Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Apr 2006 15:06 UTC, submitted by Punktyras
Legal For the last few years, a coalition of technology companies, academics and computer programmers has been trying to persuade Congress to scale back the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Now US Congress is preparing to do precisely the opposite. A proposed copyright law seen by CNET News.com would expand the DMCA's restrictions on software that can bypass copy protections and grant federal police more wiretapping and enforcement powers.
Order by: Score:
What about our rights?
by KenJackson on Wed 26th Apr 2006 15:36 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

I want the RIGHT to watch legally purchased DVD movies and listen to legally purchased CD music on my GNU/Linux PC using open source software. But open source software that can render video and audio data would probably be considered software that can bypass copy protections. This stinks.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What about our rights?
by yanik on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:03 UTC in reply to "What about our rights?"
yanik Member since:
2005-07-13

That's like encouraging piracy, isn't it?

I certainly won't buy anything that I can't play on my linux laptop (DVD or CD).

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about our rights?
by SpasmaticSeacow on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "What about our rights?"
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

By definition, all players, even legitimate ones, circumvent copy and access protections. The difference is that they are authorized to do (in spite of the fact that doing so may still constitute infringement).

The problem is, of course, is that DRM is not effective at enforcing copyrights because it does not prevent infringing activity any more than it permits non-infringing activity.

Examples: playing a movie through a legit player to a large audience could still be infringing. Excerpting a clip from "Pretty Woman", transcoding it, and putting it on your web site as an illustration for your essay criticizing glamorous portrayals of prostitution in cinema, non-infringing yet technically prohibitted.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What about our rights?
by gubol123 on Thu 27th Apr 2006 07:29 UTC in reply to "What about our rights?"
gubol123 Member since:
2005-09-12

Thats a reasonable demand. You are able to do this without any problems on Windows/OSX/Any hardware because the vendor has paid royalites for the patented technologies. Now you are free to produce an open source software to run on GNU/Linux PC with licensed roayalty paid technologies. If you do that you can watch and listen your cds and dvds. now isn't that a reasonable demand. The problem here is not whether its opensource / closed source. its about wanting to pay royalites or not. if you want to watch their dvd/cd you got to do that on their terms. if you are against it, too bad. so don't bring open source here. The problem is same even when you use closed source software on windows/osx.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about our rights?
by Bonus on Thu 27th Apr 2006 11:49 UTC in reply to "What about our rights?"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

You don't legally own this media. It's more rented. Not like in the 80s where the license usually was: you could copy it but not make a profit without permission, so you owned the cartridge but non-commercially. There was a whole feee media movement back in the early 80s so FOSS is nothing new at all.
In the 80s when I had a video usually the intro license read I could not make profit off of the video; I think even if you rented.

It's copyrighted as such to where you don't own it. I bought Star Wars Galaxies and it explicitly says (in the EULA, a LucasArts company) that I do not own the disks and as such cannot even make backup copies. Yes, I bought it because I'm trying out the game and it seems pretty good so far. It's so stocked with things to do Probably since SonyOnline is getting benefit from so much free software out there; plus there recent deal with EnterpriseDB(FOSS) to get the stability. So hopefully the Wall described in the Pink Floyd album is crumbling.

Like I posted before, best to just get media from the Creative Commons website where it's LEGAL to copy and trade but not commercially. There are non- commercial licenses there so it's not communist or something like people think. It just mean I let people copy my product for others to share like in the 80s commercially or non. I would never give my music consumers anything less. No way with all the fun I had in school copying stuff for my friends and visa-versa.

I didn't have time to read all the posts like I usually do but I had to post this right away. Literally it says in the disks you buy today that you don't even OWN the product. Check out Star Wars Galaxies EULA. It's too Orwellian or Apocalyptic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What about our rights?
by KenJackson on Thu 27th Apr 2006 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

Literally it says in the disks you buy today that you don't even OWN the product. Check out Star Wars Galaxies EULA. It's too Orwellian or Apocalyptic.

I didn't know that and I don't have one handy to look at. You're right--that's terrible.

But I'm not even challenging that. I'm not trying to make a copy. I'm not trying to show it to an audience. I just want to sit and watch it using the convenient PC and OS of my choice. Presently I can do that with mplayer, but if this bill passes, mplayer may not be able to cope with the new legal and technical evils.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by Bonus on Tue 2nd May 2006 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

I hope I'm on topic. I have to rant this.

To me it's all or none. There is a tipping point. It can't be both ways as it's oil and water. I think the codecs to watch those movies are unlawful by the GPL anyway.
The GPL was setup that way. Not the LGPL, but it's not that popular. it's not mixing, LOL. So with banshee Novell is choosing a different contract which is not so idealistic. But still people wna to use the GPL to force companies to go completely free.

<rant>
I am partially for the snooping (they should enforce their crazy laws at least there might be honor there, instead of some phony liberal policy that punches you with a smile on their face), only that it emphasizes the chasm between free and non-free software. If they wiretap and all that I almost want to see the look on those non=freeers faces as they succumb to the communist agenda (Software that is contracted under U.S. law). I don't agree with the U.S. anymore because they support communist laws like trade secrets. I am not sure if this goes against the Bill of Rights or not, also I don't think it innately supports capitalism. Essentially the government could ISP Snoop all they want if it's all in the name of the law.
To me the constitution is severely flawed here because it emphasizes state over morality but it wasn't perfect at the time and they knew it. The original creators also thought the general populace was to uninformed to vote in general elections which I agree with but wasn't put in obviously. That's why I like open source projects (software or not) because your vote counts more based on merit or your position in the group or company. It's allot more capitalist i think. It's so completely American because were so darn opinionated.

Free software is generally contracted privately associated with worldwide standards bodies that don't tax so it wouldn't be locked in to the government policing.

It's all for that better because it will just drive more people to free-fair-capitalist market products. Also I am sick of people associating only money with capitalism. Communists can make allot of money too.
</rant>

I think I have a right to rant like this. I was born into a country (you know which one) that's afraid to declare a war anymore and they do everything secretly. Where microchips are in everything and can't be fixed after the 3 year warranty runs out pus they are black box (The Monolith in 2001). Or are only fixed by people who 'pay to play'. The destruction of the local repairman. The cool man down the street. Everyone today is a pervert locked into to the cog, all kissups! Not everyone who loves freedom, ownership, and privacy though.

Everyone check out the movie Brazil where Danny Devito is a local repairmen who swings on a harness from job to job in a far future fascist world. I think he avoids the bureaucracy somehow, I forgot how he does it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What about our rights?
by Dark_Knight on Thu 27th Apr 2006 16:02 UTC in reply to "What about our rights?"
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

I was asked recently if I would consider moving to the USA but policies such as the DMCA make one reconsider what rights a citizen has while living there. While I dissagree with piracy in the sense of distributing copyright data I also don't agree with the DMCA and the RIAA making the USA appear less like their citizens are living in a democratic society. Such as trying to stop consumers from copying music from CD they legally purchased to their MP3 player or believing it's okay for record companies to install a Rootkit/Trojan on a music CD. As an outsider looking in it's really a sad issue where it appears American citizens are slowly losing their rights and freedoms each year. What's going to be next? Will they ask American citizens to only listen to music or watch movies that the government contitutes is okay?

Reference:
http://www.riaa.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Edited 2006-04-27 16:05

Reply Score: 1

v RE: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 15:59 UTC
RE[2]: What about our rights?
by vimh on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

Well, I wouldn't really call myself an OSS zealot however I am a zealot for personal freedom. I don't expect to change the world overnight and I have nothing against closed source binaries.

At the risk of being ignored and marginalized I will vote with my wallet. I will not support media companies who use any sort of DRM that prevent me in any way from using the OS of my choice.

And beleive it or not, there is media out there that does not violate my rights to fair use and I will continue to support their products.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by Morin on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> At the risk of being ignored and marginalized I will vote with my wallet.

