really good at convincing people to care about fake "artists" and the "crap" they produce. So if we want to kill them off we need to find a new way to promote artists and or get people to ignore what promotion is already going on.

Note: the people on stage are often small part of the music the "talent" you need includes people who write songs and people who stage the show etc.

Re:The more things change ...

[Sponge Bath]

So the law is fine so long as "it doesn't kill anyone".

No, it's clear he is saying that lame and corrupt leadership is better than deadly and corrupt leadership. There is nothing in that post supporting your interpretation.

Re:The more things change ...

[MojoRilla]

You totally stole my joke.

Re:The more things change ...

[KiltedKnight]

Now wait just one doggoned minute there... you're asking the congresscritter to actually read the proposed bill before actually voting on it.

We can't have that. That's making the congresscritter do his or her job instead of going out there and campaigning and fundraising. Sure, you might argue that is why there are congressional staffers... but the staffers should just be looking up historical details and stuff like that... not giving the congresscritter the reader's digest version of the text of the bill.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill. I'm sure he'd push this kind of bill anyway, but the party shift made Berman considerably more powerful, because he is now the boss-man of this subcommittee:

"The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, administration of U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred to by the Chairman, and relevant oversight."

Re:The more things change ...

[Wowsers]

Of course there's more to CD's cost than the CD itself. There's all those holidays... I mean recording sessions in the Bahamas to pay for.

Re:The more things change ...

[GospelHead821]

That's why my "campaign" during the coming year will be "A vote for a third party is a vote for choices that matter." I'd like to oust the schmucks in power and force somebody to pay more than lip service to the good of the public (and not just what the richest 1% of the public SAYS is good for the public.)

Re:The more things change ...

[HoosierPeschke]

They find "talent" promote that "talent" and distribute the product. The real reason you get so much crap music is the Universal, Sony etc are really good at convincing people to care about fake "artists" and the "crap" they produce.

They don't even do that anymore. They put out the schlubs and let the masses chose the processed crap. Sure, there's a choice, but they're all still shills.

Re:The more things change ...

[russotto]

2) Even if it passed, would it kill anybody?

It could. Suppose the first geek they chose to make an example out of under the new law was the type who was not willing to see reason and plead guilty, and forced it to go all the way to trial, where he lost. How long do you think said geek would survive in "Pound me in the ass Federal Prison"?

Re:The more things change ...

[jedidiah]

...which leads back again to the assinine notion: "if they don't kill you then it's OK".

You could describe Soviet Russia in those terms.

Re:The more things change ...

[phutureboy]

Meet the new schmucks, same as the old schmucks.

Ah yes, the Republicrats and Demopublicans. Someone remind me again what the difference is between them?

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

They're both as stupid, evil, corrupt, and greedy as the Republicans.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meet the new schmucks, same as the old schmucks.

Yeah and it will continue to be that way, until all forms of a campaign contributions, lobbying, and riders are outlawed. It's got to go to the extreme to make the job unappealing to most of the people in the country. Even then I don't think it's enough. Ban all political parties too, make everyone run on their own platform.

Re:The more things change ...

[Sponge Bath]

Wrong again.

Acknowledging that one option is less damaging than another says nothing absolute about that option such as it being 'OK'.

That's why some decisions are hard. The available options suck, but some options are better than others. If the choices are between 'good' and 'evil' the decision is trivial.

Take for example Aron Ralston, a hiker who cut off his own arm after being trapped under a boulder. Cutting off his arm was better than dieing of starvation or exposure. But nobody is saying that cutting off an arm is 'OK'.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, you're an idiot!

First of all, the "music" (a loosely used term) that the music industry foists upon us

Don't buy it! The music industry is doing nothing to you. Stop being such a whiny bitch.

the genre called "(C)rap" - is not very popular outside of the audience that has an intellect that is easily overwhelmed by common cockroaches.

I've only heard of correlations between heavy metal and low intelligence, but I wouldn't make the moronic mistake of attributing causation to it, let alone something that has no strong correlation. I'm afraid you haven't said anything to convince me that your anywhere near the intelligence of the average popular music customer.

A small CD replication firm has given me a per-unit CD price quote of 24 cents in a 25,000 quantity. Based on the numbers the recording companies sell (in the millions) I suspect their actual product cost is about 10 cents each. At an average retail price of $19.95 for a music CD - of which about 25 cents is for artist royalties - that leaves about $10 profit for the recording companies after the wholesale costs are subtracted. When you sell something at 100 times your cost, I can't help wondering who the "real" pirates are in this industry.

Such a fucking dumbass. You really think that burning a CD and paying the artist are the only costs involved? Have you any clue at all what you're talking about?

I guess laws regarding greed don't apply to the liberal-dominated entertainment industry.

For this exact reason. We have uninformed mouth-breathers who point the finger and say "greedy", while even worse, many of them greedily gobble up other people's works without paying them. Greed is not a crime because it self corrects (thanks to the free market), it's extremely hard to prove (what constitutes greed?), and it would just result in a witch hunt. Go declare your own country on some island somewhere and fuck it up. Stop trying to rape our system.

No wonder many new artists (including myself) are opting for publishing direct via the internet.

Yeah, but your music sucks and only sub 20 IQ morons such as yourself would even consider buying your festering crap that you're pushing into our faces and rubbing in nice and deep. See, I can practice cognitive dissonance too!

In spite of an economy that has been declining for almost two years - with a corresponding decrease in consumer purchasing power, the music industry's greed has basically put themselves out of business. Lowering prices a few percent won't bring people back in the stores.

So it's nothing to do with the surprisingly large number of people out there who have disposable income, but decide instead to keep and perpetuate literally terabytes of copyrighted material via P2P? It's all to do with the prices? Plenty of people have no trouble paying 'em, because they're still making money. It's not like the music industry has changed their prices significantly for years, but their patronage has gone down. Still think it's the prices? Not to mention broadband penetration and piracy rates rose at the same time? Coincidence?

Henry Ford senior had it right: "the only thing that makes something not sell is too high a price."

Or lack of supply, which is what you get when you charge 30 cents per (legal) CD. Or will you contest that in your usual brash, idiotic, and completely uninformed way?

Metamods, please burn whoever modded the parent up. Clearly, neither of them know shit about what they're so opinionated about.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't blame him for introducing the bill. How else can he keep the studios sending around teenagers to blow him?

Re:The more things change ...

[Copid]

...which leads back again to the assinine notion: "if they don't kill you then it's OK".

Actually, the notion is, "If they don't kill you, it's better than if they do." That doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

Re:The more things change ...

[mpe]

Considering that he's been representing the same district since 1983, I don't think the Republican/Democrat shift had much to do with this bill.

Anyone who has been in politics that long is virtually guarenteed to be completly out of touch with the real world. What's needed is something a long time lines of "no person can be in public office longer that 5 years in any one decade and no longer than a total of 10 years in their lifetime". Upping the minimum age of US Senators to 60 probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Re:The more things change ...

[mpe]

It is more than just their separation from the real world. Congress seems to believe that it is their job to pass new laws on a regular basis. It doesn't seem to really matter what direction the new laws seem to go, just as long as we get that new law.

In some cases without even bothering to read what they are passing. A great pity nobody has ever inserted something the the effect of "Any Congressman who didn't vote against this bill is immediatly fired, barred from ever standing for public office again, forfits their pension and must repay all their salary/expenses." That might teach them...

I also think that Congress does not tend to stop and think about potential consequences of their actions.

Even though that is actually a major part of their job.

I'd bet some lobbyist told this Congress-critter that this would be a great thing for Hollywood (which is in his district) by maying a list of advantages about how great it is. I'd also bet this same congress-critter never stopped to wonder how many items on that list of advantages are true and if there is a list of disadvantages that needs to be examined as well.

Let alone such things as if the lobbyiest is actually working for whoever they claim to be working for.

Re:The more things change ...

[mpe]

There is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
They're both as stupid, evil, corrupt, and greedy as the Republicans.

Maybe one lot is "stupid, evil, corrupt and greedy". Whereas the other lot is "greedy, corrupt, evil and stupid". That's a difference :)

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and it will continue to be that way, until all forms of a campaign contributions, lobbying, and riders are outlawed. It's got to go to the extreme to make the job unappealing to most of the people in the country. Even then I don't think it's enough. Ban all political parties too, make everyone run on their own platform.

Another solution to corrupt government which has been suggested. Is a year after the election check if the people who won have actually done what they said they would do before the election (and havn't done anything else without a very good reason). If this hasn't happened they are publically executed. It might take a couple of years but you should end up with a government which keeps their electoral promises...

