Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oregon Senator Seeks To Block COICA

Posted by Soulskill on from the standing-up dept.

jfruhlinger writes "The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."

81 comments

  1. Oregon voters... by Stregano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thank you for a wise decision

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Oregon voters... by adversus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Welcome ;) In reality this also has to do with our large IT industry here in Oregon, which is expanding as we speak. He doesn't want something as stupid as this draconian law to impede that.

    2. Re:Oregon voters... by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you for a wise decision

      I'm glad he's doing this, but this exemplifies how insane Senate rules and traditions are - all it takes is one Senator to stop anything. It was bad enough when Senators had more discretion, but nowadays you have Senators putting holds on everything and filibustering every single bill that comes through the Senate. It's ridiculous.

    3. Re:Oregon voters... by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it takes 41 of 100 senators to make it work.

      if 3/5 th's bring it to an end via Cloture
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

      so one senator can threaten it.. he needs 40 others behind him to ensure it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:Oregon voters... by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that once your tech sector becomes entrenched they will push Oregon to be just as stupid as Washington has become. 8-)

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    5. Re:Oregon voters... by barkingcorndog · · Score: 1

      I knew there was a reason I voted for that guy.

      --
      "I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
    6. Re:Oregon voters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how anyone would say that.

      Washington has Microsoft..

    7. Re:Oregon voters... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or they could just wait out the filibuster. I heard a lot about Republicans threatening to filibuster, but they never actually had too because the Democrats apparently don't believe in their own policies enough to spend a night on the senate floor.

    8. Re:Oregon voters... by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it takes 41 of 100 senators to make it work.

      It takes one Senator to make a hold work. It takes 41 Senators (in theory) to make a filibuster work. In practice, a single Senator merely has to declare he intends to filibuster a bill in the Senate and the bill is filibustered. The Senate does not actually carry out actual filibusters anymore, where people get up and talk for hours, and the Republican party has voted in virtual lockstep in the past decade or so, ensuring they always have the votes if it comes down to it (Democrats tend to be in constant disarray, cf. Joe Lieberman.)

      Graph out the number of filibusters per Congress. They remain low for centuries, and then they suddenly skyrocket in the past decade, with pretty much every year shattering the previous record. The 111th Congress broke the record not even a year in. We've even seen the filibustering of bills everyone agrees on just to delay the introduction of other bills- for example, Republicans filibustered a defense spending bill just to delay debate on the health reform bill. The tactic of minority parties in the modern Senate is simply to delay and stop everything.

      That's what I mean by the rules are insane.

    9. Re:Oregon voters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for a wise decision

      I'm glad he's doing this, but this exemplifies how insane Senate rules and traditions are - all it takes is one Senator to stop anything. It was bad enough when Senators had more discretion, but nowadays you have Senators putting holds on everything and filibustering every single bill that comes through the Senate. It's ridiculous.

      And those rules are one of the few things left protecting use from our oh-so-wonderful government from "solving" every damn whinge from anyone with a pair of lungs and the balls to complain loudly enough.

      The last "conservative" Republican Presidents BOTH ran huge* deficits - OUR GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL!!!!

      * - "huge" in pre-Pelosi/Reid/Obama terms, anyway...

    10. Re:Oregon voters... by adversus · · Score: 1

      Our IT sector is already entrenched. Intel alone employs more people in my county than any other employer, and that doesn't include other silicon shops (FEI, etc.) or other innovation based firms (Genentech, or the hundreds of new media/content producers and hosters that aren't a part of the industrial tech scene). Wyden is a good guy, I voted for him. But he's a politician, so he's doing what a politician does.

    11. Re:Oregon voters... by Achra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Senate does not actually carry out actual filibusters anymore, where people get up and talk for hours,

      This is something that I've often remarked on, and I simply don't understand. That is to say, I understand the concept that because any senator is allowed to hold the floor and talk about whatever subject that they want for as long as they want, then there is a concept called a "filibuster". What I _don't_ understand is that Senators are simply allowed to say "I am filibustering", and that's all it takes. It's like an epic rambling useless lecture that can last for eternity, yet is only imaginary? WTF? I think that the Senators should have to actually stand on the floor and give their famous lecture on the intricacies of film photography.. or whatever other useless subject he can come up with. Seems like it would make the Senate floor a lot more interesting place. Perhaps the Senators were so tired of listening to "Senator Professor Johnson's epic physics lecture from hell" that they all voted that he could just shut up and sit down? I'm genuinely curious how we got to this state of affairs and I can't help but think that it is fundamentally flawed.

