Slashdot Mirror
SOPA Provisions Being Introduced Piecemeal From Lamar Smith
bricko sends this disappointing but not unexpected news from Techdirt:
"While it didn't get nearly as much attention as other parts of SOPA, one section in the bill that greatly concerned us was the massive expansion of the diplomatic corp.'s 'IP attaches.' If you're unfamiliar with the program, basically IP attaches are 'diplomats' (and I use the term loosely) who go around the globe pushing a copyright maximalist position on pretty much every other country. Their role is not to support more effective or more reasonable IP policy. It is solely to increase expansion, and basically act as Hollywood's personal thugs pressuring other countries to do the will of the major studios and labels. The role is literally defined as pushing for 'aggressive support for enforcement action' throughout the world. ... In other words, these people are not neutral. They do not have the best interests of the public or the country in mind. Their job is solely to push the copyright maximalist views of the legacy entertainment industry around the globe, and position it as the will of the U.S. government. It was good that this was defeated as a part of SOPA... but now comes the news that Lamar Smith is introducing a new bill that not only brings back this part, but appears to expand it and make it an even bigger deal."
IP is a euphemism for bit slavery.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
How could Lamar do this? I strongly suspect this to be a javelin to the heart of internet democracy, thrown by Lamar with his limp-wristed throwing style.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
Trying to sneak rejected legislation in under wraps should be grounds for public beheading.
Time to get serious with these fucks, or else they'll never learn.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
About 10 years ago I submitted a slashdot book review for the dark satire, KW Jeter's Noir.
When I first read it, I was convinced he intended it more as a satirical caricature than a cautionary tale.
Now I'm not so sure.
I can see the fnords!
Out of curiosity, what keeps Lamar in office? His vehement support for the content cartels presumably doesn't hurt his war chest; but I don't imagine the 'Decadent Hollywood types love cutting me checks!' gambit is what gets out the voters down in Texas. He does have the requisite enthusiasm for fetuses; but that's a dime a dozen, and can be had from people who lack the additional oddity of being a Christian Scientist who spends part of his time hanging out in Massachusetts...
Does anybody more familiar with the fellow's local style know what he does that keeps him in office, as opposed to some socially-identical baptist or something without a copyright maximalist fetish?
I like how it says to "Elevate the playing field." What do they mean? Tearing up everything and then paving their own companies above it so nothing grows? Also, the fact that it got passed hastily has me a bit worried. Yes, that trick almost worked with SOPA, but what if this one actually makes it past? My God, this thing is a Cthulu holding a flower while holding a gun behind his back, ready to shoot every form of competition.
Looking at where the IP attaches are sent(http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/attache/index.jsp), China, Thailand, India, mid-east, it's clear that it's not all about the RIAA-style intellectual property rampages. This has more to do with the counterfeiting of physical goods, and the stealing of actual, useful research. Given the US's unwise decision to jump into an IP economy, this makes sense, and isn't necessarily a bad thing. They're not worrying about software and music here, they're worrying about research and product design. No need to panic, this isn't so bad. Of course Smith will probably be back with some of the dangerous things letter, but this looks innocuous.
"Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you because your government is scheduled to soon receive an 'IP Attache' from my country's Commerce Department. Please be aware that despite the departmental title, this person DOES NOT represent my will, nor the will of the American people as a whole. The position he or she occupies was created through corrupt means and despite our vocal protests. I and my fellow Americans ask that you treat this representative as the corporate thug they are. They are not a diplomat. They have neither your best interests, nor ours, as their goal, only their own. I humbly ask that you treat them as you would any other hostile entity.
Sincerely, (name)"
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Neither party is better than the other on IP issues. Once in a while, you seem to get the occasional outlier/fluke (c.f. the fate of the original SOPA/PIPA), but neither are pushing in anything remotely close to the right direction.
Am I the only one who's thinking headcrab when hearing about Lamar?
A pre-emptive strike is needed.
Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.
Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.
The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.
The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.
I am a voter in Lamar's district (San Antonio, TX) and have been voting against him for the last 12+ years. He runs as a republican in a very "safe" republican district - no democrat will ever fill his spot.
The best way to vote against him is to vote in the republican primary for another republican, in this case Richard Morgan. Unfortunately, my vote + my families vote + my other friends that I almost have drag to the polling booth don't seem to make much of a dent.
Copyright (and intellectual-property and Internet legislation in general) is one area where Republicans and Democrats are pretty much equal. Unfortunately for us, they're equally horrible. As a sampling, so far we've had:
The CDA, pushed primarily by a Democrats (Exon) in a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic president.
The DMCA, passed unanimously by 57 Republican and 43 Democratic senators, and signed by a Democratic president.
The CTEA, sponsored from beyond the grave by Republican Sonny Bono, likewise passed unanimously by the same Senate and by a Republican House, and signed by a Democratic president.
Prior to that, we had the Copyright Act of 1976, which among other things also extended the length of copyrights, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Republican president.
Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, passed by a Democratic congress, signed by a Republican president.
COICA, introduced by Patrick Leahy (Democrat), unanimously passed by a committee of both parties, blocked by Ron Wyden (Republican).
PIPA, exactly the same as above (though the committee members may have changed, I didn't check that).
SOPA, sponsored by our good friend Lamar, a Republican, but co-sponsored by members of both parties, backed by groups from associated with both parties and by ex-Clinton and ex-Bush 2.0 administration members.
So it's basically been a bipartisan buggerfest, for several decades, for almost as long as there's been consumer-available copying equipment.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
2. Why do they keep re-electing him?
Why do we keep re-electing any of them?