Re:The more things change ...

[aproposofwhat]

So it's nothing to do with the surprisingly large number of people out there who have disposable income, but decide instead to keep and perpetuate literally terabytes of copyrighted material via P2P? It's all to do with the prices? Plenty of people have no trouble paying 'em, because they're still making money. It's not like the music industry has changed their prices significantly for years, but their patronage has gone down. Still think it's the prices? Not to mention broadband penetration and piracy rates rose at the same time? Coincidence?

OK - let's take disposable income, especially the disposable income of the 18 - 30 agegroup that historically purchased the most new music.

Where has that disposable income that used to be spent on CDs gone?

Well, there's been a property boom, so young people wanting to get on the ladder are spending more on mortgages. Mobile phone penetration accounts for a large percentage of the drop in available disposable income, too.

Simplistic assertions that 'piracy' has caused the drop off in sales are nonsense, and I'm not surprised that asshats like you post your RIAA shilling as AC.

If I get to metamod the parent comment, I'll be fully supporting the moderators of the GP, so I'll likely cancel out any of the RIAA cockmunchers that you call friends.

Re:The more things change ...

[tbannist]

Ironically, this is actually true. The down side of the short election term for congress is that most of them spent 3-4 hours a day all year round begging for money. That's time they should be spending doing their jobs. However 95% of them are appointed to safe districts so if they want to get re-elected they have to do what the party (not the voters) wants them to do. Which is campaign and raise money.

Re:The more things change ...

[tbannist]

Depending on your ideology one of them is less worse than the other.

Re:The more things change ...

[vuffi_raa]

Meet the new schmucks, same as the old schmucks. - no, we traded those that want to infringe on people's civil liberties in favor of the war machine and big oil with those that want to infringe on people's civil liberties in favor of entertainment and anti-technology......

Re:The more things change ...

[eheldreth]

I'm whole heartedly convinced that we should vote for 3rd parties. I don't even care particularly what they stand for even. I see congress like our gene pool. The more diverse the gene pool is the better chance we have as a race of surviving any given incident. In the same way a congress of diverse ideas and ideals has a better chance of surviving any given political climate. Sure some parties may have far fetched and ill thought out platforms but the more diverse our representatives are the better chance we have no single one could push there agenda. I want to see greens, reds, blues, leftest, right wingers, independents, isolationists, imperialists, anarchist, and communist all coming together in a congress so divers they can't get enough votes to do anything harmful. A vote for a third party is a vote for FREEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Re:The more things change ...

[east coast]

I agree to a point. I still think people should vote for their ideals. It bothers me the number of people who are willing to vote for a candidate because they have a chance of winning when there is another candidate that better represents their views. We need to send a message about who we want to see, not who has the best chance. And in some cases a blind vote for third parties is a great way of stating that we don't find the same trash to be satisfying and that we feel comfortable without the two old crutches of the status quo.

Re:The more things change ...

[Darby]

Ah yes, the Republicrats and Demopublicans. Someone remind me again what the difference is between them?

Oh come on, there are plenty of differences.
They have different colored jerseys, different mascots, they tend to prefer different parts of the constitution for their ass wiping needs...

Re:The more things change ...

[eheldreth]

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that people shouldn't vote their ideals but rather that even if they vote someone in who I may disagree it's better than a Red/Blue shill says things I want to here. I agree completely that voting for a candidate because they have a chance of winning is usually not a good idea. A blind vote for third parties may be a good form of protest especialy if the third party chosen is the absolute least likely to get votes.

Re:The more things change ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not surprised that asshats like you post your RIAA shilling as AC.

Oh great. Really mature. If you don't agree with me you're a commie^H^H^H^H^H^H RIAA shill. Give you, or the McCarthy cockmunchers you call friends, some power, and you'll destroy our country and freedoms faster than any administration has to date. I'm no shill. I never have and never will accept a paycheck from the RIAA to shill. You're just looking for a way to feel big and not actually have to test your opinions against others. That way you'll never be wrong! Hooray! Ideological fascism wins again!

Re:The more things change ...

[F_Prefect]

Hey just remember, Hollywood SUPPORTED Democrats.

Wow.

[Runefox]

And here everyone thought that the potential Canadian bill was going to be bad. Government-mandated content filtering... Where have I heard that before?

Re:Wow.

[s!lat]

I'm going to have to go with Germany, 1933 FTL!

Re:Wow.

[StringBlade]

In every dictatorship you've ever studied?

Re:Wow.

[eln]

Actually, the Nazi Internet filtering and monitoring program wasn't nearly as effective as they had hoped. It was one of the great failures of the Nazis, and one wonders if the war would have turned out differently had they been successful in their attempts at truly effective Net filtering.

Their first attempts were very crude, and basically involved having operators inspect each packet by hand before allowing them to be sent. This was slow and time consuming, and delayed packet switching so badly that the Net in Germany became near unusable. As the Nazis wanted to be able to monitor communications, rather than simply eliminating communication, they knew they needed a better way.

They weren't able to come up with automated solutions until 1941, and even then they were slow and unreliable. The first techniques involved large machines with automated "hands" to pick out the packets and text scanners to look for offending text. However, the machines broke down frequently, and were easily defeated by employing simple encoding such as rot13, or even by intentionally misspelling banned words.

It wasn't until late 1944 that they were able to come up with a fully digital process, but of course by then it was too late to do much good.

Re:Wow.

[Zephyr14z]

Oh, I'm so sorry. We were looking for China. Contemporary Communist China.

Re:Wow.

[WallyDrinkBeer]

Hmm, interesting historical information. This should be posted to Wikipedia immediately. Cite Slashdot as the source.

His view?

[427_ci_505]

His view that the DMCA is in need of a rewrite? Has he been getting letters from his voters / constituents that the DMCA needs to be tougher?
If not, then why is he pushing for greater power?
(In an ideal world, corporations are not constituents. People are)

Re:His view?

[BZWingZero]

But constituents don't pay the bills.

Re:His view?

[RedDirt]

I suspect the notes from his constituents appear in the memo fields on his campaign contribution checks. I'm just sayin'.

Re:His view?

[Opportunist]

I guess he got letters from his campaign contributors that the DMCA needs some beefing up.

Wait... you don't really believe that "by the people for the people" thing, do you?

Re:His view?

[Kelson]

Has he been getting letters from his voters / constituents that the DMCA needs to be tougher?

"The representative from Hollywood" isn't just hyperbole. He represents the 28th congressional district in California, which includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley. People in the film industry are his constituents.

Re:His view?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd beg to differ.

He is dealing with Southern California where everyone works in the entertainment industry, wants to work in it or is highly affected by it.

When I was in this industry, I know I had people protecting my interest (at a fee) and they did pretty well about it. They were pretty clueless about a lot of things, but their goal wasn't to be fair or knowledgable, it was to make money by protecting our interests. Being fair or knowledgeable might even be opposite of these goals in some ways.

So it isn't a democrat vs. republican mentality as some have mentioned...it is purely working for the people that elected him and ensure that CA remains one of the highest profitable states in the republic. I would suggest politics would be far better if more people represented their masses as opposed to special interest groups (and in this case, they are the masses...in Ohio, supporting these interests WOULD be a special interest type group and should be ignored).

Re:His view?

[techno-vampire]

I have a friend who lives in Berman's district. My friend is a very liberal Democrat, and even he refers to Berman as "the poster boy for the RIAA." It's well-known in his district that if you aren't registered as a Democrat there's no point in asking him for help, regardless of the circumstances. Unless you're a member of his party, he not only won't help you, he won't even be bothered to answer your request.

Re:His view?

[jedidiah]

...which also includes the people that setup the buffet table on the set.

Not everyone in the industry is a mogul.

Allowing the fat cats to get all megalomaniacal because they
are all getting hysterical about "evil pirates" and such does
nothing to help 99.9% of the people in Mr. Hollywood's district.

Re:His view?

[sconeu]

Uh, taxes?

Re:His view?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in his district. His beliefs actually match the Slashdot hive's beliefs on most issues (net neutrality, war in iraq, etc). I've always thought he would be a good interview candidate for the site.

http://www.house.gov/waxman/

Re:His view?

[techno-vampire]

I've always thought he would be a good interview candidate for the site.

Yes, he would. Especially his views on the RIAA. I doubt, however, he'd allow himself to be subjected to the inevitable feeding frenzy on that one topic because his masters wouldn't see the profit in it.