You will be ignored and marginalized, and BTW you would be trying to show that the recording industry itself is the problem. I will rather encourage people to "pirate" as much as possible, to show that this *law* is the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You will be ignored and marginalized, and BTW you would be trying to show that the recording industry itself is the problem. I will rather encourage people to "pirate" as much as possible, to show that this *law* is the problem.

And that will only reinforce to Hollywood that it's on the right track by enforcing DRM. Vicious cycle. Get it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Not really. It would reinforce that DRM doesn't work. As more people commit the crime it would make it socially considered acceptable, and people would wonder why the law exists since everyone does it.

I'm not saying go out infringing on IP (pirating is a real practice that happens in the East, with boats, and guns). But I don't think that the practice is really hurting the cause against the media companies.

What hurts the cause is that the schools have let these bastards brainwash our kids. That's sick. They don't ever belong in a public school...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by Morin on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> And that will only reinforce to Hollywood that it's on the right track by
> enforcing DRM. Vicious cycle. Get it?

Exactly. It is rather ovbious to me that nothing will happen until half the population is standing in court. Unlike the recording industry, most people do NOT think it is right to be arrested when burning CDs for friends - To most obvious reason being that the offenders are youths.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Exactly. It is rather ovbious to me that nothing will happen until half the population is standing in court.

And how, exactly, is this going to cause Hollywood to back off on DRM? Answer: It won't. In fact, an escalation in piracy will have the result of reducing the choice of available content (because fewer people are paying for it) and increased restrictions on media. Granted, it might serve the purpose of driving down the retail street price of DVDs and CDs. But they will be harder to use.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: What about our rights?
by Morin on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about our rights?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

The question is rather: How will the public react if half the population is being sued for burning CDs for friends? Most people don't think of this as a major crime. But now punishment seems to rise even above punishment for major crimes. An escalation in piracy will show people that punishing copyright infringers as hard as murderers is NOT the right thing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[8]: What about our rights?
by atsureki on Thu 27th Apr 2006 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about our rights?"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

And how, exactly, is this going to cause Hollywood to back off on DRM? Answer: It won't. In fact, an escalation in piracy will have the result of reducing the choice of available content (because fewer people are paying for it) and increased restrictions on media.

Nonsense. The more digital piracy, the more DVDs and CDs you can buy. Before you could just download every episode of the run of the show, how many "complete series" could you buy on tape? Any? It was all just a bunch of random episodes. The more bits flying around unprotected, the more people become accustomed to the notion that they can own everything they want. The market capitalizes on this by producing more units and lowering prices. My DVD shelf looks like the library of Congress, at least 300 retail discs, and I have BitTorrent going 24/7. I'm a consumer whore because unrestricted digital just makes it so easy, and Sony has a few thousand of my dollars to help comfort them as they get used to this brave new world.

Granted, it might serve the purpose of driving down the retail street price of DVDs and CDs. But they will be harder to use.

That's a separate mechanism. CEOs decide they want to protect their assets, call in some lawyers to wave their magic wands, and enact tyrrany on an unsuspecting public. I think someday we'll see the Supreme Court strike down an EULA, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. The way things are going now, they're more likely to crucify the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by vitae on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

"And that will only reinforce to Hollywood that it's on the right track by enforcing DRM. Vicious cycle. Get it?"

Maybe. Or maybe they'll realize that DRM can't be enforced. That for every security measure there's a counter-security measure, and that it only takes a teenager like DVD Jon to break it. You don't have to be a Lex Lugar mastermind to get through it. If Hollywood and the RIAA don't like that, they don't have to release their stuff digitally. It doesn't matter though. It's going to get copied and re-distributed anyway as it has been since the first recording device was created. Maybe they'll realize that they're just going to have to take a certain amount of loss, and that the enormous profits they used to make are a thing of the past. And just maybe they'll realize that people have taken it for granted for too long that entertainers and entertainment execs should be high paid, when in fact, people may be realizing that they don't need to be, instead earning an ordinary paycheck like the average worker.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Maybe. Or maybe they'll realize that DRM can't be enforced.

Hollywood already understands that DRM doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. DVDs have been wildly successful on the strength of what some would consider weak encryption. But it's "good enough" to prevent the average Joe from making a copy, and average Joe doesn't know how to work around it.

And it's understandable. Hollywood markets lots of produtcts. It wants to make as few tradeoffs as possible. So, I doubt that DRM will ever really disappear completely; if anything, it has only proliferated in recent years with innovations such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Hollywood, in conjunction with Sony (rootkit aside), Toshiba, and others, is actually getting smarter about how they deploy DRM. They're working to make sure that the entire digital pipeline supports an encrypted CSS channel -- from source to target device -- so that you can insert shims or taps into the stream and make copies. People that think that DRM should be outlawed are just unrealistic. It's not going to happen.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: What about our rights?
by cerbie on Thu 27th Apr 2006 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about our rights?"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

DRM does not need outlawing, and I have yet to see anyone attempting to argue that it does.

But, it is wrong to outlaw its circumvention. To do so is to say that litigation by the powerful is superior to innovation. They clearly enforce this belief, as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by KenJackson on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

It would reinforce that DRM doesn't work. As more people commit the crime it would make it socially considered acceptable, and people would wonder why the law exists since everyone does it.

There is even precedent--the whiskey rebellion.

But I recommend against it. There is a very good, right, clean, and morally upstanding reason to oppose DRM--it wrongfully interferes with some legal behaviour.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
v RE[2]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
RE[2]: What about our rights?
by Morin on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> Like it or not, DRM is being required by content
> providers (movie studios, record companies).

If you need to threaten people with 10 years of prison just to get your money, chances are that you are oppressing them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

If you need to threaten people with 10 years of prison just to get your money, chances are that you are oppressing them.

How are you being "oppressed", exactly? By having to pay for a DVD or song? Oh, the horrrrrrrrrrorrrrrr....

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by Morin on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

By being threatened with 10 years of prison just so the recording industry gets its money. Especially for the attempt to burn a CD. I don't think you have ever been in prison right?

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
RE[4]: What about our rights?
by rcsteiner on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

DRM has nothing to do with piracy, although the RIAA and others are paying lip service to that topic in an attempt to justify their actions.

In reality, DRM is about *control*. It's about removing the ability to make copies even for archival purposes, and it's about maximizing profits at the expense of fair use rights.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

DRM has nothing to do with piracy, although the RIAA and others are paying lip service to that topic in an attempt to justify their actions.

Of course it does. One of the reasons that DVD sales have increased while CD sales have decreased is that the technology to overcome DRM protections on DVD is simply inconvenient and expensive. Whether you think DVD protections are sufficient is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they prevent the average person with no special knowledge from ripping DVDs. Hence, DVD sales have increased.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: What about our rights?
by ThawkTH on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about our rights?"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Or, it's because a brand new DVD is high quality and $15. Plus, people buy movies - a lot. Especially to have their favorite TV shows (box sets are huge nowadays) on demand.

Ripping DVD's is simplistic. My mother does it (she freaked out when I replaced IE with Firefox...because things 'looked different'). She figured all if it out by herself. I do it. Most of my friends do it (non techies).

Bypassing DVD Encryption is simply beyond simplistic. Many new CD's make it more difficult.

Not to mention, computers sound just as good as the average stereo nowadays, and people can listen to music while they work/transfer to iPod. People want to watch things on a TV. Until that changes, they will rent/buy movies and download/rip music.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Look, I don't care about a few anecdotal cases such as your mother or your friends. I'm taking about the vast number of people. They simply don't want to understand or deal with the arcanda of ripping and copying DVDs, when DVDs can be bought for less than $10 at Target -- and some for like $5 in the bargain bin. Doubt it? Try this experiment. Go pick a crowded street in your city/town. Randomly choose 100 people and ask them how to copy a DVD, what tools to use, etc. I guarantee you that maybe 1 to 2% will be able to tell you. The rest won't.

