Bob, he wasn't "caught speeding". He was never pulled over while doing the supposed 90MPH. I personally know of many areas on assorted interstates and highways where doing under 90MPH will put you in danger of being slammed into by an eighteen wheeler.
Also, take into account the $150 per instance fine, pretty heavy considering the trap speed they use is still lower than reckless driving on some highways.
That said, the issue here is that a little electronic device said he was speeding, and everyone knows that when little electronic devices say something you don't want them to say they are quickly deemed "inaccurate". Sure, he was probably going well over 90MPH, but what business does the rental car company have knowing this? The driver is responsible for the rental car, not the agency. If he were to slam into a bus full of nuns, no one would have any way of generating liability from the rental car company.
I'm sure that the rental company would put forth a "safety first" yarn that they would like you to believe, but I hope that everyone can see, this is being done purely for profit.
This sure seems like an unecessary invasion of privacy to me.
(And can you imaging the megaphone blaring, "This is Enterprise Rent-A-Car, pull over and get out your credit card!" Ghastly, eh?)
This is a pretty novel approach to DVD-decryption. I'm not sure as to the legality of this, but I do know that the server where this code resides is in France, maybe they have a saner intellectual property policy?
I really think that with this release the folks at videolan.org have surpassed the OMS project, which also had an aim of bringing DVD video to the desktop.
Absolutely. While everyone may not agree with everything the EFF says and does, they are the single biggest force for the protection of liberties on-line.
Sure, the chances of the university winning its case is greater than 2600's chances of winning their cases.
What I'm sad to see is the acceptance of this fact. If a case isn't likely to be won, it should just make groups like EFF work harder to insure that it all works out.
Cohn's statement may have some merit to it, but that's really not the point. The point is that the EFF and 2600 are supposed to be allies, and in a world with so many negative forces, it's never good to see people forget who their friends are.
Besides, hackers and subversives shouldn't be discounted for what they are. If their legal arguments hold water, they should win. Legal arguments should never be won or lost based on one party being seen as "evil".
I like to think that law has not yet de-evolved into a popularity contest. Sometimes I fear I may be wrong.
It is absolutely worth listening to. To hear about the case in the EFF's own words was quite enlightening.
I suppose part of me is unhappy to find out about the recording, though...
At about 12:10PM EST, I called in and got an operator who asked me for a whole slew of information, which I gave. Before she tossed me into the mix, I asked her if callers were muted by default and she told me that they were. So, I put the conference on my work speakerphone and a few people begin gathering around, listening and talking about the case while Felten is going into details about the report that started all of this.
All of a sudden, the whole conference erupted into a chorus of people telling us to shut up. It was around this time we realized that the call was not muted at that everyone on the conference could hear us.
You would think the friggin' EFF would moderate their conferences a little better, but obviously not.
Embarrassed, I cover the mouthpiece and start to kick myself for making an ass of myself in front of reporters from about twenty major news organizations.
But then I realized, there are people who go through life without ever even having the chance to make an ass of themselves on such a grand scale, and I quickly began feeling an awful lot better about myself.
I never really liked the Associated Press or NPR much anyway.
What's interesting about the document written by Felten and his associates is the fact that it goes into no details on how to actually circumvent SDMI, but just details the inherent weaknesses in the system.
This will be a very important verdict for free speech as a whole, and the case is being fast-tracked because the USENIX conference is quickly approaching (and because matters of this nature are usually treated in this fashion).
I found out about the teleconference through the 2600 web site, but I was shocked to hear some of the things that the EFF's Cindy Cohn said about 2600's lawsuits. According to her, the EFF has a better chance of winning this case because colleges are who the laws are "meant to protect", insinuating (at least to me) that 2600 has lost its cases because they're seen as hackers and subversives. That didn't leave a very pleasant taste in my mouth.
Cohn does make a very good argument for the case against the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to "stop interfering with the scientific process."
The conference was quite interesting, however. I really regret not recording it. There was definitely a good news media turnout. Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe, NewsBytes, NPR, AP, and a whole slew of independent radio and newspaper reporters that Roblimo completely has failed to mention.
Wrong, you say? From here, that law sure does look like it backs everything I said.
"A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."
Let's first look at menacing:
menacen.
A possible danger; a threat: the menace of nuclear war.
The act of threatening.