Re:His view?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you have to be of a certain party before he even acknowledges your existence, something is wrong.

Re:His view?

[AeroIllini]

The caterers do not get royalties. Stop confusing the conversation.

The vast majority of the people who work on a film set (caterers, electricians, photographers, camera crew, hairdressers, costume managers, props masters, set builders, etc.) are all paid up front. They do a job and are paid for it, just like any other contractor. Once they are finished, they receive no more money.

If your film does not make money because you priced it high and no one wants to buy it, it does not affect these people. Does the construction crew that built a museum care if you charge a $200 admission and no one comes to the museum? No. They were paid up front.

If the film industry is making to many films and can't afford to hire more crews, again, that's NOT THE MARKET'S FAULT. Don't come crying to me because the second assistant grip has to send his kids to community college. He was paid for his services. If the industry really is losing money and can't afford to hire him, maybe he should be looking for work elsewhere.

Re:His view?

[noamsml]

Actually, they do. The difference is, that unlike corporations, they have no choice as to whether they should or shouldn't pay, and can therefore be safely ignored by the rulers.

Re:His view?

[sabt-pestnu]

People in the film industry are his constituents. To say that he represents only the Hollywood/San Fernando Valley, that is "voters in his district" (which you didn't, but implied) is to say:

I (for any given person) am disenfranchised in any Congressional Committee or subcommittee that does not include the congressman for MY district.

IMNSHO, Any representative in government who believes that that is right and proper should be removed from office. The laws they vote for affect us all, rich and poor, saint and sinner, corporate and private.

Re:His view?

[Moofie]

Yeah, but why would the congresscritter pay any attention to the ones that don't have any money?

Re:His view?

[mpe]

He represents the 28th congressional district in California, which includes parts of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley. People in the film industry are his constituents.

Assuming they actually live there. It's quite likely that many of the people who actually do live there, even if they work in the movie industry, would receive no benefit from copyright at all. AFAIK set builders, cameramen just get paid for the work they actually do. The same may even to stunt performers who are highly skilled (but often uncredited) actors.

Re:His view?

[mpe]

The vast majority of the people who work on a film set (caterers, electricians, photographers, camera crew, hairdressers, costume managers, props masters, set builders, etc.) are all paid up front. They do a job and are paid for it, just like any other contractor. Once they are finished, they receive no more money.

This probably also applies to "extras", "stunt/body doubles", etc. Effectivly the vast majority of actors...

Re:His view?

[tbannist]

The vast majority of the people who work on a film set (caterers, electricians, photographers, camera crew, hairdressers, costume managers, props masters, set builders, etc.) are all paid up front. They do a job and are paid for it, just like any other contractor. Once they are finished, they receive no more money. That's naive and lazy thinking there. The majority of the people who work on a film have a variety of vested interests in it's success. These can range from pride and bragging rights, because you get more respect from having worked on a sucessful film to simply looking forward, it also looks better on your resume. It's also cheaper to do repeat business than it is to dig up new business.

I've talked to some amatuer musicians they were vehemently for every kind of restriction you could put on copying. They practically went off on a tirade about how people were stealing their music and it wasn't right or fair and how fair use was just an excuse to steal. They simply refused to listen to any viewpoint that differed from theirs. And they were only protecting the possibility that they might one day get a royalty check.

My point? Do not underestimate the level of group think that may exist in an area that is heavily dependent on the health of one industry. As much as I hate everything this guy has proposed, I also have to consider the fact that he is probably representing what he think are the best interests of his constituents, and that many of the people in his district might agree with what he's doing.

That doesn't make him right, but you're looking at the people who work in the film industry as some sort of robot who can be packed up and boxed away. You have to remember that they're people and can easily be scared into believing laws like the DMCA are necessarily to protect their livelyhoods, even if they aren't.

Re:His view?

[tbannist]

You need to think bigger. A healthy film industry means more opportunities and less competition for those opportunities to work which directly means more money for the people working on contract. High demand also means higher wages.

Re:His view?

[Reziac]

All true. And:

"If the industry really is losing money and can't afford to hire him, maybe he should be looking for work elsewhere."

Same as the buggy whip makers had to find new jobs as their industry petered out. Should we all be driving a horse-and-buggy to keep the buggy whip makers in business? Not to mention the hostlers, buggy makers, and road-apple collectors...

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was concerned that too many single mothers & college students were loose and free on the streets ... making copies of anything and everything while the owner still retained the original material. What has society come to?! Please help us, Congressman!

3 words....

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Him Out

the more...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Scary thing is...

[Shadowruni]

The scary thing is, is that this is very likely to pass. As many personal freedoms that the DMCA stepped all over it was passed with a 100% vote. Since no one wants to be seen as soft on crime, I predict this one will too. Quite sad actually as some parts of the current contradict the Home Recording Act of 1984(I think that's when it was passed). I hope the ISPs fight this tooth and nail and get it killed on the universal filtering provision and someone points out that the phrasing of what he wants is similar to China's Great Firewall.

[captcha=inputs]

Re:Scary thing is...

[Mr. Underbridge]

As many personal freedoms that the DMCA stepped all over it was passed with a 100% vote. Since no one wants to be seen as soft on crime, I predict this one will too.

I know what you mean, voting against anything anti-crime is usually election suicide.

BUT - I think this might just be the one real counterexample, because this is a situation in which you can make a compelling case that this isn't anti-crime, but anti-citizen crap. If I'm an incumbent and someone points to that and calls me anti-crime, I'll run a counter ad that says I voted to let ISPs NOT SPY on their customers. Then I'll counter and say that if my opponent would have been in office, he'd initiate a police state to monitor everyone's internet access just to make sure that Hollywood takes more of their money.

Normally that technique doesn't work, but I think the fear of internet snooping might be compelling enough that you can fight back against it.

Re:Scary thing is...

[cstdenis]

It's a good thing Google has lots of money to lobby against this.

On the other hand, now that they have a filtering system maybe they would support it to kill off all of the youtube clones that don't have the budget to make a filtering system.

Re:Scary thing is...

[cgenman]

This reminds me of how one can send child porn unsolicited to congressmen, and the recipient is liable for steep legal penalties. In this particular case, how would Berman react if he were sent a dozen MP3's only to have his computer seized?

Sometimes I wish congresspeople would think about the consequences of their legislation before they make them. Sometimes I wish people would show them.

Business as usual

[AKAImBatman]

Congressman 'Hollywood' Howard Berman (D-CA) used a House subcommittee hearing today to express his view that the DMCA was in need of a rewrite. In his view, it doesn't go far enough.

So the story is that yet another Congressman is proving himself to be an idiot. If he makes enough noise, he'll probably be indicted in a few years for some sort of unrelated wrongdoing. Welcome to the world of politics. Next time elect a better representative. Or even better, get involved and run for yourself. While I don't always agree with their platform, the representatives that run because they have a solid cause are always more effective and trustworthy than the career politicians.

Of course, honest politicians rarely make headlines...

Re:Business as usual

[Stripe7]

His constituent's are the Hollywood crowd, so he is voted in by the bloc of voters there. Everyone else in the US gets to pay for for the laws he creates. We pay in extra taxes for the enforcement of those laws, we pay in the higher cost as our ISP's have more government mandated software/hardware monitoring requirements, we pay in reductions in freedoms those laws restrict due to their overly broad scope. Does he care? no. It is up to everyone else to make sure the representatives of their districts kill the bill.

Re:Business as usual

[Reziac]

The solution is obvious. Get rid of Hollywood... thus, no more Hollywood district, and no need of a congresscritter from Hollywood!

I'm sure the smallest available tactical nuke would be more than sufficient.

Heil Berman !

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw Godwin. You know I'm right.

Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we don't have RIPA here you're good to go.

Damages aren't enough already?

[explosivejared]

a bill that could boost statutory damages for copyright infringement

I'm pretty sure damages are about steep enough as it is. Something $250,000 per album is the metric I think. Correct if me I'm wrong, that's just what I've seen suits for ip infringement go for (RIAA). I sincerely hope this guy does not get his way. With breaking net neutrality and introducing content filtering on the table I worry for the future of the web.

Re:Damages aren't enough already?

[Krishnoid]

I'm pretty sure damages are about steep enough as it is.

A better idea:

1. Jack up the statutory damages for copyright infringement as much as possible.
2. Hire an good attorney.
3. Profit!

Hey, I agree

[Opportunist]

The DMCA needs a rewrite, direly.