Reply Score: 0

RE[8]: What about our rights?
by ThawkTH on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: What about our rights?"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

And I say, people don't WANT to rip DVD's. Most people rip cd's just to copy them to play in their car. Even those with iPods/MP3 players are still a minority.

They don't want to watch movies wherever they go. Music and Movies are different. Period. People want to watch movies on a TV. It's how people do things.

Pick 100 people off a street, and maybe 20 on a great day will know how to copy a cd.

If people WANTED to copy DVD's, it would be far simpler. The DRM is beyond trivial, and it's not what's stopping people. No demand = no supply.

Perhaps if someone created a 1 click rip/burn option that took minutes and worked on 90%+ of DVD players, yes, a few more people would probably do it. The average person though still can't hook the DVD player up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: What about our rights?
by Dave_K on Wed 26th Apr 2006 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: What about our rights?"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

"Look, I don't care about a few anecdotal cases such as your mother or your friends. I'm taking about the vast number of people. They simply don't want to understand or deal with the arcanda of ripping and copying DVDs"

From what I've read a higher proportion of piracy is via P2P file sharing, rather than the physical copying of DVDs and CDs by consumers.

Most people may not understand how to copy a DVD, but if the claims of mass P2P piracy are accurate, they do know how to download movies using Bittorrent and other file sharing apps. As long as one person knows how to rip a particular DVD it'll end up on a P2P network, you can find just about any recently released film you want.

Of course they're larger than MP3s, but with modern internet connections that's not such a big problem. For example, just look at all the people who downloaded leaked copies of Star Wars Episode III despite the 1Gb file size.

Then there's the professional copying of DVDs. If I go down to my local market at the weekend I can be pretty much certain that there'll be at least one person offering large numbers of pirate DVDs. Presumably they sell plenty or the few $ they make on each disc wouldn't be worth the risk of arrest.

In the last office I worked at there was someone who would copy CDs and DVDs for other people in the workplace. They could find just about any film anyone wanted and provide it on DVD-R within a few days for the price of the blank disc. I imagine that a great many people have a friend or acquaintance who could do the same.

Just because someone can't copy a DVD themselves, it doesn't mean they don't have easy access to pirate DVDs.

If DVD sales aren't being damaged by piracy in the same way that CD sales allegedly are, I don't think that's due to the difficulty of copying them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by ApproachingZero on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

How are you being "oppressed", exactly? By having to pay for a DVD or song? Oh, the horrrrrrrrrrorrrrrr....

Because the punishment (10 years in prison) is grossly out of proportion to the crime (copyright infringement). In free societies, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If I walk into wal-mart and steal a DVD and get caught, I'm not going to prison, I'm going to pay a fine.

Up until 2003, copyright infringement was a civil crime, that was punishable only by a fine. In 2003 congress made it a federal offense that carries 5 years in prison! We all thought that was insane then, now this goes even further.

And, for the record, I don't believe it's possible to "listen to a song illegally" or "watch a movie illegally", no matter what congress or the "content providers" say. What, I illegally copied it into my brain?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Because the punishment (10 years in prison) is grossly out of proportion to the crime (copyright infringement). In free societies, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. If I walk into wal-mart and steal a DVD and get caught, I'm not going to prison, I'm going to pay a fine.

The feds and most states permit you to make a single personal archival backup of digital products, as a hedge against data loss, destruction of media, etc. As such, neither the FBI nor any state has prosecuted an individual for making a personal archival backup, to my knowledge. Are you aware of any prosecutions -- or are you simply confused about your rights?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: What about our rights?
by ApproachingZero on Wed 26th Apr 2006 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about our rights?"
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

The feds and most states permit you to make a single personal archival backup of digital products, as a hedge against data loss, destruction of media, etc. As such, neither the FBI nor any state has prosecuted an individual for making a personal archival backup, to my knowledge. Are you aware of any prosecutions -- or are you simply confused about your rights?

I don't think you understood my post at all. I never mentioned making an archival backup. All I'm talking about is how 10 years in prison for copyright infringement is a ridiculously excessive punishment for such a minor "crime". I was drawing an analogy to shoplifting. You don't get 10 years in prison for stealing a movie off the shelf. You shouldn't get 10 years in prison for "stealing" a movie off the internet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: What about our rights?
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What about our rights?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

It's up to 10 years. This isn't the public school system, we have judges, who get paid, to apply this in a sensible manner following guidelines.

I don't like it either, but please don't blow it out of proportion.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
RE[6]: What about our rights?
by cerbie on Thu 27th Apr 2006 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What about our rights?"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

I shall cut down the tallest tree in the forrest with...a herring. A red herring.

"Stealing a DVD legally gets me a fine.
Making a copy of the DVD legally gets me a long prison sentence.
That the one which si not theft carries a vastly higher punishment is wrong."

"You are allowed one backup. No one has been prosecuted for making backups."

Yeah, that so logically follows. OK, it might also be a non-sequitur--I think the herring fits better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What about our rights?
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Details of IP has nothing to do with media... You're completely confusing a technical issue: Closed drivers. And an political one: DRM.

The reason people don't want closed binary drivers is that it's technically difficult to make them work with a rapidly changing open kernel.
They also don't want them because they want to be able to fix them, and know what that program is doing in unprotected kernel space.
I can't say that I blame them after using the fglrx driver yesterday, three crashes in an hour.

Bad drivers can give an OS a really bad rep, so why let someone else take responsibility for your drivers? Who got a bad rep for bad drivers, you ask: Windows ME.

But this is about DRM. It's about paying for a movie and being told things like: "You can only watch it on a tv under this size, you can only watch it 5 times a day, you can't move it to another kind of media, you can only watch it on approved computer screens."
We're not renting the rights to watch the movie, that's a load of sh*t and I think everyone knows it. We want the right to watch the movie, when we want, and how we want in our private homes! If we want to move it to a newer media instead of buying it again, we should be able to!

It's not the consumer who should be adjusting to this modern age in media distribution. It's the media distribution that should _serve the consumer_.
I'm sick of being the customer who's "always wrong." And I'm also sick of _my_ elected officials supporting this...


This is your country. These are your rights. Those companies are running on YOUR WORK. Own up to it, and quit letting them bully you by saying "it is as it is."

Of course, if you're European this doesn't all quite apply to you. As goes for anyone else outside of the US ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Details of IP has nothing to do with media...

Try telling that to Toshiba and Sony (hint: Blu-Ray and HD-DVD).

You're completely confusing a technical issue: Closed drivers. And an political one: DRM.

How DRM is integrated is a technical issue. There are trade secrets that companies don't want to reveal by creating open drivers.

The reason people don't want closed binary drivers is that it's technically difficult to make them work with a rapidly changing open kernel.


BS. Define the interfaces that the kernel and drivers interact through. It's worked fine for many years on many platforms.

Bad drivers can give an OS a really bad rep, so why let someone else take responsibility for your drivers? Who got a bad rep for bad drivers, you ask: Windows ME.

Weak copout. The food chain will fix the problem. Bad drivers get reported. Companies that promote them don't stay in business. Others take their place.

But this is about DRM. It's about paying for a movie and being told things like: "You can only watch it on a tv under this size, you can only watch it 5 times a day, you can't move it to another kind of media, you can only watch it on approved computer screens."
We're not renting the rights to watch the movie, that's a load of sh*t and I think everyone knows it. We want the right to watch the movie, when we want, and how we want in our private homes! If we want to move it to a newer media instead of buying it again, we should be able to!


Sorry, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to move media to new devices, simply because you WANT TO. Distribution power is granted to the copyright holder, not you; unless Congress grants explicit exceptions (which it has occasionally done in the past: Home Recording Act, etc).