So to menace is to threaten. Read my quote again:
"It isn't illegal to swing your fist [...] unless it can be proven you were actively threatening him."
Now, to be prosecuted under CO Rev. Statute 18-3-206, you have to "place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."
Well, what does serious (adj.) mean, exactly?
Carried out in earnest: engaged in serious drinking.
Not trifling or jesting.
Being of such import as to cause anxiety: serious injuries; a serious turn of events.
The very definition of the word "serious" includes intent. Without intent to harm, the fist swinger's actions couldn't be refered to as serious. There's no proof that the actions were not in jest, and in a criminal court case, the burden of proof would be on the prosecuter. You could claim that the fist swinger meant to harm, but you could never prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt without some other evidence. [This wouldn't be true in a civil case.]
So out the window goes the criminal "menacing" charge, because of no earnestness of action. If some chap is just swinging his fists, Colorado law says you can't claim that you were in fear of danger unless there was a seriousness to his actions, which could be rapidly approaching, attempting to strike, or verbal threats.
So, there was no menacing, thus there wasn't any "attempted misdemeanor assault".
"Swing your fist in my face in my state, and you will definitely be charged with either menacing or attempted misdemeanor assault."
As long as pedophiles have the desire to commit horrible acts against children, they will. You can't protect against a pervert uncle, or a sicko step-father.
As a note to policy makers, kiddie pr0n got around before the invention of the Internet, before the invention of the fax machine, even before the invention of Polaroid cameras. Child molestation is a social issue, and no amount of legislation can stop such a social disfunction.
Don't you hate when people don't read the link before mentioned before they respond to an article?
The page that he links to is really a howl:
"Indians attacked by `monkey man'."
It's pretty obvious that the poster was not speaking of protecting children from the dangers of pedophiles, but protecting children from the invisible monkey man which is already blamed for a handful of deaths by suicide in India.
"It has three buttons on its chest. One makes it turn into a monkey, the second gives it extra strenth, the third makes it invisible," said Kumari, the housemaid.
So MOBE, may you'll start doing a little research before counteracting with a knee-jerk.
Swinging your fists is not illegal until you hit someone. It isn't illegal to swing your fist "before another man's nose", unless it can be proven you were actively threatening him. Even then, compensation wouldn't be awarded, but you wouldn't have much of a case if your sparring partner struck you.
...Oh, I almost forgot:
I am the first private citizen to be part of the exclusive nuclear club. Today I deploy a missle from my back-yard, aimed at San Francisco. Death to the beach-dwellers!
Re:"Opt-out" is against your freedom.
on
Opt-in vs. Opt-out
·
· Score: 1
For the sake of example, I am a vacuum salesman, and my livelyhood depends on people purchasing vacuums. Instead of the dusty "opt-in" policy which has been in place so long, my business instead uses an "opt-out" policy.
This means that I have a glut of vacuums that I send to consumers with a note:
Dear Mr. Fungus:
We recieved your name from a list provided by Widget Incorporated. We know that you didn't want to be sold vacuum cleaners, but you probably made this decision in error. The attached vacuum cleaner will be billed to you unless you send it back along with a statement showing your decision 'opt-out'. If this information is not sent by the deadline then congratulations are due, you've just purchased a new Groover Dust Bevel! Enjoy!
This is the practical upshot of an 'opt-out' policy. Is making the decisions effecting the outcome of your life a "special right"?
The reason that there hasn't already been legislation to protect the consumer because it's only been recently that companies have so flagrantly disregarded the wishes of their customers.
It is up to 'We the People' to stop these corporations dead in their tracks. Let's start.
If you can listen to a MP3 stream, you can record it. XMMS can save streaming audio or you can use downloading utilities like wget to directly download the stream.
The RIAA doesn't like MP3 at all because there's no real way to attach any copyright protection to it. They are currently turning a blind eye to MP3 broadcasters, but that position may later turn hostile. For now, all MP3 broadcasters should abstain from publishing playlists for future shows, and archiving high-quality copies of old shows to avoid future legal battles.
Let's hope that the DMCA will be overturned and our copyright laws will get back to a sane state.
Correction: The DMCA is a law that was enacted to protect the copyrights of rich businesses on the Internet. It was not meant to protect the labors of smaller developers and those who actually created the Internet. This country no longer belongs to the common man, but to corporations with enough money to buy and sell you a thousand times over. Your government apologizes for any inconvenience.