But I fear the agreement ends here.

Re:Hey, I agree

[apachetoolbox]

http://www.copyrightreform.us/ ... I'd say the whole damn thing needs to be fixed at it's core.

Re:Hey, I agree

[Opportunist]

It's as it is with many things: The core itself is fine. What isn't is what layers have been wraped around it to warp it around and pervert it into the opposite of what it was supposed to be.

How to tell when filtering is ready

[A nonymous Coward]

Filtering the internet will be ready for prime time when ignoramuses like him are filtered from occupying any position of power.

In other words -- never.

Re:How to tell when filtering is ready

[Colin Smith]

Filtering the internet will be ready for prime time when ignoramuses like him are filtered from occupying any position of power. So much for the wisdom of crowds...

Contribution list

[aweiland]

I'd love to get a look at this guy's campaign contribution list.

Re:Contribution list

[Etrias]

It's not complete, but if you look at this link here you can see he's in the top two of getting contributions from music/movie industries. This really shouldn't be too much of a surprise as we do live in a country where your money buys your influence.

Re:Contribution list

[MightyMartian]

Jesus loves Congressmen who take money from special interests and then try to push bills devoted solely to aiding those interests. Jesus hates consumers, wants them to pay through the nose for substandard media services at obnoxiously high prices. Jesus wants Congressmen to be political prostitutes. Jesus despises democracy, hates what the Founding Fathers tried to create, and is glad there are brave men and women in Congress without a shred of moral decency in them willing to sell out the citizens of the US to make sure an outmoded business model survives.

Re:Contribution list

[pi_rules]

Here ya go:

Howard Berman's campaign contributors in 2006.

Re:Contribution list

[Beer_Smurf]

Damn you Don Henley!

Effective protest

[Anonymous Coward]

It always amazes me that Congressman can propose legislation like this with impunity, knowing that they can ignore or throw out any faxes, letters, etc sent their way in opposition to it. I have felt that it would be far more effective to give a donation to the opposition party in that Congressman's district, stating that the donation was motivated by the Congressman's legislative proposal, as that form of opposition can't be thrown away, but must instead be fought. (Orin Hatch-R is another one that should be protested in this manner). Maybe if Congressman had to actually fight for their legislative seat, they might be more careful in the legislation they propose and listen to their constituents, instead of the Hollywood bigshots/corporations.

Re:Effective protest

[ScrewMaster]

Orrin Hatch should be decapitated, with his head stuck on the end of a pike as a warning to any other Congressmen that might feel tempted to behave as badly. Congressmen Berman and Hollings' heads should also be on pikes to either side of Mr. Hatch's.

More action, less whining?

[zentinal]

Speaking as a former Angeleno... Are there enough geeks in Berman's district to call his office and get him to reconsider? Given the small number of people who vote in congressional elections if he doesn't back down, are there enough geeks in his district to get him punted out of office? Oh damn, it's a presidential election year.

Re:More action, less whining?

[Reziac]

More to the point, are there enough geeks who will contribute to his next campaign chest??

Cuz that's what you've got to match: contributions from Hollywood and related interests.

Easy: No copyrighted stuff allowed over IP

[corsec67]

How about not letting any copyrighted stuff at all be transmitted over IP? That would make sure that unauthorized copying isn't done, and would make the internet TONS faster as the tubes are emptied.....

(hopefully everyone can recognize this as satire)

Re:Easy: No copyrighted stuff allowed over IP

[Devistater]

Considering that everything anyone produces is copyrighted when its produced (in the USA anyway) that wouldn't make much alllowed. And yeah I know it was satire, but we could be going in that direction anyway.
Empty tubes for teh win!

Re:Easy: No copyrighted stuff allowed over IP

[vuffi_raa]

that is a good idea, maybe you can make it so that when you do a google image search you have to sign an eula to view each image

This is big. Write your congressmen now!

[pseudorand]

Pardon the tinfoil hat, but this is clearly a ruse to force ISPs to put in a Chinese-style, government-controlled way to limit free speech. Even if you don't have any interest in stealing the crap that Hollywood and the record companies spew out, you should be very concerned about this bill. I've sent my representative and both of my senators the letter blow. Feel free to copy and modify it as you like if you'd like to write to congress as well.

Dear <Fill in the blank>,

I understand that the House Judiciary Committee recently introduced the PRO-IP act. I've read that Representative Berman of California has even discussed a congressional mandate of filtering technology. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071213-time-to-revisit-the-dmca.html)

As a computer programmer, I generate intellectual property and I am all for tough laws to protect my rights. However, as a citizen, I am far more concerned about laws that force companies to raise their prices without benefiting their consumers (which is simply the equivalent of a tax on everyone that's spent on projects benefiting only a very few) and my personal freedoms.

The success of the Internet is entirely due to the ability of telecom providers to do their job: facilitate communication. They are not liable if a telephone or internet connection is used for committing a crime. The actual criminal is. As a consumer, I don't want to pay more for telecommunications because hollywood is too cheap to pursue legal action against pirates. After all, I don't ask the government to pay to put an alarm system on my home or car. Hollywood should bear the expense of protecting their intellectual property and pass that on to their customers so we all pay for the cost of producing movies and music based on how much of it we consume.

Furthermore, I have a much deeper concern about a congressional requirement for filtering technology. It is simply one more step towards a totalitarian state of big government with too much power. In America, we enjoy freedom of speech and press not only because our constitution mandates it, but because the free market has created the technology to facilitate it. Unlike in other countries such as China or North Korea, the government simply can't restrict speech because no one in America would obey such unconstitutional laws or policies. If the government puts in place a system that can limit what information can flow freely over the Internet, we're simply one law or government policy away from destroying the first amendment. Free speech is far to important to the American way of life to wait for the courts to declare such a thing unconstitutional.

Whether the technology is there or not, please vote against any legislation that attempts to mandate that internet service providers and/or telecommunications companies filter the information they are charged with transmitting on behalf of their customers. Such a policy would be devastating to both our economy and our democracy.

Sincerely,

Adam Carheden

Re:This is big. Write your congressmen now!

[Noted Futurist]

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr012=muzeh04ws1.app8a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=299 This is sickening. Make some noise people.

Re:This is big. Write your congressmen now!

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if my name isn't Adam Carheden? I'm American, I can't understand without more notation. Thanks in advance.

Wait, there's more...

[flaming error]

Congressman Berman® went on to say that C-SPAN(TM) has been granted an exclusive license to cover Congressional proceedings©, which includes all audio, video, textual transcripts and brainwave emanations©, should any someday occur.

In other© news, C-SPAN(TM) has issued a press release(TM) supporting this as "double-plus good legislation®", and promising to do its part to aggressively defend its intellectual property, including all recordings and the C-SPAN(TM) logo from unauthorized© copying©, citing©, reporting©, blogging®, commenting(TM), or joking on late night TV(TM).

*All copyrights, trademarks, and general hooey are the self-proclaimed properties of fat pompous sons of motherless goats.

How can you defend the status quo???

[Anonymous Coward]

I whole-heartedly disagree with this.

First, the idea of "tyranny of the masses" is easily programmed out. Look at the other link already provided in this thread. In their FAQ, they explain how "mob rule" is entirely avoided through simple procedure: http://www.metagovernment.org/faq/ That is nothing like rule by the masses; and yet every single person on the planet can participate.

As for the idea that governments have been well thought through; who is it that has been doing the thinking? A couple of leaders, right? How many people framed the U.S. Constitution? Now compare that tiny pool to the pool of everyone on the internet. If you allow everybody in the world to get together and decide how to formulate the government, wouldn't they have better resources to draw upon? That same website cited above proposes a scoring system not terribly unlike SlashDot's, but with numerous layers and with recursive scoring (so a high score from a person who has a low score doesn't count as much as a high score from a person who has a high score). Let a few billion people play with this system for a few years and do you really think it will still be inferior to the status quo?

Now think of what is NOT solved in the status quo, even in an alleged democracy such as the United States.

Here's how the U.S. picks a President. You as a citizen get to pick from a handful of rich, politically-connected people to represent one of two parties. For most citizens, by the time they get to vote in a primary, the candidate is pretty much already chosen for them. Then you get to vote again! Now you can choose from one of only two ('cause let's be realistic) politically connected rich people, and your vote is aggregated into a state's delegation to the congressional congress. You don't even get to pick who your delegate will be. Those delegates then pick one of those two people to rule the entire county with broad authority. You get no further say at all for four years, and that one person is free to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they don't completely piss off a large majority of the rich, politically connected people in Congress who were picked by the same process.