It's not the consumer who should be adjusting to this modern age in media distribution. It's the media distribution that should _serve the consumer_.
I'm sick of being the customer who's "always wrong." And I'm also sick of _my_ elected officials supporting this...


I know this is going to come as a shock: We don't live in a perfect world. Until and unless we go to univeresal media that is shared across multiple devices, this will not happen.

This is your country. These are your rights. Those companies are running on YOUR WORK. Own up to it, and quit letting them bully you by saying "it is as it is."

Clearly, you don't understand "your rights".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by SpasmaticSeacow on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

Sorry, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to move media to new devices, simply because you WANT TO.

No, it doesn't. But it doesn't forbid it. It permits Congress to enact copyright laws, but keep in mind that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, copyright was understood to be a temporary grant to an author or artist to his work to prevent exploitation by publishers. By the standard of the 18th century, legislation such as the DMCA and this proposed bill would constitute anti-copyright statutes since they quite explicitly endorse the activity that copyright was designed to prevent.

Until recently, the presumption was that if there was no law preventing something, it was your right. Until the mid-20th century, there was no question that making copies of media or transformations thereof for personal use constituted fair-use. Even today, CSS prevents easy ripping of DVDs, and CSS-breaking software is technically illegal to possess/transmit/use -- but the basic assertion that one has a right to make a copy of a DVD they paid for for personal use is completely unchallenged, even by Hollywood.

The problem here is that the definitions in the laws don't make much sense. They protect things that go far beyond the scope of copyright (the DMCA, for example, limits "access" to works but doesn't address copying, whereas traditional copyright addresses copying and presumes access).

If you OWN the physical media on which you received the work, US law indicates that you have the right to do with it what you will short of copying and redistributing (smash the statue, play the video on an LCD projector instead of a TV, etc.). If, on the other hand, you LICENSE the content rather than own the copy, then you have license to the content in all of it's sundry forms and the license remains absent the form in which it was delivered (e.g., get the DVD and you're entitled to the MP4 form for your iPod, or if your DVD gets scratched you're entitled to another at cost of the media). Unfortunately, the law hasn't caught up and both arguments, as well electronic media being neither or both have all been upheld by various courts.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

No, it doesn't. But it doesn't forbid it.

Your rights to reproduce, transmit, or duplicate copyrighted materials are governed by Copyright law.

By the standard of the 18th century, legislation such as the DMCA and this proposed bill would constitute anti-copyright statutes since they quite explicitly endorse the activity that copyright was designed to prevent.

Congress has the right to interpret what "temporary" means. It has already done so. That a modern Congress differs from an 18th century Congress isn't surprising. Society evolves.

Until recently, the presumption was that if there was no law preventing something, it was your right.

You're attempting to pretend that the behavior in question isn't governed by Copyright law when, in fact, it is.

The problem here is that the definitions in the laws don't make much sense. They protect things that go far beyond the scope of copyright (the DMCA, for example, limits "access" to works but doesn't address copying, whereas traditional copyright addresses copying and presumes access).

I disagree. The DMCA rightly reflects the understanding that a single piece of media may now be accessible to multiple consumers of content simultaneously, without copying; whereas, in the past, that just wasn't practical in the context of a book or phograph recording.

If you OWN the physical media on which you received the work, US law indicates that you have the right to do with it what you will short of copying and redistributing (smash the statue, play the video on an LCD projector instead of a TV, etc.).

Many people seem to think that possessing physical media gives them an automatic right to repurpose the content for alternate distribution media. Which is dead wrong.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: What about our rights?
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What about our rights?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually the DMCA, TMK, falls into copyright law well. What a lot of people miss is that every operation your computer does with a piece of media involves a copy, and it's therefore under copyright law.

This is the position Lessig presents on it, and I think he's right.
Copyright in this sense is probably outdated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

BS. Define the interfaces that the kernel and drivers interact through. It's worked fine for many years on many platforms.
Then you have a stable kernel. You've destroyed the premise ;) .

Weak copout. The food chain will fix the problem. Bad drivers get reported. Companies that promote them don't stay in business. Others take their place.
Actually Microsoft got most of the bad rap for ME. They were blaimed for changing the driver model in small ways (a legitimate thing to do on a major OS revision). Companies rarely take the rap for bad drivers. Consumers often blame Windows, or blame their hardware; they don't even, usually, know what a driver is.

Sorry, you're wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to move media to new devices, simply because you WANT TO. Distribution power is granted to the copyright holder, not you; unless Congress grants explicit exceptions (which it has occasionally done in the past: Home Recording Act, etc).

The Constitution is not infallible without proof, and definitely not a complete document (The ammendment mechanism is an admission of this fact). Do you know how sad Jefferson was to institute the patent system, even as limited as it was/is? Read up on it. IP was not valued in America until the last century. Americans had a particularly bad reputation for not respecting European patents and for paying their holders, or those who could get blueprints, to come over and build their technology here without patent restriction.
I don't submit this as backing for my position, but merely as conjecture to why pointing out the lack of digital media rights in the constitution is not only silly, but actually in contradiction to colonial American culture and therefore it is probable (not just possible) that had the technology existed that the constitution would have made heavy allowances for it.
It is also possible it would have been deemed outside the realm of the constitution. And it's also possible that Jefferson was a minority on this topic, and that most politicians disagreed with the methods of our industrial roots.

But the main reason the constitution is void in this discussion is that it's a topic for which the writers had no way of foreseeing (virtually free reproduction of intellectual materiel), and the writers implemented a way to change the constitution.


If you choose to reply here, please, do me the respect of presenting an argument instead of simple conjecture.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What about our rights?
by Get a Life on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

The only people trying to change the world here are the members of the media companies. Realizing that their schemes will inevitably be compromised they sought government intervention in the act of circumventing it, when enforcement of their own security measures wouldn't be left to the taxpayer. Now they want to expand their claws into the act of possessing anything related to circumventing such protections produced domestically or otherwise. Just throw in the word terrorism and you can criminalize thinking these days. DVD protection schemes are sacrosanct!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: What about our rights?
by SpasmaticSeacow on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE: What about our rights?"
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

That's not a very good argument. That you should accept another individual's assault on your personal freedom because if you don't give up your freedoms they won't make nearly as much money. That's the same specious argument that was used to support the slave trade in the 19th century.

Some content providers ship DRM. They don't require it, because they cannot (yet). However, they will continue to do so until it's clear that it interferes with their profitability. DRM measures only affect those willing to be bound by it, the typical operational life of a DRM measure is 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, DRM is typically hacked and DRM-free content appears. Since the DRM content is now more valuable than the DRM content, it perpetuates and is exchanged.

DRM is about maximizing profits by exploiting the ignorant and the complicit. Even persons that obey laws prohibiting DRM circumvention may not be complicit if they specifically avoid DRM content (the majority of content producers do not use DRM, after all, it is principly the perview of mass distributors).

Copyright and DRM legislation doesn't really have anything to do with open-source per se (other than if this proposed law were in effect a couple of years ago, certain Sony employees would be in a federal prison right now).

And, please use the term "Fair Use Circumvention Kit" rather than "Digital Rights Management". It's far more accurate a description and the acronym is much more widely recognized and used.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by null_pointer_us on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

That's not a very good argument. That you should accept another individual's assault on your personal freedom because if you don't give up your freedoms they won't make nearly as much money. That's the same specious argument that was used to support the slave trade in the 19th century.

I don't see him making that argument. And in any case, it's not simply a question of squeezing every last right we can out of the greedy, evil companies. The companies have rights, too. You have to look at who has the right to profit from the content and to what extent.

The recording artists have banded together under the RIAA to lobby for certain terms and restrictions on the distribution of their own content. That's perfectly fine and reasonable. It's their right to do so, just as it is your right to write software, license it under the GPL, and/or join the FSF to promote FOSS.