      --
      Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
    12. Re:Oregon voters... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Are the rules really insane, or have things in this country simply become unworkable?

      Are the rules the same as they've always been, or have they changed? If the rules are the same, but the behaviors are very different, then the rules are not insane, because they worked just fine for centuries.

    13. Re:Oregon voters... by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wyden is a good guy

      How long have you lived in Oregon?

      I lived in the Portland area when Wyden first ran for the Senate ( I still live in the PNW) and he was a complete idiot as far as I was concerned. He couldn't find countries on a map of the world that were in the national news on a daily basis, and on which he was expressing public opinions as to what the US needed to do there. I mean, how can you form an intelligent opinion of what our national policy should be when you know so little about an area that you don't even know where it is, let alone what the historical conflicts were between the different cultures in that area? To me, he was in so far over his head on the issues that he made himself look completely incompetent, and I've never seen anything from him since that has changed my opinion.

      I don't know why he took this stand, but I'd bet his understanding of the issue is very thin, and his stand on IT issues as a whole is self-contradictory. IMO, he most likely got this one right by throwing darts blindfolded at a board or from a coin flip.

      BTW, I was a Democrat when I lived in the Portland area.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    14. Re:Oregon voters... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Someone's sig is apt: "vote gridlock", no filibusters are then needed.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    15. Re:Oregon voters... by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness for someone with their head being on straight.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    16. Re:Oregon voters... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Right.

      IMO, the vast majority of all three branches of government are more concerned with their party than with their constituents. They are traitors and should be treated as such.

    17. Re:Oregon voters... by bmo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the rules for filibustering have changed. The start of the rule changes began in the 60s. Then with more rule changes in the 70s the number of filibusters skyrocketed.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_U.S._Senate

      In an effort to make things "easier" they broke the system.

      --
      BMO

    18. Re:Oregon voters... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are the rules the same as they've always been, or have they changed?

      A little bit of both. Fillibusters have always existed in this country; they're something we brought over from England with us, along with things like sovereign immunity. However, as others have said, they used to be actual filibusters: You stopped the work of the Senate by exploting the rule that you held the floor as long as you held the floor (kept speaking, kept standing, etc), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style. Somewhere along the way--and I really don't know where--it became you simply saying "I'd like this bill to require 60 votes instead of 50 please!" and going back home to see how it turns out. It's both the same and different.

      But I think the real change is the invention of career politicians and the cementing of political parties. Political parties have pretty much always existed, but more and more they have become enshrined by law. Third parties have difficulty getting into debates or onto ballots and are decried as a "wasted vote," which wasn't always the case. The party in power is in charge of drawing district lines, leading to things like gerrymandering. Most states in the union perpetuate closed primaries, encouraging the polarization of their candidates to appeal to the extreme fringes of their own party and not the moderate climate of the nation as a whole. The nation's political makeup is essentially determined, year after year, by a handful of in-play districts across the nation; almost everybody else is safe, as evidenced by a re-election rate historically of about 90% (true even in the Democrats' "sweeping win" in 2008; I haven't looked at the 2010 Republican results that closely yet. I suspect it will be close be slightly under.) Each party determines its own leadership, right down to the committee assignments -- meaning that even if by some miracle an independent did win, or he turned independent during a term, which is what we see far more often, he still needs to choose which party he wants to caucus with and whether he is one of the most powerful men in the Senate or one of the most impotent depends on one of the two big parties anyway, which you can be sure leads to quite a bit of deal-making behind closed doors.

      "Politician" is now a job description rather than a public service. These people are no longer ordinary citizens, still working their fields or selling their wares. Their entire job is politics, the vast majority of their working time spent trying to get re-elected, a little with their staff and with their party scheming on how best to screw the other side, and a handful of time actually voting or conferencing or debating--you know, getting things done.