How is that democracy? It has the semblance of democracy. You get to cast a vote, meaningless though it is. But you get no real say in government unless you "know people."

And what's worse, you could be a genius with a wonderful solution to a significant problem... and you get the same quantity of votes as an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about any issue whatsoever. How is that good?

Yes, we have a nice history to developing our form of government, but sometimes we have to make a radical change. That's what the American Revolution was, after all. It is simply time for us to run another update and use modern technologies to implement something much more democratic. And much more effective.

Re:How can you defend the status quo???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we have a nice history to developing our form of government, but sometimes we have to make a radical change. That's what the American Revolution was, after all. It is simply time for us to run another update and use modern technologies to implement something much more democratic. And much more effective.

And that's precisely what it says on that same website:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1810

Re:How can you defend the status quo???

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, parliamentary democracies have a somewhat higher level of involvement. But granted, they are nothing like opening up every aspect of every government to every person in the word.

Re:How can you defend the status quo???

[Anonymous Coward]

:: Now you can choose from one of only two ('cause let's be realistic) politically connected rich people, and your vote is aggregated into a state's delegation to the congressional congress.

Well, it's called the "Electoral College," not the "congressional congress." But otherwise... spot on.

Aren't you guys going to have elections there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you guys going to have elections there soon?
This is a good time to send the message for your elected representative to know what should they represent on your behalf.

Re:Aren't you guys going to have elections there?

[Hucko]

They have the same problem we have in Australia. Is the devil you know better than the devil you don't? Are they the same devil? (The clue is in the title.) There is no real choice, it is just a pretense of a vote to satisfy the mob.

representation

[dj245]

Of course, what is to stop the representatives from carrying out tyranny against people they do not represent?

I think the biggest problem today (besides corporate sponsorship) with the US government is that the representatives are elected by their constituent states. When a congressman thinks of "his people", he does not think of "Americans", he thinks of all the people back in Timbucktoo, Alabama that need a new hickway, erm Highway to Wockahooey, Alabama so he can get elected again. Meanwhile all his fellow congressmen are doing the same thing porking money back to their home states so they can get re-elected.

At this point I think we would be better drawing names from a hat than rubber-stamping incumbents back into congress over and over.

Re:representation

[PopeRatzo]

When a congressman thinks of "his people", he does not think of "Americans", he thinks of all the people back in Timbucktoo, Alabama that need a new hickway

Actually in this case of "Congressman 'Hollywood' Howard Berman (D-CA)" his "people" are the corporate masters who sponsored the DMCA to begin with and who slip fat envelopes into Congressman Berman's pocket, via lobbyists, PACs and sleazy players.

Congressman Howard Berman is reprehensible disgrace and his name and face should be plastered all over the Internet as an example of the kind of tumors who need to be excised from our government. There's a long list of them, too, Democrats and Republicans (to be fair, more GOP than Dems, but they are both well represented). He needs to be publicly disgraced until he resigns. I would much prefer a congressman whose worst offense is propositioning sex partners in public washrooms than one who sucks corporate cock right out in the open like Howard Berman.

Pardon my French.

Re:representation

[Hucko]

Congressman Howard Berman is reprehensible disgrace and his name and face should be plastered all over the Internet as an example of the kind of tumors who need to be excised from our government. There's a long list of them, too, Democrats and Republicans (to be fair, more GOP than Dems, but they are both well represented). He needs to be publicly disgraced until he resigns. I would much prefer a congressman whose worst offense is propositioning sex partners in public washrooms than one who sucks corporate cock right out in the open like Howard Berman.

Can anyone turn a pic of him into a marionette? Though Pinocchio could work. Maybe we could use his pic to label Riaa stories.

Re:representation

[Darby]

There's a long list of them, too, Democrats and Republicans (to be fair, more GOP than Dems, but they are both well represented).

Huh?

The Republicans have "everybody but Ron Paul" on that list and the Democrats have "everybody but Russ Feingold".

Since there are currently more Democrats in Congress, I fail to see how you end up with that conclusion.

Now if you want to talk about relative levels of slime, then nobody could argue against the fact that the Republicans, since Nixon at least, have been far and away the sleaziest. I mean they took the title of "big government party" away from the Democrats decades ago and their goals and actions are nothing but pure fascism, but in raw numbers who currently need to be excised. the Democrats are in the lead.

Jack Johnson vs. John Jackson

[HTH NE1]

"Congressman 'Hollywood' Howard Berman (D-CA) used a House subcommittee hearing today to express his view that the DMCA was in need of a rewrite. In his view, it doesn't go too far enough.

Fixed it for the Congressman.

Once again...

[gillbates]

Politics is the enemy of technology.

It seems that the priorities of our politicians lie not with expanding the market for new technologies and benefitting the whole of the United States, but rather, with protecting the outdated market models of a few dominant players in the industry. It occurs neither to the politicians nor the industry that there is a lot of money to be made by embracing technology. If you want examples, look at Google. Look at Microsoft.

But instead of the RIAA and MPAA embracing technology, building new markets, and experiencing the stock-increase-frenzy of being the Next Big Thing(TM), they seek to expand copyright law, stifle the market, and strangle the industry. And when their efforts don't produce the increases they seek, what do they do? Blame piracy, of course!

Of course the artists are starving; the record companies don't know how to sell music!

And we're slipping farther along into becoming the technological backwater of the first world. Truly sad, that technology is being vilified for the evil that can be done with it, rather than the good that it already does society.

It must be nice to have a job where you can always blame your poor performance on the actions of others.

Re:Once again...

[night_flyer]

Politics is the enemy... period

Re:Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be nice to have a job where you can always blame your poor performance on the actions of others.

is that the politicians or the media executives?

Re:Once again...

[Fnord666]

It must be nice to have a job where you can always blame your poor performance on the actions of others.

is that the politicians or the media executives?

Yes

Congressman Hollywood's mascara is running...

[DragonTHC]

he better clean it up. No one likes a sloppy whore.

Too bad I'm not from the U.S.

[yukk]

I'd definitely mod this Congressman down.

dear washington dc

[circletimessquare]

you frequently scold the technocracy in beijing on limitations on personal freedoms who act in the name of the "harmonization" of society

you frequently scold the theocracy in tehran on limitations on personal freedoms due to the need for a "virtuous" society

you frequently scold the autocracy in moscow in limitations ono personal freedoms due to the pressing need for "strength" in society

well, at least those assholes pretend to be working for the common in man in their evil propaganda

pray tell, when you sublimimated your understanding of what the founding father meant in the founding documents of this country to become a whore of a corporatocracy, did you even blink?

a corporation is an all consuming machine. it will destroy our culture by putting toll booths on every derivative of every utterance possible if they could with their legions of lawyers. in order to make one penny more

but there is more riches in this world than corporate coffers. cultural riches: books, music, movies. our shared cultural inheritance

and you can't even sing happy birthday without owing someone something

fucking h christ, this wrong

i'm not talking to you, mr. whore of the corporatocracy in washington dc, you're already bought and sold, a slave. you're unredeemable, pointless, corrupt. a waste of effort

i'm talking to you, average american in the street: fight back against these corporations, use every technological and socially disruptive means at your disposal. corporations are giant sucking vampires, that will mindlessly encroach more and more on our public domain, and they will not stop until even every single thought you possess has a price tag on it

bring the fucking corporations down, bring them to heel, break them. bring them to respect OUR shared cultural space. they will not do it. their paid whores in washington dc will not do it. only we can do it, the citizens the founding fathers had in mind, which aren't even considered in the decision making halls in washington dc anymore apparently on questions of media and its rightful relationship to our consumption as our shared heritage

Re:dear washington dc

[big_paul76]

There's some Dickens line about "reducing the sum total of human existence, from cradle to grave, to nothing more than a bargain across a counter."

Scary how much the early 21st century looks like the 'gilded age' around the late 19th Century/early 20th, isn't it? Never mind that in terms of geopoltics, the same is true.

Change the British Empire to the USA, and the 20th century ends basically the same as it begun, just with more internet porn. So there's that, at least...

Filtering is definitely required...