How much it would cost for the people to have some rights, too?
I doubt a significantly large problem will develop so long as all the questions are posted openly and we're free to Question the Questionable Question Quality.
I, too, suspect this will be the case. However, the possibility is vaguely worrisome.
Enough "good" questions were modded up to pick from.
Yes, but what happens when there are too many good questions to pick from? The moderation system needs to be patched for these kind of interviews now before it becomes a problem (or a CmdrTaco dictatorship).
This is being guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who says this is fair to do in the name of copyright law has strayed from sanity.
Why should I have to be inconvenienced and manually tell Napster they can distribute my song when I didn't have to before? Just because RIAA owned music might be traded?
The RIAA, an organization with billions of dollars of available capital, has waged a well-funded war on any peer-to-peer file distribution network just because it might be used to distribute something they own. An end will only come when the recording industry is told that we as a people will not allow any corporation to stand in the way of innovation.
A victim of this copyright war is our personal freedoms. The RIAA has shown time and time again that they're perfectly willing to step all over the Home Recording Act if it protects their revenue stream. If the people do not act, these guidelines will only be a memory. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
This copyright inquisition will keep going on and on. The RIAA will literally never run out of money, and for that reason, they feel they can suppress anything they'd like by bombarding it with legislation. This is a real-world denial of service attack
Until we tell the RIAA that they are not allowed to continue this copyright inquisition festival, on it will go.
It's times when the Congressman actually gives his reply, or the government does what it should, or unfair laws are questioned that democracy seems as though it's still unmarred. The only hope this country has is more incidents of communication like this one.
An open fourm to pose questions to senators and congressmen may be the answer to a lot of problems we are currently having in this society.
The +5 pool of questions was about 26 comments or so in size. Let's say about 15 of those questions were above average.
The numbers worked out this time, but there are more than enough moderator points floating around on Slashdot at any given time to moderate one of these Q&A sessions into oblivion.
What can we do to make sure that the level of questions that get moderated up isn't greater than the number of allowed questions?
I fear I was a little too vague as to the question. It appears that Congressman Boucher thought I was questioning copyrighted materials in source code. Unfortunate, I wanted to see the question answered as well.
In a nutshell, there were countless mirrors of the DeCSS source code, but the MPAA used threats of lawsuits as their blunt object with which to beat these sites off the Internet. 2600 rebelled, and would not remove their list of links to the source code until forced by a court of law.
The interesting part of this is the fact that source code, without being compiled cannot be run by a computer, so the source code itself is benign. Only when a user compiles and runs the program does it circumvent DVD copy control.
Basically, the DMCA went so far as to halt the exchange of purely intellectual material.
There is a very interesting document on the site that portrays source code as protected free speech.
I realize that his time is quite important, but is there really a possibility of giving the Congressman more information and re-submitting the question?
On the web page for LibraNET's Linux distribution download, they claim that they have consulted with the FSF and that this is legitimate!
Frankly, I don't know of anyone who used LibraNet's distribution before now, and I have the feeling I will not be meeting any more. This is an example to open source developers on how to doom your project with almost clinical accuracy.
LibraNet may have been poor before, but they can expect to be poor and scowled at until they dry up and blow away.
This is the worst download policy I've ever seen! Why don't they just go ahead and rm/* -rf the development machine now!?
You can say what you'd like about the man, but Congressman Boucher is fighting the good fight on this one, even if you don't agree with his politics. At least show some respect for the man, he's gotten to the point where his opinion matters.
I'm guessing that not too many people take you seriously if you sprinkle "egg-sucking" into your political rants.
The DMCA is an atrocity and I'll happily back anyone who has the nerve to to stand up to the corporations that are trying to take this country over.
Also, you might want to do some research before you sing praises to John Warner. You'll note that John Warner voted for the "Flag Desecration Amendment", and obvious attempt to even further limit free speech in this country by limiting criticism of the United States. You will note that Rick Boucher did not vote for this Amendment.
Maybe you should write a letter to Warner and ask him to start standing up for your rights once in a while instead of doing his best to pass legislation to take them away.
Slashdot Mirror
Bob, he wasn't "caught speeding". He was never pulled over while doing the supposed 90MPH. I personally know of many areas on assorted interstates and highways where doing under 90MPH will put you in danger of being slammed into by an eighteen wheeler.