      In that sense, things have changed. But the problem is not that it has become unworkable--the problem is actually that it has become too workable. Republicans consistently walk in lock-step. Democrats usually walk in lock-step. The outcome of bills are usually known well before the votes are taken, and most of it is known before the whip even goes around asking people how they intend to vote. Congress--the Senate in particular--was never meant to work quickly, but with a two-party system and a divided nation we can typically count on any disputed bill already having somewhere around 40-45% votes for and 40-45% votes against, leaving the outcome pending not only a small number of people, but in reality whether or not that small number of people are going to continue walking in lock-step with their party. Nobody has to spend time convincing others to vote for them (unless by that we mean coercing others to vote for them either by threats or by promises to vote their way on something else or include some money for such-and-such), nobody has to spend time convincing others that he's right, and bills succeed more by the combination of which party is in power and which party supports it than actual merit.

      I

    19. Re:Oregon voters... by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last night's Jon Stewart was talking about this very thing.

      The author he was interviewing was basically making the case that our system is broke, but not because of the overreach of government (a case against tea party/conservative anti-regulation).

      At one point, Stewart said, (paraphrasing) "So basically you are saying that politics has been so perfected that governance is impossible"....

      The spirit of the rules themselves aren't necessarily broken, but they have been around so long, that every single way to abuse them is well documented, and now in use each election cycle. And a party pushes the rule boundaries each year, the other party responds the next year with another stretch of the limits of those rules.

      The rules need to change. Historically the senate was supposed to be a place where proposals went to die. A moderating effect on the house, whereby only the most sensible bills would pass. But now we see every single bill dying in a political game, and it is pretty obvious that those rules need to change.

      I would rather see the senate rules changed to allow passing bills by a simple majority (thereby letting the electorate truly get whatever populist fad is raging that year) than see all progress stopped. I'm sure we would see horrible sessions, with horrible consequences, but maybe....just maybe, that would wake the average citizen up and we'd start taking voting a little bit more seriously.

      Of course, this is all tied in with the average citizen's ability to get to the truth. And I don't have high hopes for that given the amount of money flooding political campaigns (Citizen's United scotus ruling, for example).

      In an ideal world, major campaign finance reform would take place first.

    20. Re:Oregon voters... by dinolocks · · Score: 1

      Can they envision a truly independent president being successful and popular without some massive influx of completely independent congressmen at the exact same time?

      I agree with everything you just said, except this line. I think there is a pre existing Hatfield Vs McCoys thing going on between Democrats and Republicans. At the current rate of obstructionism that the republicans are promising, an independent might get more help than a Democrat would from the Republicans. For example, imagine if Lieberman was president (I'm wincing while typing that). He would be getting help from Republicans and Democrats and as much as I really dislike the guy, his independent status might actually get a lot passed*.

      * probably nothing i would like, but a lot.

    21. Re:Oregon voters... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The Senate does not actually carry out actual filibusters anymore, where people get up and talk for hours, and the Republican party has voted in virtual lockstep in the past decade or so, ensuring they always have the votes if it comes down to it (Democrats tend to be in constant disarray, cf. Joe Lieberman.)

      I agree the Republicans have been using filibusters much more than they were historically used. But it's simply untrue that the Republican party has voted in virtual lockstep the past decade. That's just political spin by one side trying to blame things on the other side. The Washington Post actually tracks how often Senators vote with their party, and there's been no real pattern other than members of the party in power tending to vote with their party more often.

      107th Senate 88.4% Dem (50), 86.0% Rep (53)
      108th Senate 84.9% Dem (48), 91.8% Rep (51)
      109th Senate 85.1% Dem (45), 87.2% Rep (55)
      110th Senate 87.5% Dem (49), 77.8% Rep (51)
      111st Senate 90.1% Dem (63), 85.3% Rep (43)
      10 year average: 87.2% Dem, 85.6% Rep

      So you can see, during the last 4 years that the Democrats have been in control of the Senate, the Democrats have actually voted more in lock-step than the Republicans. (The Dems + 2 Independents controlled the 110th Senate, the 51 Republicans reflect 49 seats with 2 members replaced during the term.) You can go back further if you wish. Statistically, aside from increased filibusters, there hasn't been much difference in the voting patterns of the two parties in the last four years of the Senate than in previous years.