[fallen1]

of all the FUD and bullshit Howard Berman spews. Personally, I'd like to see laws requiring EVERY dollar a senator or representative gets - regardless of the source - accounted for. If they can't account for it with a clear paper trail then they get fined - $250,000 per dollar unaccounted for. Grandma sent you $10 for Christmas but you can't find the card that came with it? I'm sorry Howard, that will be $2.5 million dollars payable to the United States of America to relieve the tax burden on the middle class. If they have to have a personal accountant keep track of all of it, then they pay for it out of their salary AND the salaries of all those serving in the House or Senate are frozen for 6 years - so no pay bumps to cover hiring that personal accountant.

I say we squeeze them so tight they literally crap themselves when they take "campaign contributions" from big business. I say we make the task of keeping track of all that "soft" money and other contributions so onerous that it will be more than it is worth -- for the most part. I say we, the people, take back our country (for those of us who live in the USA) and make the politicians once more SERVE the people and not their own self-interest, pocketbooks, or corporate greed.

I know this will probably never happen, at least not in my lifetime, but it is a nice dream to have.

Here is a parting quote I found interesting many years ago (and still do):

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Re:Filtering is definitely required...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alpha Centauri. A very cool game.

Re:Filtering is definitely required...

[Bios_Hakr]

Right now, I can start a campaign for a candidate. I can then dump millions of dollars into that campaign. All of this without ever *giving* the candidate a single dollar.

In short, your plan sounds good but it just won't work.

Re:Filtering is definitely required...

[Reziac]

I find it interesting how closely your "account for every dollar" scheme parallels the BSA's "account for every software license with a matching *receipt*" policy.

Yep, definitely time for congresscritters to have to live by the same rules they're letting corporations apply to honest citizens.

Now find the umbrella!

[why-is-it]

Seriously. Any accounting model that doesn't take into account the labels blow and hooker fund is fundamentally flawed.

Rumour has it that those expenses are listed under more pedestrian line entries like "Catering" and/or "Fruit and Flowers".

As such, they become tax-deductible expenses!

Foul Stench....

[RedHat Rocky]

To paraphrase a certain rebel princess:

"The more you tighten your legislation, Berman-Hollylord, the more consumer dollars will slip past your fingers."

See, the more problematic it becomes to use music the way WE want, the less the desire to purchase said music becomes.

One suggestion

[why-is-it]

You know, users could really help the *AA and government if they would simply set the evil bit on all internet traffic that potentially infringed on someone's copyright...

That would make content filtering a snap!

Sigh ...

[gstoddart]

Can someone in the US please go whack this gentleman with a clue stick, or a real stick as applicable.

Someone needs to explain to these people that mucking about with the core infrastructure on the presumption that every single action is likely infringing is just asinine.

Would this same congressman want that all cars have a breathalyzer interlock, because there could be drunk drivers? Or, have us prove that we're not about to commit wire fraud every time we dial the phone? Or, how about ensuring that every time you drive near a school zone you prove that you're not a registered child molester? Because, that's the level of burden he's placing on the industry with these laws.

The problem with these legislated methods of making the ISPs responsible for monitoring everything we do on the basis that some small subset of people are doing something illegal; is, that only that subset of people are doing something illegal. You can't realistically but the burden (and cost) of DRM and content filtering on absolutely everything onto everyone else.

The overwhelming majority of us aren't in the middle of stealing your damned movies or music; don't overburden the entire system (at someone else's expense) as a dragnet. If you think someone is infringing, go ahead, chase them, but we can't force the entire infrastructure of the internet to be built around protecting the interests of a few large companies.

This is trying to get the wishes of these big media companies paid for at taxpayers expense. Though, since apparently the US is pondering adding a copyright enforcement agency, maybe that battle has already been won.

Cheers

Re:Sigh ...

[louisadkins]

*wince* Please, keep your voice down. They might hear you, and think you have Good Ideas...

Re:Sigh ...

[mapsjanhere]

Would this same congressman want that all cars have a breathalyzer interlock, because there could be drunk drivers? Or, have us prove that we're not about to commit wire fraud every time we dial the phone? Or, how about ensuring that every time you drive near a school zone you prove that you're not a registered child molester? Because, that's the level of burden he's placing on the industry with these laws.

Yes, and they have done so already. NM had a bill introduced mandating the breathalyzer for all new cars, GA made a law restricting the living possibilities for registered sex offenders to something like one percent of the state's area (they probably couldn't prevent you from camping out in some national forest), and they are taping all phone calls in the interest of national security.

And it probably applies to farting too...

[my_left_nut]

That's right. Soon you won't be able to fart without someone trying to claim it as an IP infringement.

Oh, the humanity!

The internet detects censorship as damage and routes around it. In this case, any protocol (even ICMP) can be used to tunnel over. I suspect if passed, we'll be seeing a lot more of that kind of end running around.

Re:And it probably applies to farting too...

[PhxBlue]

That's right. Soon you won't be able to fart without someone trying to claim it as an IP infringement.

Just be noisy about it. I own the patent on silent-but-deadlies.

Filtering

[Wowsers]

The only filtering needed is those of the financial type to our politicians, then we see who lobbied for what laws.

Who do you think his constituents are?

[why-is-it]

His view that the DMCA is in need of a rewrite? Has he been getting letters from his voters / constituents that the DMCA needs to be tougher?

I suspect that the MPAA/RIAA lobbyists regularly tell him that the DMCA needs to be re-written every time they make a contribution to his campaign re-election fund.

Hollywood Showdown

[Doc Ruby]

OK, I expect the Representative from Hollywood to demand even more special privileges for Hollywood - that's what they send him there for. And I expect the Reps from the rest of the country to slap him down - that's the other 299 million of us send them there for.

What I'd really like to see would be a Congress enforce the Constitution, which says Congress can infringe our rights to free expression only to promote science and the useful arts by securing for limited time exclusive rights of authors to exploit their own work. Since exclusivity is at its lowest utility to protect motivating return on investment as it ever was, and free dissemination is at its greatest utility, I'd expect that limited time to be the shortest in history, at most its original 14 years, if not eliminated entirely.

But then I guess Hollywood Berman would have nothing to do.

As if

[Wellington Grey]

As if the DMCA isn't dumb enough.

Yes, but that's nothing new

[why-is-it]

When a congressman thinks of "his people", he does not think of "Americans", he thinks of all the people back in Timbucktoo, Alabama that need a new hickway, erm Highway to Wockahooey, Alabama so he can get elected again. Meanwhile all his fellow congressmen are doing the same thing porking money back to their home states so they can get re-elected.

It just goes to show that Tip O'Neil was right - all politics is local!

Re:Yes, but that's nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why most source governance projects (including Metagovernment) are focused on local governments.

Congress mandating things...

[dwiget001]

... *is* the problem, not only in regards to the DMCA but just about everything else these a-holes try to pull. What a frickin' dunderhead.

Do something about it.

[Dave Walker]

In the time it takes to complain about this on /., you could instead let your own Congresscritter know how you feel about the subject. Letters (real, paper snail-mail type) work well. Phone calls and faxes are next best. Email gets the least amount of attention. (Wonder why that is?) So call 'em. Write 'em. Tell them the same damn thing you'd post here. They got enough phone calls over immigration that it shut their switchboard down. That got their attention. No reason we couldn't overload their switchboard as well, is there?

Easy: IPsec

[Skapare]

Yes, the satire runneth over.

So we need to be running more encryption. IPsec might be the simplest to start with. And web sites can go with HTTPS (HTTP redirects to the HTTPS). Let them dream of filtering that. It will be hard enough (and horrendously expensive) to have ISPs do the filtering on all TCP connections. While limited encryption (e.g. no pre-shared key or PKC to authenticate the peer) would be vulnerable to MitM attacks, it would be many times more expensive for ISPs to deploy that kind of filtering.

Do not construe this to mean I support copyright infringement as I do not. But I sure as hell do not want my non-infringing traffic to be messed with in any way, nor be expected to pay for it in the form of higher ISP costs, just because a bunch of incompetent buffoons, and their stupid congressman, in Hollywood, want to keep a lame and doomed business model going long after its practical end of life.

Canadian joke

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is just a joke we Canadians are playing on you. That proposed new Canadian tougher-than-DMCA bill? We didn't seriously expect that to pass. We just wanted to see if you guys would fall for it. And you did, big-time!

(Note to humour-impaired: this comment is intended to be funny.)

Don't worry we're from the government

[strikeleader]

Soon, we will control what you read, see and watch on the interweb. It's for your own good, as we know what's good for you. And keep this up and we will have to filter Slashdot or any other subversive site.

Mandatory file scanning

[nurb432]

Just take away all our computers, and we only get terminals with all our data stored on our ISP while it actively scans every file we access. If its encrypted using an unauthorized method, just contact the new IP cops and have them arrest the end user.