Also, take into account the $150 per instance fine, pretty heavy considering the trap speed they use is still lower than reckless driving on some highways.
That said, the issue here is that a little electronic device said he was speeding, and everyone knows that when little electronic devices say something you don't want them to say they are quickly deemed "inaccurate". Sure, he was probably going well over 90MPH, but what business does the rental car company have knowing this? The driver is responsible for the rental car, not the agency. If he were to slam into a bus full of nuns, no one would have any way of generating liability from the rental car company.
I'm sure that the rental company would put forth a "safety first" yarn that they would like you to believe, but I hope that everyone can see, this is being done purely for profit.
This sure seems like an unecessary invasion of privacy to me.
(And can you imaging the megaphone blaring, "This is Enterprise Rent-A-Car, pull over and get out your credit card!" Ghastly, eh?)
This is a pretty novel approach to DVD-decryption. I'm not sure as to the legality of this, but I do know that the server where this code resides is in France, maybe they have a saner intellectual property policy?
I really think that with this release the folks at videolan.org have surpassed the OMS project, which also had an aim of bringing DVD video to the desktop.
Absolutely. While everyone may not agree with everything the EFF says and does, they are the single biggest force for the protection of liberties on-line.
Support the EFF. They're still doing their job.
Sure, the chances of the university winning its case is greater than 2600's chances of winning their cases.
What I'm sad to see is the acceptance of this fact. If a case isn't likely to be won, it should just make groups like EFF work harder to insure that it all works out.
Cohn's statement may have some merit to it, but that's really not the point. The point is that the EFF and 2600 are supposed to be allies, and in a world with so many negative forces, it's never good to see people forget who their friends are.
Besides, hackers and subversives shouldn't be discounted for what they are. If their legal arguments hold water, they should win. Legal arguments should never be won or lost based on one party being seen as "evil".
I like to think that law has not yet de-evolved into a popularity contest. Sometimes I fear I may be wrong.
It is absolutely worth listening to. To hear about the case in the EFF's own words was quite enlightening.
I suppose part of me is unhappy to find out about the recording, though...
At about 12:10PM EST, I called in and got an operator who asked me for a whole slew of information, which I gave. Before she tossed me into the mix, I asked her if callers were muted by default and she told me that they were. So, I put the conference on my work speakerphone and a few people begin gathering around, listening and talking about the case while Felten is going into details about the report that started all of this.
All of a sudden, the whole conference erupted into a chorus of people telling us to shut up. It was around this time we realized that the call was not muted at that everyone on the conference could hear us.
You would think the friggin' EFF would moderate their conferences a little better, but obviously not.
Embarrassed, I cover the mouthpiece and start to kick myself for making an ass of myself in front of reporters from about twenty major news organizations.
But then I realized, there are people who go through life without ever even having the chance to make an ass of themselves on such a grand scale, and I quickly began feeling an awful lot better about myself.
I never really liked the Associated Press or NPR much anyway.
What's interesting about the document written by Felten and his associates is the fact that it goes into no details on how to actually circumvent SDMI, but just details the inherent weaknesses in the system.
This will be a very important verdict for free speech as a whole, and the case is being fast-tracked because the USENIX conference is quickly approaching (and because matters of this nature are usually treated in this fashion).
I found out about the teleconference through the 2600 web site, but I was shocked to hear some of the things that the EFF's Cindy Cohn said about 2600's lawsuits. According to her, the EFF has a better chance of winning this case because colleges are who the laws are "meant to protect", insinuating (at least to me) that 2600 has lost its cases because they're seen as hackers and subversives. That didn't leave a very pleasant taste in my mouth.
Cohn does make a very good argument for the case against the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to "stop interfering with the scientific process."
The conference was quite interesting, however. I really regret not recording it. There was definitely a good news media turnout. Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe, NewsBytes, NPR, AP, and a whole slew of independent radio and newspaper reporters that Roblimo completely has failed to mention.
Very informative. You all should have called in.
Typos in HTML suck, don't they?
The correct link is: iMacLinux
And the URL is: http://www.imaclinux.net
Have a nice post-holiday Tuesday.
* Sigh. *
That would be Weezer. They just came out with a new album. It is quite good.
Which, I would assume, points to generalmotors.com?
God, these fuck* domains are getting confusing.