    22. Re:Oregon voters... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm glad he's doing this, but this exemplifies how insane Senate rules and traditions are - all it takes is one Senator to stop anything. It was bad enough when Senators had more discretion, but nowadays you have Senators putting holds on everything and filibustering every single bill that comes through the Senate. It's ridiculous.

      The point of a legislature is to critically examine proposed legislation. Rather than simply "rubber stamping" whatever is placed before it. Far far worst is where people are voting for bills they have not read and fully understood. The only "ridiculous" part of this happening now is that it means that US Senators were probably not previously doing their jobs. The time when the US would have actually needed the most legislation would have been in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

    23. Re:Oregon voters... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that we're screwed on a more fundamental level because the people are really stupid about politics now. This last election provides a perfect example of that: the Republicans screwed us over, so in 2008 people voted for a lot of Democrats. Then the Democrats screwed us over (shock!), so this year people went out and voted for... a bunch of Republicans. Wait, what?

      I mean, it takes a really special level of stupidity to think that option A is going to fix what option B broke, when option A has already failed. The voters in our country apparently have that level of stupidity. After the election this year, I gave up on the democratic process ever working in the US again.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    24. Re:Oregon voters... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Most states in the union perpetuate closed primaries, encouraging the polarization of their candidates to appeal to the extreme fringes of their own party and not the moderate climate of the nation as a whole

      A co-worker was talking about this the other day. He was pointing out how the parties have found a way to get the government and taxpayers to legitimize and pay for the cost of a two party system. We are basically paying the cost of what should be internal party issues.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  2. Once he gets what he wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from whoever he wants it from, the hold will be gone.

    Go extortion!

    1. Re:Once he gets what he wants by Elbart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You misspelled democracy.

    2. Re:Once he gets what he wants by blair1q · · Score: 1

      No, he misspelled Legislature.

      How they got there is irrelevant.

    3. Re:Once he gets what he wants by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Informative

      from whoever he wants it from, the hold will be gone.

      You're not familiar with Ron Wyden, I think.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  3. Re:He's a Democrat by noidentity · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile."

    ...targeted at the disgusting perversions made to copyright and patent law since they were created. But such an event is purely imaginary, just like the property the laws supposedly create.

  4. Re:He's a Democrat by hguorbray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do they hate our Freedom?

    Oh yeah -they're the government

    -I'm just sayin'

  5. It's awesome by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when the the person you sent emails to about an issue does what you want.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:It's awesome by eepok · · Score: 1

      I've been lucky to feel that sense of affect once before. It's definitely noticeable.

      Of course, for every issue after that, you'll find reasons to justify why actions do not coincide with your suggestions. It's kinda like the development of a tradition involving the super bowl and a lucky pair of socks.

  6. Re:He's a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The boundary of our freedom coincides with the boundary of corporate control. I doubt they hate our freedom, so much, it just gets in the way.

  7. So he's a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    COICA Bloicker?

  8. Re:He's a Democrat by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do they hate our Freedom?

    Oh yeah -they're the government

    -I'm just sayin'

    You know, it's the rich and corporate elite who hate our freedoms. It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers to buy and bribe our so-called-democratically-elected government representatives.

    Government will always exist, the question is, who does your congresscritter work for? I always reward good behavior despite party.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  9. Awww. by peacefinder · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now, Ron. Don't go making me wish I'd voted for you.

    Oh, wait... Actually yes, please do!

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  10. Bill's Title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't be the only one wanting to call this bill CLOACA

    1. Re:Bill's Title? by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      You're not, my mind keeps trying to "auto-correct" the spelling to cloaca as well.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    2. Re:Bill's Title? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      Me too. Glad I'm not the only one.

      Congress and Lobbyists Organizing Asinine Copyright Abuse?

      --
      Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
    3. Re:Bill's Title? by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      I don't know, that spells it out a little too clearly. Something like that might not fool enough people to avoid scrutiny.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
  11. Is it any coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that COICA sounds a lot like BOHICA ?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOHICA)

  12. Thanks, Pavlov! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    Whenever a politician comes to a decision that seems like common sense I usually suspect ulterior motives.