If they have any file that even remotely could be in a violation of some IP law somewhere in the world ( wto remember ). arrest the end user
If they search for a forbidden word or subject or try to access forbidden knowledge, arrest them.
If they try to access a file via a forbidden network ( ed2k for example ) arrest them
If they try to think for themselves or speak the truth in opposition .. well you get the idea.

Its still censorship if the government mandates that others do the job for them. I would hope that the citizens of this morons area votes his ass out next election.

worry for the future of the web?

[nurb432]

The web? I worry about the future of the country.

Science fiction takes it farther

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that 200 years ago, Jefferson understood that his own progressive changes to government would become the "old guard?" Seems like he was smart enough to understand that.

So what government is going to make internet governance obsolete? When we all join into a group consciousness, forming a kind of hive mind? :0

Hellstrom's Hive was pretty advanced, right?

Re:Science fiction takes it farther

[Hucko]

A master class of pyshcohistorian analysts.

Everybody!

[popmaker]

It's for the spirit of D-M-C-A, it's for the sprit of D-M-C-A-hey!

It takes a thief to know a thief

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that these same people who so blatantly stole the movie industry from Thomas Edison want a totalitarian response for anybody who they perceive to be hurting their profits.

non-moguls buy the propaganda

[big_paul76]

Two friends of mine, married couple, (actually ex-housemates) both work in film/TV. He's an actor, she's a producer/writer/occasional actor.

The two of them are both non-technical people, to say the least. And they both by into the propaganda that OMG those dirty pirates! They're going to take our jobs!

Besides, hollywood movies don't have a piracy problem. TV and music industries do, but the business of making a movie, just counting revenue from ticket sales and nothing else, is safe as a church, because there's no way to pirate "seeing a movie in a theater". The whole industry, from the guys setting up the buffet tables to the CEOs at the top has been in the past, and can be in the future, supported by that revenue stream.

Home video makes it such that it's almost impossible for a major movie to lose money, all funny accounting "forrest gump didn't break even" aside.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that under capitalism, risk and rewards should be proportional. The idea of a risk-free enterprise sounds more like socialism to me, eh?

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[mpe]

Besides, hollywood movies don't have a piracy problem. TV and music industries do,

It very much depends if the people "pirating" would have bought the "legitimate version". If people are "pirating" because they can't actually get hold of the "legitimate version". Then the fault is actually with the industry in question (something which may also be applicable to "Hollywood movies"). In some cases the situation with delays with TV showings between different parts of the world is actually worst than it was 20-30 years ago.

The whole industry, from the guys setting up the buffet tables to the CEOs at the top has been in the past, and can be in the future, supported by that revenue stream.

The first thing these people need to get their heads around is that if the whatever is in English (any dialect) then the audience is the entire planet. (The same is also applicable to Arabic and possibly Spanish).

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[big_paul76]

Well, to clarify, all I meant by 'movies don't have a piracy problem' is that ticket sales are still quite strong, despite complaints of declining quality in recent years.

So, since there's no way to 'pirate' the experience of "seeing it on the big screen", the industry faces no threat from piracy. If the home video industry didn't exist (which, incidentally was what Jack Valenti and the MPAA first asked for, with the betamax suit) , the movie industry would still be fine. People will still go to the movies. So, unless something changes to fuck with the economics of operating a theater, the movie industry is safe as a church.

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[Darby]

The idea of a risk-free enterprise sounds more like socialism to me, eh?

No, it's all the way to the other side... fascism.

Since the big wigs get to personally keep the money the government helped them "earn" it comes under the heading of fascism.
Another way to look at it is "socialised costs, privatized profits" just like the private prison industry, private military contractors and the like.

That's the far opposite extreme from socialism and while they share similarities in atrocity, they're really quite different which few people bother to think about which is one of the reasons we've ended up a primarily fascist nation at this point in time.

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[big_paul76]

Yeah, actually, that's bang-on analysis.

Sounds more like Italy under Mussolini or Chile under Pinochet than the USSR under Stalin.

I will consider myself adequately chastised!

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[Darby]

Yeah, actually, that's bang-on analysis.

Thanks.

You might find this (rather long) article interesting. It goes pretty in depth on the similarities nd differences between the left, the right and their mutual opposition to Liberalism (in the classical sense of the word).
I learned a lot from it.

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[big_paul76]

Well, it's true that while socialism and fascism seem like opposite ends on one particular spectrum, on the other hand, if you compare on a scale of "totalitarianism vs freedom", it turns out that the "left wing" in some countries like the USSR has more in common with the right-wing hard liners in another country.

Ever see this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

Re:non-moguls buy the propaganda

[Darby]

Well, it's true that while socialism and fascism seem like opposite ends on one particular spectrum, on the other hand, if you compare on a scale of "totalitarianism vs freedom", it turns out that the "left wing" in some countries like the USSR has more in common with the right-wing hard liners in another country.

The article I linked addresses the Nolan chart and similar and points out quite a few major flaws with that method of laying things out.
Take traffic lights, for example. Obviously there are laws making you follow the lights, so that's authoritarianism. Yet they permit our current free ability to travel.

Certainly the extremes of both the left and the right share authoritarianism, but lumping them together like that hides much more than it reveals. Most obviously it hides what they're authoritarian about, against whom, and why.

Doctorow had it right...

[big_paul76]

In this column:

http://informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903173

Where he suggests that technophobes in congress didn't understand the technology, and they were somehow sold the bogus bill of goods that IP like music/movies/software would somehow be more important than say, the manufacturing sector. Or, as doctorow phrased it, "as if 'police academy' sequels would somehow replace the rust belt in the US economy."

Given that there were powerful interests at work at the time that really really liked the idea of replacing UAW workers with slave labor in China, this was a convenient thing for lots of people to believe.

Takedown notices need to be reviewed?

[coppro]

Well, if the effectiveness of takedown notices need to be reviewed, then clearly they are a good thing. In fact, they must be so good that they can be applied to other branches of law! Let's introduce the DMCA (Dumbass Millenial Contract Act) that allows people to send people notices informing them of breach of contract!

Example:
Guy A: I want to buy this for ten bucks.
Guy B: Okay, sounds good.
*Guy A fiddles around in his wallet for a minute, trying to find the money*
Guy B: On second thought, that doesn't sound so hot. Sorry, no deal.
Guy A: Well then, I'll serve you with a DMCA contract enforcement notice, alerting you that you are in violation of the DMCA and that you are hereby obligated by said DMCA to immediately fulfill your part of the contract and sell me that object for ten bucks.
Guy B: ...
Guy B: Nope, still not selling.
*Guy A sues for a million bucks, wins, and is awarded another billion in punitive damages*

Political Filtering Manditory

[flyneye]

Perhaps it's time to insist to all political parties in general and the Democrats & Republicans in particular that
All candidates,state level and federal level pass rigorous intellegence testing and go before an independent panel for common sense evaluation before they can even be considered nominees.
In my worthy opinion the current process falls so far short of what is necessary,we could doubtless file a class action suit against the two prevalent parties for reckless endangerment of Life ,Limb,Economy,Constitutionaly guaranteed freedoms and both gross neglegence and incompetence.
            Make em think twice about their bullsh*t party agendas and start doing the THANKLESS work they were elected to do without any glamour.
            Make it a job no one wants and our country will return to prosperity.

Bah! Who cares anymore?

[iminplaya]

It's up to us to break free of the corporate backbone that holds us captive. If all this "make your own hardware on your printer" ever comes to fruition, then we can simply build around whatever walls they try to put up. That also leads me to believe that this kind of tech will be highly restricted. Let's try to make that impossible, too, eh? We'll make "Darknet" just as mysterious as dark matter. And don't blame the government for your own failures to vote these kinds of people out of office. The field is wide open. If all you vote for is the person who dazzles you the most, there's not much left to say about you that can be said in front of women and children.

So 'BestBuy' his ass...

[capnkr]

...and send him a C&D letter! ;)

The DMCA DOES need a rewrite...

[Builder]

Just not in the direction he wants.

How much abuse of this law have we seen? Lexmark suing over ink cartridges springs to mind... Suppression of research papers, etc.

You NEED to write your congrescritter and explain that no matter how much you may like him, if he votes for this bill, you WILL vote against him in the next election.

Explain, politely, that this is such a big issue in the world today, that even if you don't like the other candidate, you'll vote for him anyway just to punish the incumbent. Get your friends and relatives to do the same...