The RIAA could just as well decide to only distribute their media in sealed, stand-alone flash-based players with equipment to ensure that the things only plays when the device is upside down in certain tropical rainforests. It's their choice. Civil government's responsibility here is to ensure that the RIAA does not shut out fair competition.

DRM is about maximizing profits by exploiting the ignorant and the complicit.

Explain how subscription services such as rentals and access to shared digital music libraries would exist in a profitable manner without DRM. Do you really think you could pay $10/month for digital access to thousands of albums without some kind of DRM in place? Who would be insane enough to try to run a business that way?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What about our rights?
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about our rights?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

That's not a very good argument. That you should accept another individual's assault on your personal freedom because if you don't give up your freedoms they won't make nearly as much money. That's the same specious argument that was used to support the slave trade in the 19th century.

You don't have to accept it. Simply don't buy or use their product. Bingo. Done.

And, please use the term "Fair Use Circumvention Kit" rather than "Digital Rights Management". It's far more accurate a description and the acronym is much more widely recognized and used.

BS. Copying a CD or DVD for your friend is not a fair use. Trying to deploy a copyrighted song or movie from one device to another is not a fair use. To quote Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use resource: "Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody."

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by cerbie on Thu 27th Apr 2006 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What about our rights?"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

"Trying to deploy a copyrighted song or movie from one device to another is not a fair use."

Damn. I must have been breaking laws since 2002, when I started going like this:
CD->MP3->sound card->headphones
CD->MP3->CD/MP3 player

And now I'm up to this:
CD->FLAC->sound card->amp->headphones
CD->FLAC->Squeezebox->reciever->speakers
CD->FLAC->MP3->DAP->amp->headphones

Reply Score: 2

Federal Powers
by gary1979 on Wed 26th Apr 2006 15:59 UTC
gary1979
Member since:
2006-01-31

Call me paranoid, but I cringe when I hear anything along the lines of "expanded federal police powers". It should also noted that SELinux was created by the NSA, which is already involved in a massive (to an extent of which we will never fully know for sure) wiretapping campaign.

Another interesting point about potential privacy concerns is that when you install FC5 (or anything else that uses SELinux), you can choose to disable SELinux. The problem is that SELinux does get disabled, but only after it initializes and starts in permissive mode. The lead developer for Blag Linux reported this to the FC Team, and they said that this was not a bug! If you choose to really disable SELinux, you can do so by setting SELinux to zero in /etc/grub.conf. For more information about this, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145881

For the record, I do know that I am overly paranoid.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Federal Powers
by JacobMunoz on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:07 UTC in reply to "Federal Powers"
JacobMunoz Member since:
2006-03-17

Paranoia (in moderation) is quite healthy.

I'm also unsettled by the phrase 'expanded federal police powers'. I do have a suggestion regarding wiretapping:

Keep two machines.

1) Use a live-cd Linux to boot from (and remove the hard disk from the machine) for web browsing.
2) Store all your critical personal data (music, documents, etc) on a PC that will NEVER see the outside world.

Use a CompactFlash chip or USB 'Thumb' drive to transfer documents between the two.

I've done this for years, and I'm happy to say my PC's never been infected with anything (or probed).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Federal Powers
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Federal Powers"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

You're beyond healthy paranoia.

What you're doing is just way to inconvenient. If you're that concerned: Don't keep important information on your computer ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Federal Powers
by Sphinx on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Federal Powers"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Federal Powers
by JacobMunoz on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Federal Powers"
JacobMunoz Member since:
2006-03-17

"Don't keep important information on your computer"
That's a given. Of course you shouldn't, but that's more inconvenient that the way I protect myself.

And it's not that inconvenient - I actually like it. It gives me a 'snuggly happy fuzzy feeling' to know that nobody can tunnel into my PC, and that I'll never get a virus on my read-only cdrom.

Reply Score: 1

Must be stopped
by ThawkTH on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:03 UTC
ThawkTH
Member since:
2005-07-06

If history teaches us anything, the outcry must be now before it's too late.


Big Brother is scarier than I care to admit.

Reply Score: 5

I'm out of this stupid country!
by mfrager on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:23 UTC
mfrager
Member since:
2006-04-26

If this passes I will probably leave this country after I finish my degree. America has really become a worthless place for a free-thinking person.

This creates a law that allows anyone who downloads a pirated movie or song to be sent to jail for 10 years and have their computer taken from them. This is totally outrageous!!

The asset forfeiture laws are said to be based on the current US drug laws. I also strongly support the legalization of marijuana, so creating this law would be the final straw for me, and I will seek a freer place to hang my hat!

Sensenbrenner and Sounder are probably the most evil and vile people to ever enter the halls of Congress.

Edited 2006-04-26 16:32

Reply Score: 3

v RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:24 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
firl Member since:
2006-03-16

"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, ingrate. You take our educational benefits and give nothing back in return. Go to France or wherever. You'll be more at home."

No offense but if you had educationial benefits you would know that he has a valid viewpoint in comparison to yours because of the possiblity of him being different.
Your attitude towards him brings disgrace not just to yourself.

Reply Score: 2

null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

No offense but if you had educationial benefits you would know that he has a valid viewpoint in comparison to yours because of the possiblity of him being different.

What is that supposed to mean?

Your attitude towards him brings disgrace not just to yourself.

His swearing is bad, but he does have a valid point. Just using someone else's country and leaving when you don't like the conditions is bad - at least when you are in a position to work towards fixing things. And attempting to smear other Americans for his bad attitude is equally childish.

Reply Score: 2

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

You don't own a country; it isn't yours. Emigrating is no affront to you or anyone else. You have no claim to his education or the facilities in which it was imparted to him, public or private. You are not the republic, Caesar.

Reply Score: 2

null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

You don't own a country; it isn't yours. Emigrating is no affront to you or anyone else. You have no claim to his education or the facilities in which it was imparted to him, public or private. You are not the republic, Caesar.

I don't understand why your post was modded up; it has nothing to do with what I said. I never claimed to own a country. I didn't declare that emigration was an affront to me or anyone else. I didn't make a claim to his education or the facilities in which it was imparted to him, public or private. I didn't declare myself the republic, nor do I see any similarity between my comments and Caesar. If you can find some way to relate your comments to my post, I would have a much better chance of seeing your point.

EDIT: LOL, I hit the reply button on my own post by mistake. This was meant for the person who calls himself "Get a Life."

Edited 2006-04-26 17:56

Reply Score: 1

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Just using someone else's country and leaving when you don't like the conditions is bad - at least when you are in a position to work towards fixing things.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:28 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by ma_d on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:31 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually it just extends it from 5 years.

Reply Score: 1

mfrager Member since:
2006-04-26

Actually it just extends it from 5 years.

Interesting... I did not know that.

I looks like they have been about as effective in enforcing the IP laws as they have in enforcing the prohibition of marijuana. Basically, not at all!

When the laws are just plain stupid (as in marijuana prohibition), or are overly harsh and unenforcable people loose respect for the law.

Edited 2006-04-26 16:36

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't know that they're allowed to pursue it now. I think it's something where the owner has to press charges and file a civil suit, etc.
There are crimes where the state can press charges, I'm pretty sure this isn't one of them.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:40 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
v RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:50 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
RE: I'm out of this stupid country!
by samad on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:01 UTC in reply to "I'm out of this stupid country!"
samad Member since:
2006-03-31

Don't you think that leaving the US is coward? If you don't like the way the US is, then why don't you do something about it? Organizing people around this issue wouldn't be that hard. Look how many people on this post alone are pissed off.

Let's take an extreme case of, say, Nazi Germany. The people who were involved in the resistence movement were really brave. They could've shrugged their shoulders, looked the other way, and left. Shouldn't you feel that it's your moral obligation to change something that is morally unsound as wiretapping is?