    1. Re:Thanks, Pavlov! by Aerynvala · · Score: 1

      At the very least I question that we're getting anything close to the full story.

      --
      http://transformativeworks.org/
    2. Re:Thanks, Pavlov! by MichaelKristopeit203 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      whenever a commenter references humanity in regards to experiments in canine psychology, i usually suspect an ignorant hypocrite.

      my dogs agree. i gave them a treat.

    3. Re:Thanks, Pavlov! by MichaelKristopeit166 · · Score: 0
      shouldn't i be calling you an idiot for being idiotic?

      you're an ignorant hypocrite.

    4. Re:Thanks, Pavlov! by MichaelKristopeit212 · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot.

  13. The one great thing about the Senate by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is that any Senator can block any bill anytime for no reason at all.

    The Senate depends on unanimous consent to get much of its work done, and a single senator can throw a monkey wrench into the works by withdrawing consent.

    There's definitely one senator out there who'll be man enough to block the bill, either a leftie or a hardcore righty.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  14. Thank you by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Write him to say thank you:

    http://wyden.senate.gov/

    I'm embarrassed to say that one of my senators is on the passing committee, and I've already written him about that, but let's keep Wyden supported.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I just wrote him. And I suggested that America's "science industry" is approximately four times as large as the Hollywood entertainment industry, and that Copyright just ties scientists hands.

  15. for those who don't want to copy/paste: by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    "Bend over, here it comes again"

    Now what unflattering parody acronym can we come up with for ACTA?

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:for those who don't want to copy/paste: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anal Container Tazer Association?

  16. Republicrat or Demlican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you summary writer for not mentioning party affiliation which is irrelevant. Now to get that shit off the ballot and make people think about who they vote for...

    1. Re:Republicrat or Demlican by PotatoFiend · · Score: 1

      Amen. The media can help curb the idiotic partisan bickering aspect of the national dialog by simply omitting a politician's party affiliation in each story unless the issue at hand is expressly party-related.

      --
      "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
    2. Re:Republicrat or Demlican by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The media can help curb the idiotic partisan bickering aspect of the national dialog by simply omitting a politician's party affiliation in each story unless the issue at hand is expressly party-related.

      Won't the parties inevitably claim that it is then imperative that the party name be included if either

      • Their party did something very good
        • or
      • The other party did something very bad

      ?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  17. Thanks Senator Ron Wyden (D)! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Once again, I notice the Slashdot bias or leaving the party affiliation of an elected official off if it's a Republican but would be seen as a negative, or a Democrat doing something most /.er's would see as a positive...

    Please pardon for the plagiarism. If sued, I will use a defense of parody.

    1. Re:Thanks Senator Ron Wyden (D)! by sky289hawk1 · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't matter. People shouldn't be voting on party affiliation as much as they should be voting for people who do the right things.

    2. Re:Thanks Senator Ron Wyden (D)! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It's a joke son, a copy of the first post in the Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA article.

    3. Re:Thanks Senator Ron Wyden (D)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... a (D) that's not in bed with RIAA/MPAA? Must be the exception that confirms the rule... but regardless we'll have to wait and see how Senator Wyden can stand up to the party-internal pressure that's going to be put on him.

  18. I held my nose and voted for Wyden... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ..even though he fought against health care and, coincidentally, counts health insurance companies among his biggest campaign contributors. Feeling a little better about it now.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    1. Re:I held my nose and voted for Wyden... by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 4, Informative

      ..even though he fought against health care and, coincidentally, counts health insurance companies among his biggest campaign contributors...

      Well, if you mean he fought against the watered down pablum the senate passed, but he was on the record in favor of a single-payer system.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
  19. Re:He's a Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they hate our Freedom?

    Oh yeah -they're the government

    -I'm just sayin'

    You know, it's the rich and corporate elite who hate our freedoms. It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers to buy and bribe our so-called-democratically-elected government representatives.

    Government will always exist, the question is, who does your congresscritter work for? I always reward good behavior despite party.

    If that government didn't have the power to pick economic winners and losers, there'd be no reason for "the rich and corporate elite" to exercise their Constitutional right to "petition the government".

