Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
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)
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]
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The DMCA needs a rewrite, direly.
But I fear the agreement ends here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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.
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.
--
make install -not war