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Great emotional post. Bold claims. Then supports theft. Promotes hippie stuff. Then cries about some dudes being evil.

Sad.

Reply Score: 0

mfrager Member since:
2006-04-26

Great emotional post. Bold claims. Then supports theft. Promotes hippie stuff. Then cries about some dudes being evil.

Without piracy computing would suck. Sorry if that doesn't fit the perfect illusion of reality you have. I have bought a good amount of movies, music and software. I also contribute code to the Open Source movement. However, I like to be able to try before I buy. I do realize that it is a kind of theft, but it is still not the same a theft of physical property. Also, before you accuse me, delete everything from your computer that you don't have a license for.

Also, marijuana is not "hippie" stuff. One in twenty Americans use marijuana on a regular basis, you just wouldn't know it because they all keep very quiet about it and this activity does not harm anyone else.

Drinking a beer and watching a game is does not raise any eyebrows, but say you want to smoke marijuana and watch the game and suddenly you are a criminal? Sorry, that is hypocracy.

Those congressmen, Sensenbrenner and Sounder, have passed some of the draconian laws ever. They have been instrumental at chipping away at your freedom. Most American's don't seems to care.

Reply Score: 1

vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

The drug issue is not that simple. You legalize weed, and then people are clamoring to legalize all drugs. Then the drug problem we already have multiplies. The real problem here with legalizing weed is the same with tobacco being legal. Parents leave their cigarettes around or outright buy them for children. Once the kids get a hold of it, we'll be seeing the age in rehab dropping from 12-13 down 7-8. We already have adolescent drug users, some into the heavy stuff, and that would get much worse.

Even if a certain adult can handle weed without screwing up their life or switching to other drugs, a great many more cannot and will not. A large segment of the population who can't and won't do much of anything except commit another crime when it's time to get high again and they don't have any money left.They'll end up in rehab or in prison, and they'll be a drain on society.

The alcohol example really isn't a good one because it only demonstrates an already ancient weakness of civilization. We have how many drunk driving related deaths a year? And that doesn't even consider the amount of people in prison who are alcoholic or drug addicted. The laws are there for a reason, and if we were smart, alcohol probably wouldn't be legal either. The real problem here is that this (the U.S.) is a repressed country always being told this thing or that thing is bad, and instead of learning to do things responsibly the response is to do more of it recklessly because naughty things are more fun.

Reply Score: 1

bentman78
Member since:
2005-11-15

There is a link on the page to the website to sign the petition. Write your Congressman/Congresswomen and tell them how you feel. If you do nothing about it then bitch about the outcome I have no sympathy. I have taken the time to personally write my Congressmen on the issue and will go to the Senate website and check how they vote on the issue. I sugesst those that don't like this do the same.

Reply Score: 5

cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

Will do.

...even though it's basically pointless, seeing how well it worked with the DMCA. Now, if I could mail them and send several million dollars along with it, it would be more than a futile gesture.

Reply Score: 1

The DRM issue is complicated...
by null_pointer_us on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:39 UTC
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

My primary problem with DRM isn't the fact that it imposes restrictions but that those restrictions cause legal users to get burned.

There are basically three types of users:

- large-scale pirates (commercial)
- small-scale pirates (casual)
- ordinary users (legal)

Look at digital music services, for example. A large-scale pirate will have the technology and resources to bypass the DRM being used there. The technology is primarily intended to stop small-scale, casual pirates. But in exchange for this, we ordinary, legal users have to put up with arbitrarily imposed restrictions on how many times a song may be copied to CD, where it can be played, and so on. From a consumer standpoint this is insane!

Now, if I had a private keycard or something and could freely copy and play my files from any audio device simply by swiping my card, DRM would be good.

Using DRM to enforce an expiration date is also good because it allows things like rentals and monthly subscriptions to exist on a digital medium such as the Internet. I'd love to be able to download my favorite shows and archive them as desired so that I could watch them on the plane or in a different country.

Games, on the other hand, are an example of bad DRM. Game companies have resorted to software hacks which silently install on the machine and create compatibility issues which in turn generally cause support/usage headaches. If we had official hardware support for this application of DRM, it would be much less complicated and frustrating for the users.

I've avoided discussing the issue of open source vs. closed source DRM until now because it's really a side issue. So long as the hardware DRM implementations have open, standardized specifications, there will be no problem. The penguins could simply implement a DRM driver module which could legally deal with all this stuff.

Legally, I believe we need the following:

- Producers should be able to publish their content with whatever terms, conditions, and restrictions they want.

- Consumers should be able to exercise their economic right to vote by licensing content from companies which have agreeable terms, conditions, and restrictions.

- Civil government ought to implement the above and of course refine I.P. laws so that they make sense in modern times (i.e. software patents need to be addressed).

- Civil government ought to crack down HARD on the pirates, and we should give the government whatever it needs to accomplish this. Remove the pirates, and you'll find less demand for DRM on the small/medium business level.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The DRM issue is complicated...
by tomcat on Wed 26th Apr 2006 16:43 UTC in reply to "The DRM issue is complicated..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

- Civil government ought to crack down HARD on the pirates, and we should give the government whatever it needs to accomplish this. Remove the pirates, and you'll find less demand for DRM on the small/medium business level.

That's a nice proposition, in theory. The reality is much more difficult. It isn't easy to find the pirates. They operate out of Third World countries, American suburbs, seedy industrial factories, college campuses, etc. In short, they're everywhere -- and nowhere at all.

Reply Score: 1

null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

That's a nice proposition, in theory. The reality is much more difficult. It isn't easy to find the pirates. They operate out of Third World countries, American suburbs, seedy industrial factories, college campuses, etc. In short, they're everywhere -- and nowhere at all.

You're right, of course. The situation won't improve until we have governments all over the world working together with common I.P. laws and coordination of detection, tracking, and enforcement agencies. But in the meantime we can strengthen our I.P. protection laws and go after the distribution methods such as warez sites, FTP servers, and P2P servers. There was a big piracy crackdown along these lines recently, wasn't there? Citizens need to support these efforts by looking at the good aspects of the bill before the US Congress and moving towards a workable DRM - not just decrying them with conspiracy theories and political insults.

Reply Score: 1

SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

Note that the proposed bill is the US *FIRST* intellectual property law. It is in the sense that the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't occur in existing federal law, nor is there a legal precedent for treating copyrights, patents and trademarks as property. This law is important in part because it is an important step in getting real property laws applied to non-property grants.

Reply Score: 1

A broader effort...
by samad on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:10 UTC in reply to "The DRM issue is complicated..."
samad Member since:
2006-03-31

"Civil government ought to crack down HARD on the pirates, and we should give the government whatever it needs to accomplish this. Remove the pirates, and you'll find less demand for DRM on the small/medium business level."

That's exactly what they're doing.


There's a fundamental issue here that isn't being addressed: the crackdown on the democratic media that is the Internet. Other media were traditionally very open for the public to use, like radio. Eventually radiowaves were privatized. I mean, just flip through the stations and a good chunk of them are owned by Clear Channel. The same is true for cable and satellite television, but eventually that was wiped out. Now you need expensive licenses with satellite providers just to broadcast in your own town. Piracy is only an offshoot of this fundamental issue. I don't think piracy is a terribly big issue for these companies. Their profits are astronomical. Reigning in on a few pirates won't dramatically boost their sales.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A broader effort...
by null_pointer_us on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "A broader effort..."
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Piracy is only an offshoot of this fundamental issue. I don't think piracy is a terribly big issue for these companies. Their profits are astronomical. Reigning in on a few pirates won't dramatically boost their sales.

Doesn't it depend upon the industry and the application? I've heard that game development houses have very thin profit margins (and lots of piracy) and thus have to be much more protective than other applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A broader effort...
by samad on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: A broader effort..."
samad Member since:
2006-03-31

That's true, but they're not exactly the main players in the lobbying group in Congress trying to cut back on our civil rights. The companies not adversely affected by piracy are behind this effort.