    Give the government power to "solve problems" and you give anyone with enough resources to be affected by that power a REASON to start using those Constitional rights to make sure THEY'RE the ones the government picks as "winners".

    Stop going to the government to solve your problems, because you're giving it power that people have a Constitutional RIGHT to fight over.

  20. He's a democrat! by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    The summary omits the (D), and this guy's doing something most here would agree with. Where are the accusations of bias? :P

  21. It already is the end of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It already is the end of the year. Christmas decorations were being placed a month ago.

  22. Re:He's a Democrat by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's they who are pouring billions into campaign coffers

    Hardly, and that's the crux of the problem: congresspeople work too cheap. It doesn't take billions of dollars to get the laws you want, only a few million, in many cases only a few hundred thousand, or even just a nice house. Maybe, if we raised the price of our elected officials into the billions, bribing them wouldn't be seen as so cost-effective. It would also be much harder for corporations to hide their "contributions" from their stockholders and campaign-finance regulators.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. Re:He's a Democrat by tepples · · Score: 1

    who does your congresscritter work for?

    Congresscritters work for the movie studios that own TV news outlets. Without access to TV news, one can't get elected to federal office in the United States.

  24. But it's evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but I don't like obstacles based on arcane rules and protocols.

    Gaming the system is an evil, where the process gets in control.

  25. You call that a knife? by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    yes, but you don't have a catchy name for your tech places like our Silicon Forest over in Redmond, and so your politicians haven't started running on platforms like Strengthening Copyright Legislation like they have here in King County WA...

    Your IT sector isn't really entrenched until the local politicians start advertising their corporate pandering as if it were a universal social goal.

    (only half a smiley face there...)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:You call that a knife? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, sorry, but that is a FAIL!

      Silicon Forest

  26. mod points? lolwut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he was getting mod points, he wouldn't need to register an account everyday. That "203" literally means that is his 203rd /. account.

    He's taken sock-puppetry to a new level of fail.

  27. Re:He's a Democrat by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

    Why do they hate our Freedom?

    Oh yeah -they're the government

    You know, it's the rich and corporate elite who hate our freedoms.

    In my experience the government "hates our freedom" also, its not just the rich and corporate elite. Everybody is trying to control stuff, because if you control stuff that other people need, you can make other people to pay you to manage it. Low level bureaucrats make rules about things like where you can and can't walk outdoors, not because it necessarily protects the environment (sometimes it does), but because making and enforcing rules gives them something to be paid for. It works that way all the way to the top. Even if the rich weren't buying influence, government would still be expanding and restricting our freedom. I'm not saying "government is bad" - private corporations work that way also. Its just in the nature of greed and power. So to whatever extent we really do love freedom, and not just our own advantage at other people's expense, its on us to restrain it.

  28. Intelligence found in the Senate! by mhollis · · Score: 1

    "In the eleventh hour, intelligence was perceived in the US Senate. Right now, as we continue to report this stunning headline, reporters are en route to discover the source of this rumor, and if it is factual, we'll bring you straight to the source. Stay tuned for more breaking news as it happens..."

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  29. COICA=ACTA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found an article which shows the connection.Is it a coincidence that this bill was attempted practically within the same week of ACTA?

    "This bill is also associated with ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) was decided last week behind closed doors without public debate or democratic process to protect endangered media corporations, publishing companies, and institutions such as the RIAA and MPAA."

    http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-boston/senate-panel-oks-internet-censorship-bill-is-this-why

  30. You _stole_ our sillicon forest? by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Really I guess once they cut down all the forest in Redmond WA they couldn't call it that any more. Now is just a technoslum...

    In the late eighties and early ninties the Silicon Forest was where Microsoft lived here in Redmond.

    So I guess you guys _are_ entrenched.

    Of course that entrenchment is not official till someone at a tech company forces a major political sea-change in local government politics by threatening to leave.

    If that has happened there large scale like it has (twice) here, then I bow to your superior bought-up technical status...

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  31. (proof of the theft, call the cops) by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Seattle_since_1940#Silicon_Forest:_1985-.3F

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  32. other point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On technonsense.com it seems that there are also people suffering from the lack of a proper regulation of the file sharing