Nail him with a .3006

[Anonymous Coward]

Then never lift a gun again. you will never be caught.

The next time someone like this speaks, someone else can do it.

It's called a revolution. You did this a couple of hundred years ago or so: the british could out-shoot you out fight you and had great tactical training. So you didn't fight them. You ambushed them, fought guerilla style. You didn't USE tactics, you didn't FIGHT as an army. And the british advantage in training, equipment and organisation were worthless.

With the US government banning anything effective, you can no longer take to the streets as you could a hundred years ago and get change. You must fight the government you have with the same tactics as you employed in removing the british government that saw your people and your land as something to pillage.

Remember, there are only a few hundred senators, and most of them are OK (some are people you WANT in those positions, though I suspect too few to help), whereas there are a lot of rifles. Do the maths.

did anyone notice

[Walter Carver]

that Howard Berman looks a bit like Steve Ballmer (in some pics)

Irrelevance it just around the corner.

[Lodragandraoidh]

The crying for assistance from what I call the 'middle-man model' companies is only a symptom of a broader shift: more and more people are looking elsewhere for their music, movies and other entertainment.

What we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg, and the changes will take place on a logarithmic curve - so it will only get worse for these companies faster.

That being said, what relevance will these middlemen have when the artists are producing and distributing their own works via what I call the 'no-middleman model', and what impact with this have for people in general? I can think of a few things:

1. Middle-men will be marginalized to the point where their sales are only a fraction of the overall market - provided they don't change their business models to adapt.
2. People (traditionally called 'consumers') will get the content they want how they want it, and they will have more options to contribute to the process that looks more like a long term collaborative relationship, rather than a one-time contractual exchange. Consumer, as a useful description will be limited to food and durable goods.
3. Artists will have more options to produce and promote their work. Their business model will not be limited to the traditional sale of a CD, but more and more of their revenue will come from non traditional payments (virtual tip jar, expansion of venues to include online and virtual worlds exposure - exposure way beyond the numbers of people they can reach today on their own).
4. New artists will be able to get more exposure, and will enjoy more of the profit than they would under a traditional corporate model.

So - in this environment DMCA will be virtually irrelevant. If 99% of the art is distributed with an open commons type license, then protection of that other 1% will be largely irrelevant to you if you don't patronize it - given the quality of corporate produced music and movies continues to deteriorate as it has been over the years, that is not a bad assumption. Even if the split looks more like 50%/50% - open commons/proprietary, the artists that choose the proprietary route (e.g. selling CDs, or using a closed distribution model - like iTunes) don't have to opt-in to DMCA driven DRM protections (didn't Steve Jobs get buy-in from his providers that the music on iTunes would not be DRM'd?) - and probably wouldn't want to, given how these attempts to lock down content has failed so many times, and is seen as a boondoggle for many people.

Artists will be able to focus more on the creative side in concert with fans and contractors (cheaper than the blood money the corporations demand for promotions) - providing full featured 'teaser' works, and other ancillary things (websites, and virtual space/world presence - e.g. 'Gorillas' website, and 2nd Life artist storefronts and free events) - which will garner larger audiences (provided they have talent, of course) - and increase their own income as this model becomes more and more mainstream.

If an artist refuses to DRM their work, wants to give away their art for free online, and put up a virtual tip jar for appreciative patrons, I don't see what the DMCA, corporate middlemen or congress can do to stop it.

The train is coming. Time to get off the track.

Re:Irrelevance it just around the corner.

[Reziac]

I think you've got it backwards. The problem is that middlemen have taken over, to the point that creators and end-users are both marginalized. Laws like the DMCA only make this situation worse. And I think it'll be a long, long haul before a significant shift goes back the other way.

Re:Irrelevance it just around the corner.

[Lodragandraoidh]

That is true - if you assume a model where the middlemen control production. The reality today is an artist can produce their own recordings as good as (or in many instances even better than - many of the recordings I've heard lately are cr&p - hot levels, bland mixing and equalization, etc.) multimillion dollar recording studios - thanks to digital recording software and low cost computers to run it. What once was an arcane subject, and a costly proposition, is not any more.

Given that senario - I think what I said stands: as artists shift to an independent model, there is not a lot the record companies can do. If I produce my own recordings, market and distribute them via the net under a creative commons license, that is one less portfolio that is being managed by the record companies. If you multiply that times thousands or hundreds of thousands of artists (and in particular when this business model starts getting the attention of the mainstream bands - a la Radio Head - and they start dropping their labels) - then the record companies will become irrelevant; I can't see what they can do to combat that.

The record companies will cling to their old portfolios, and try to attack people for pirating from that - but that will only last so long. Even as long as they have extended the copyright protections, eventually those works will fall into the public domain. In the meantime, these recordings will become less and less relevant to the current music scene - and I would also argue that artists/portfolio holders that attempt to lock down old music, will relegate whatever advancements the artists may have made to the dustbin of history. Copies of the songs will be so few and far between, that few will remember what made a given track a milestone because fewer ears are listening (I already see this happening with my children - indy music is becoming a larger part of their music, and older music - even if they wanted to listen to it for historical reference - is becoming harder to come by given limited funds). I am saddened by this; a young bassist could learn some nuances from listening to Paul McCartney, for example, but won't because it is too cost prohibitive. Of course, that may lead to invention and new technique, so it is probably a glass half full, glass half empty proposition.

They may try to attack indy artists for copyright infringement - maybe a phrase in the song sounds the same or very similar to a phrase in a protected work. I don't think they have much chance of winning this battle because music, much like the alphabet, is a limited domain. While there are literally millions (maybe billions) of ways of combining notes, there are a lesser number that are appropriate for a given piece of music due to the physics of the harmonics of sound waves. To win such a battle, the recording industry would have to prove that you copied a large proportion of your song from a protected work - not likely, if you create independent works. This will more probably effect people who mix existing recordings to create mash-ups - but again, most problems can be avoided if you use indy music - particularly music that is provided via a creative commons or equivalent license.

I think the landscape will be quite a bit different in 10 to 20 years from now - what we are seeing today is just the beginning of a wave. Bookmark this thread. If I'm right, then this can remind you of my vision; if I'm wrong, you can come here and rub my face in it. Reality will probably be somewhere inbetween; record companies will survive and be a lot smaller, and won't do business the way they do today; most artists will be indy artists.

Re:Irrelevance it just around the corner.

[Reziac]

Oh, we're talking at cross-purposes here... I generally agree with you; the future *eventually* will be with the indy artist who can produce and distribute his own work, and collect his own profits without owing 99% of it back to a label. Radiohead's bold move may not have been quite enough to start a cascade failure in the RIAA's business model, but at least it demonstrated that it CAN be done.

But at present the middlemen DO control production of the vast majority of works that fall under the DMCA (and that's what I was referring to). And rather than figuring out that "the more you tighten your grip, the more dollars slip through your fingers", they are clinging ever-more-tightly to their existing model.

I'm reminded of some ill-managed stores that when they see a drop in revenue (for whatever reason), instead of recognising that they need to create incentives for people to come back, they raise prices to make up the revenue gap -- which may work in the short term, but in the long term will drive away even more would-be customers.

I think that thanks to the obscene increase in statutory royalties, internet radio will soon show a much stronger shift toward *royalty-free" music, which by its nature is more likely to have a high percentage of indy artists. Some stations already have a policy of playing only royalty-free works (see http://www.digitalgunfire.com/radioplayrelease.rtf
) -- and guess what, they've managed to shift my tastes toward that music, if only through sheer exposure. Where do you think my dollars will go next time I purchase CDs??

Re:Irrelevance it just around the corner.

[Lodragandraoidh]

Yep we are saying the same thing.

I realize it is not going to happen over night. Nonetheless, I see it as a geometric progression - so the curve will increase probably faster than we think.

Not So Bad After All

[Anonymous Coward]

Rep. Howard Berman has been in office since 1983, so he has nothing to do with the Democratic victory in 2006.

Rest assured, we're better off now than we were with those crazy Republicans! :)

Currently

[simpleprime]

the DCMA isn't doing enough to protect the media conglomerates. Keep in mind, we need strong copyright laws because eventually the giants will fall. The internet will destroy the media conglomerates. The RIAA is able now to use technology at its aid, but is it enough? Consider seeqpod (and my related blog entry: http://www.hurox.com/u/simplemind#simplemind.blog ), it lets users search for music by aggregating the vast number of small scale 'pirates'. How can big media fight that?