Reply Score: 1

OT: What's going on with the board?
by null_pointer_us on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:03 UTC
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

I keep seeing the same "insult posts" popping up in multiple places, and existing good posts are moving around like mad. It's as if there is a war breaking out in the moderation system. *sigh* Just quit posting the same things over and over again, OK? If you cannot abide by the rules, your opinion probably doesn't matter.

Reply Score: 4

null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

The moderation system is broken. Sensible posts are being modded down because a few intolerant adolescents can't stand the fact that an actual discussion might take place, rather than a friendly circle jerk embracing their opinions.

The rules stipulate:

1. No gratuitous use of profanity, biting sarcasm, or personal disparagement, especially directed at individuals.
2. No personal attacks on story authors, other commenters or news editors of this web site.
3. Even if you are in violent disagreement or have strong feelings, find a way to keep your comments calm, and try to explain your reasoning, not just rant.
...
13. Even if your whole comment might be nicely crafted and written, but you include one line of text that does not comply with the above, it will result to the moderation or deletion of the whole comment. (We don't have a line-item veto).

IOW, your post deserved to be modded down regardless of whether your point was valid.

EDIT: I think I hit the reply button on my own post again. Wierd...

Edited 2006-04-26 18:13

Reply Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I'm not talking about a specific post. I'm speaking in general terms. There are a lot of people around here promoting their own brand of orthodoxy ("OSS is great!", "OSS is evil!", etc), and they don't like it when somebody posts an opposing viewpoint; hence, they mod the opposing viewpoint down to get it out of view. That's wrong. And everybody here knows that it's happening.

Personally, I think that what needs to happen is a group of non-ideologocal individuals needs to be appointed to evaluate whether a post should be modded out of view. Because it has beome a problem of censorship. I could really care whether other people agree or disagree with my opinion, and I think that those opinions deserve to be heard. Even if they're unpopular with ideologues.

Reply Score: 2

Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

You need to stop spamming the forum by repeating the same post numerous times. If you feel that your posts are being moderated unfairly due to some conspiracy then bring it to the attention of an editor. If they choose to do nothing then live with it or accept that people will moderate your duplicates down as spam when you decide that what you have to say deserves to be heard four times in a row.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

The rules stipulate:
1. No gratuitous use of profanity, biting sarcasm, or personal disparagement, especially directed at individuals.


I wonder if calling this country "stupid" and calling two members of Congress "evil and vile" would qualify.

Reply Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Only if one held politicians, or this country, as sacred. Any hands on that one?

Reply Score: 1

Our Rights - Everyones Rights.
by w00dst0ck on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:06 UTC
w00dst0ck
Member since:
2006-02-01

I see this as a form of conditioning. As generations go by and these laws are passed the younger youth (myself only being 21) see these changes as the "norm" and don't fully understand the concept of true human rights. This is very gross. I honestly don't see a reason (a good reason) for this law to be passed. It is unnecessary and ridiculous.

What ever happened to the reason why a gov't system was put in place for in the first place... to work for us, not the other way around. It's all twisted and perverted now and people need to wake up to the fact that these sort of things are being passed all the time without public awareness... until it's to late.

I may sound paranoid but it's really quite disgusting. I may be a little off topic, but it all ties together to form a much greater problem, software and human rights the like.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by Headrush on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:13 UTC
Headrush
Member since:
2006-01-03

Its not about the initial purchase, its about being told what you can do with after.

Imagine buying an after the market car stereo and it having the stipulation you can only use it in Toyotas.

Or you're only allowed to play your DVD from Sony Pictures on a Sony DVD player.

Reply Score: 1

Uncle Sam gone mad
by moleskine on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:20 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

America's friends around the world must look at this carry-on with incredulity. Believe it or not there are rather more important problems around than digital piracy and pandering to Hollywood moguls.

One day, someone is going to tot up what the "war on terror" cost the American people. In the debit column there will be a long list of things that need never have come about, but did so because an inept and terror-obsessed Administration took it's eye off the ball so that special interests and bent politicians could run riot. Yes, illegal file-sharing is a problem, but you do not need to call in the 3rd Infantry Division to put down a couple of guys brawling in a bar.

Good luck, Uncle Sam, but count me out of this one. Europe is no Shanghri-la when it comes to freedoms, but there does seem to be a firmer appreciation of what matters here and less of a thing about sending huge numbers of people to prison while the usual suspects pat those fat brown envelopes in their pockets.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Uncle Sam gone mad
by Get a Life on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "Uncle Sam gone mad"
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Someday economists from some future world power will look back upon this and other such matters and write some boring treatise on the failing of the American economy stemming from such protectionism, government corruption, and unchecked spending. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, as such matters are only marginally important in economic discussions, but it will seem quite compelling. After all, they faltered didn't they? And so it will become just another page or two in history, and its architects the characters in that comedy that will recall them with amusement.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Uncle Sam gone mad
by vitae on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Uncle Sam gone mad"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Quite possibly. Afterall, empires rise and fall. Nothing lasts forever. God, maybe they'll even compare Mexico's government being bought by drug traffickers and our government bought by corporates.

Reply Score: 4

Another Problem we rarely talk about..
by ThawkTH on Wed 26th Apr 2006 17:33 UTC
ThawkTH
Member since:
2005-07-06

Politicians by and large are far more ignorant when it comes to technology than I'd ever care to admit. They don't UNDERSTAND what a codec is. I'll bet 5 of them have iPods and have never run into DRM restrictions.

I'll bet the average American doesn't realize that there is more than 1 Media Player, nevermind more operating systems. If Computers=Windows then why does it matter if Joe Nerd can't play his blu-ray/hd-dvd Star Trek 11 in (k)Ubuntu X.XX (Greedy Giraffe)? Why would they care if you can't watch it without a special monitor, especially since they just upgraded to the new Windows Panorama with a 21inch DRMed monitor (Had to get the more space so it would work FASTER, said the guy at Best Buy).

Ignorance is the enemy. We can't get buy just teaching people how to act like machines to use a computer (double click here, drag here, click here...that gets e-mail) without explaining why. I'm not saying we need a nation of CS Grad Students (though a basic A+ like program for High Schoolers would go a LONG WAY). We do need to explain the BASICS behind a computer to the average person. They need to understand the risks and benefits.

Teach Jane Sixpack a thing or two next time we try to remove the viruses from her comp...Maybe she'll call her congressman sometime in the future.

Reply Score: 5

No Surprise
by DFergATL on Wed 26th Apr 2006 18:17 UTC
DFergATL
Member since:
2006-02-09

We have had a pro Business administration/congress for years now. The reason this stuff gets put into law is that the average American, whom our govenment "reprents", doesn't donate millions of dollars to politicians. So, slowly, or maybe not so slowly, big business has bought our govenment out from underneath us. Average people are now seen as more of problem to be delt with than those that need protection.

Reply Score: 1

Contact your Senators and House Reps
by hoser_9 on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:14 UTC
hoser_9
Member since:
2006-03-02

The only thing you can do is contact your senators and House Reps if you appose this bill.

Howard Berman (D) California 28th district is the head of the committee, You must email the house reps in your areas to tell them you are opposed to this bill. Here is Howards website. send him an email if you live in that district.

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7

Reply Score: 3

Can't Stress enough
by hoser_9 on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:17 UTC
hoser_9
Member since:
2006-03-02

Hi all sorry for another post. But I can't stress enough that you must contact your senators/house reps in order to tell them hey I care about this issue being squashed and I might not vote for you if it passes. Simple as that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What about our rights?
by m_abs on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:28 UTC
m_abs
Member since:
2005-07-06

>> BS. Copying a CD or DVD for your friend is not a fair use
You're right, but making as many copies I want to myself or my household is.