"A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."
Let's first look at menacing:
menace n.
So to menace is to threaten. Read my quote again:
"It isn't illegal to swing your fist [...] unless it can be proven you were actively threatening him."
Now, to be prosecuted under CO Rev. Statute 18-3-206, you have to "place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury."
Well, what does serious (adj.) mean, exactly?
The very definition of the word "serious" includes intent. Without intent to harm, the fist swinger's actions couldn't be refered to as serious. There's no proof that the actions were not in jest, and in a criminal court case, the burden of proof would be on the prosecuter. You could claim that the fist swinger meant to harm, but you could never prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt without some other evidence. [This wouldn't be true in a civil case.]
So out the window goes the criminal "menacing" charge, because of no earnestness of action. If some chap is just swinging his fists, Colorado law says you can't claim that you were in fear of danger unless there was a seriousness to his actions, which could be rapidly approaching, attempting to strike, or verbal threats.
So, there was no menacing, thus there wasn't any "attempted misdemeanor assault".
"Swing your fist in my face in my state, and you will definitely be charged with either menacing or attempted misdemeanor assault."
YOU ARE INCORRECT. (See Above)
Sure, sure. Agreed.
;)
As long as pedophiles have the desire to commit horrible acts against children, they will. You can't protect against a pervert uncle, or a sicko step-father.
As a note to policy makers, kiddie pr0n got around before the invention of the Internet, before the invention of the fax machine, even before the invention of Polaroid cameras. Child molestation is a social issue, and no amount of legislation can stop such a social disfunction.
Anyway, check the URL next time, man...
Don't you hate when people don't read the link before mentioned before they respond to an article?
The page that he links to is really a howl:
"Indians attacked by `monkey man'."
It's pretty obvious that the poster was not speaking of protecting children from the dangers of pedophiles, but protecting children from the invisible monkey man which is already blamed for a handful of deaths by suicide in India.
"It has three buttons on its chest. One makes it turn into a monkey, the second gives it extra strenth, the third makes it invisible," said Kumari, the housemaid.
So MOBE, may you'll start doing a little research before counteracting with a knee-jerk.
Swinging your fists is not illegal until you hit someone. It isn't illegal to swing your fist "before another man's nose", unless it can be proven you were actively threatening him. Even then, compensation wouldn't be awarded, but you wouldn't have much of a case if your sparring partner struck you.
...Oh, I almost forgot:
I am the first private citizen to be part of the exclusive nuclear club. Today I deploy a missle from my back-yard, aimed at San Francisco. Death to the beach-dwellers!
Come and get me, California.
For the sake of example, I am a vacuum salesman, and my livelyhood depends on people purchasing vacuums. Instead of the dusty "opt-in" policy which has been in place so long, my business instead uses an "opt-out" policy.
This means that I have a glut of vacuums that I send to consumers with a note:
Dear Mr. Fungus:
We recieved your name from a list provided by Widget Incorporated. We know that you didn't want to be sold vacuum cleaners, but you probably made this decision in error. The attached vacuum cleaner will be billed to you unless you send it back along with a statement showing your decision 'opt-out'. If this information is not sent by the deadline then congratulations are due, you've just purchased a new Groover Dust Bevel! Enjoy!
This is the practical upshot of an 'opt-out' policy. Is making the decisions effecting the outcome of your life a "special right"?
The reason that there hasn't already been legislation to protect the consumer because it's only been recently that companies have so flagrantly disregarded the wishes of their customers.
It is up to 'We the People' to stop these corporations dead in their tracks. Let's start.
If you can listen to a MP3 stream, you can record it. XMMS can save streaming audio or you can use downloading utilities like wget to directly download the stream.
The RIAA doesn't like MP3 at all because there's no real way to attach any copyright protection to it. They are currently turning a blind eye to MP3 broadcasters, but that position may later turn hostile. For now, all MP3 broadcasters should abstain from publishing playlists for future shows, and archiving high-quality copies of old shows to avoid future legal battles.
Let's hope that the DMCA will be overturned and our copyright laws will get back to a sane state.
Correction: The DMCA is a law that was enacted to protect the copyrights of rich businesses on the Internet. It was not meant to protect the labors of smaller developers and those who actually created the Internet. This country no longer belongs to the common man, but to corporations with enough money to buy and sell you a thousand times over. Your government apologizes for any inconvenience.
How much it would cost for the people to have some rights, too?
I doubt a significantly large problem will develop so long as all the questions are posted openly and we're free to Question the Questionable Question Quality.
I, too, suspect this will be the case. However, the possibility is vaguely worrisome.
Enough "good" questions were modded up to pick from.
Yes, but what happens when there are too many good questions to pick from? The moderation system needs to be patched for these kind of interviews now before it becomes a problem (or a CmdrTaco dictatorship).
This is being guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who says this is fair to do in the name of copyright law has strayed from sanity.
Why should I have to be inconvenienced and manually tell Napster they can distribute my song when I didn't have to before? Just because RIAA owned music might be traded?
The RIAA, an organization with billions of dollars of available capital, has waged a well-funded war on any peer-to-peer file distribution network just because it might be used to distribute something they own. An end will only come when the recording industry is told that we as a people will not allow any corporation to stand in the way of innovation.
A victim of this copyright war is our personal freedoms. The RIAA has shown time and time again that they're perfectly willing to step all over the Home Recording Act if it protects their revenue stream. If the people do not act, these guidelines will only be a memory. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
This copyright inquisition will keep going on and on. The RIAA will literally never run out of money, and for that reason, they feel they can suppress anything they'd like by bombarding it with legislation. This is a real-world denial of service attack
Until we tell the RIAA that they are not allowed to continue this copyright inquisition festival, on it will go.
Stop the RIAA, now!
I would like to mirror this sentiment.
It's times when the Congressman actually gives his reply, or the government does what it should, or unfair laws are questioned that democracy seems as though it's still unmarred. The only hope this country has is more incidents of communication like this one.
An open fourm to pose questions to senators and congressmen may be the answer to a lot of problems we are currently having in this society.
Support Congress on Tap!
I wondered that exact same thing.
The +5 pool of questions was about 26 comments or so in size. Let's say about 15 of those questions were above average.
The numbers worked out this time, but there are more than enough moderator points floating around on Slashdot at any given time to moderate one of these Q&A sessions into oblivion.
What can we do to make sure that the level of questions that get moderated up isn't greater than the number of allowed questions?
I fear I was a little too vague as to the question. It appears that Congressman Boucher thought I was questioning copyrighted materials in source code. Unfortunate, I wanted to see the question answered as well.
Yes, links should have been provided to the 2600 DVD Lawsuit Archive.
In a nutshell, there were countless mirrors of the DeCSS source code, but the MPAA used threats of lawsuits as their blunt object with which to beat these sites off the Internet. 2600 rebelled, and would not remove their list of links to the source code until forced by a court of law.
The interesting part of this is the fact that source code, without being compiled cannot be run by a computer, so the source code itself is benign. Only when a user compiles and runs the program does it circumvent DVD copy control.
Basically, the DMCA went so far as to halt the exchange of purely intellectual material.
There is a very interesting document on the site that portrays source code as protected free speech.
I realize that his time is quite important, but is there really a possibility of giving the Congressman more information and re-submitting the question?
On the web page for LibraNET's Linux distribution download, they claim that they have consulted with the FSF and that this is legitimate!
/* -rf the development machine now!?
Frankly, I don't know of anyone who used LibraNet's distribution before now, and I have the feeling I will not be meeting any more. This is an example to open source developers on how to doom your project with almost clinical accuracy.
LibraNet may have been poor before, but they can expect to be poor and scowled at until they dry up and blow away.
This is the worst download policy I've ever seen! Why don't they just go ahead and rm
You can say what you'd like about the man, but Congressman Boucher is fighting the good fight on this one, even if you don't agree with his politics. At least show some respect for the man, he's gotten to the point where his opinion matters.
I'm guessing that not too many people take you seriously if you sprinkle "egg-sucking" into your political rants.
The DMCA is an atrocity and I'll happily back anyone who has the nerve to to stand up to the corporations that are trying to take this country over.
Also, you might want to do some research before you sing praises to John Warner. You'll note that John Warner voted for the "Flag Desecration Amendment", and obvious attempt to even further limit free speech in this country by limiting criticism of the United States. You will note that Rick Boucher did not vote for this Amendment.
Maybe you should write a letter to Warner and ask him to start standing up for your rights once in a while instead of doing his best to pass legislation to take them away.