>> Trying to deploy a copyrighted song or movie from one device to another is not a fair use.
Yes, it is.
Fair use is that I can do whatever I want with something I _paid_ for as long as I don't give copies outside my household.

Reply Score: 1

DMCA is anti-competitive
by KenJackson on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:43 UTC
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

Here is a very relevant policy analysis paper on the DMCA:

The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders—and the technology companies that distribute their content—the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa564.pdf

Reply Score: 1

This is a bad law.
by asupcb on Wed 26th Apr 2006 19:52 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

This is an issue that should be dealt with by the tort system. The proper venue for dealing with copyright violations (which are actually breaches of contracts as is breaking software EULA) is the civil court system and not the criminal justice system. I do not physically harm anyone when I download music, however if I'm caught then I should pay reparations to those that I stole from because I breached my contract with them. It is lunacy to throw people in jail for this. Why do we put up with this stupid crap? Better yet does any one still think of the USA as the "Land of the Free?" I mean I live in a dry county and I have to drive to the next county just to buy beer every weekend. Also why the hell is pot illegal and alcohol and tobacco aren't? Could you imagine Baseball games if everyone was high instead of drunk? There would be no fighting and sales at the concession stands would go through the roof.
Our country has gone nuts. Whatever happened to "Government of the People, by the people"? We are as bad as any "Old Europe" country. Our Republic sucks and the truth is the reason why it sucks is because instead of taking responsibility for our actions every time something goes wrong we say "there ought to be a law." Now we have so many laws that no one knows what they are and our Congressmen often vote for laws that they don't read through entirely.
So how do we fix this? Well one easy way is to vote third party. Vote for the greens or libertarians or the US Marijuana Party or Nader. I mean would you rather show support for someone and something that you think would actually be good for the country or vote for the lesser of two evils in which you are guaranteed to get screwed one way or another. And if you don't like any of them vote third party anyway just as a protest vote. I mean if Hillary or Rice wins in 2008 we will be screwed no matter what because they each suck in their own vacuous ways. If you vote the lesser of the two evils then it’s like trying to decide if you would rather get screwed by a donkey or an elephant either way it will be painful.

Reply Score: 1

NixerX
Member since:
2006-01-04

Bush is more likely to understand the Microsoft Business model than the OSS approach. Ultimately Bush is just another old dude that hears alphabet soup when the gear head du jour goes off on an tangent. Anyway Ill just ignore it if it dose pass.

Oh yea....where is the capitol again....Washington DC or Hollywood?

-Nx

Reply Score: 1

GPL'ed content!
by Brendan on Thu 27th Apr 2006 09:52 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

You heard me - we need GPL'ed music, movies, etc and a good/stable place to download them for free. There's plenty of artists trying to get recognition, but can't.

Reply Score: 1

madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

How can they say that people shouldn't have the right to play media when and where they want to. Why should the government make it a crime to make a copy of a movie to watch on my video iPod? Why should it be a crime for me to make a copy of the songs on a CD to play on my MP3 player? Why should it be a crime to write (or even use) software that will let me watch DVDs from outside the USA and Canada? (according to the movie industry, bypassing region locks is a form of piracy)

I can understand why greedy companies would WANT all these things to be illegal, but I don't see why any intellegent, thinking person would support them and the corrupt politicians who are payed off well enough (the Dems) or just plain evil enough (the GOP) to support the greedy industry and give them anything they want (like stiff prison sentences for copying stuff and almost infinite copyright)

Reply Score: 1

Creative Commons (Free Music)
by Mr Contraire on Thu 27th Apr 2006 14:06 UTC
Mr Contraire
Member since:
2005-07-06

Someone mentioned or requested GPL music. Well, if you check out http://www.ccmixter.org you'll find some ;) I'm one of the contributors and challenge you all to listen in, and spread the word for those of us who are trying our best to make a difference ;)

btw. From an artistic point of view, this is all old news. Draconianism has been at the forefront of the music industry for a LONG time. DRM and law is just the tip of the iceberg, the pointy tip for musicians has for a long time been the "business" itself and it's various methods of very un-natural selection and ruthless profiteering.

This is an interesting article...
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

I personally think it should NOT be the governments role to write unique legislation to specifically protect a business model. Governments are supposed to be balanced, and not listen only to the point of view of those who have vested remunerative fiscal interests, what about those who are interested only in sharing and/or selling CDs under Creative Commons licenses?

I WANT people to copy the tracks/CDs I choose to make public and intend to be FREE. I WANT people to share these LEGALLY on torrents and eMule, iMesh etc.

I want to make choices, and I want those who enjoy my music to make choices too. So, are my wishes simply to be ignored because I'm "a hippie" renegade and demand little to no recompense for my time, whilst others insist on maximal profit for every breath, whisper and bodily motion?

Is Creative Commons to be ignored again like it seems to have been under the CARP broadcasting legislation?

This is much bigger than the legality of sharing a degraded copy of something you didn't but probably should have paid for, it's not even just about duping a rented DVD. It's these things and more, it's about controlling the content from input to output thought every stage, hence the reference to DRM networks in order to distribute (legally) the iTunes files I bought to rooms within my own home! That inconvenience is simply not in the interest of the consumer, ie. ME!

I'll be the last in the line to upgrade my DVD, which I'm perfectly happy with, and my CD players which I'm perfectly happy with, and my original CDs and DVDs which I'm perfectly happy with.

Edited 2006-04-27 14:07

Reply Score: 1

RE: Creative Commons (Free Music)
by Brendan on Thu 27th Apr 2006 16:36 UTC in reply to "Creative Commons (Free Music)"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Someone mentioned or requested GPL music. Well, if you check out http://www.ccmixter.org you'll find some ;) I'm one of the contributors and challenge you all to listen in, and spread the word for those of us who are trying our best to make a difference ;)

This is a good start, but it's only a start. What I mostly want is similar, but commercial (i.e. organised by someone who can promote it, like Google).

It seems like a twisted mixture (commerical companies and creative commons), but it makes sense if you think about it. Where I live "popularity" (and therefore what gets air-time on radio stations) is determined by a "top 40" list, which is determined by sales figures from the large "music producers" (i.e. all the companies that want DRM). Because of this it's almost impossible for free music to get air-time, regardless of how good it is (which means no-one knows it exists).

Someone like Google could make a ton of cash selling advertisements, and use a small part of this cash to publicise the free content (and therefore increase their profit while help out content creators). It would be simple to have their own "top 40" based on number of downloads, and easy to inform free-to-air radio stations about it.

I personally think it should NOT be the governments role to write unique legislation to specifically protect a business model. Governments are supposed to be balanced, and not listen only to the point of view of those who have vested remunerative fiscal interests, what about those who are interested only in sharing and/or selling CDs under Creative Commons licenses?

You sound like a fool who still thinks the USA is a democracy. Here's a hint - the USA is a "representative democracy", which is completely different thing. Instead of everyone having a say in all things that matter, the people only get a say on issues that the politicians think is "safe" just before an infrequently held election.

Most so-called "democratic" countries are similar, but the USA seems worse than all of them. The reason I say this is because (from what I've heard), the people that are "represented" by the politicians are the people who donate the most cash to the election campaigns, or pay the most money to lobbyists. Obviously this means that the majority of the population doesn't get any say (except for those infrequent elections) and the politicians are ruled by the companies who can afford to pay the most. Worse, the politicians who accept the most "bribes" have the most cash for their election campaigns, and they can afford to spend the most on massive media campaigns designed to artificially influence the voters opinions. Those infrequent elections (the only say normal citizens have) aren't quite democratic either, at least not in the fairest, truest sense (if we both build a house and my house is better, does that mean I'm the better builder, even if I started with a million dollars and you started with 2 dry sticks and some chewing gum?).

Reply Score: 1

Mr Contraire Member since:
2005-07-06

Where I live "popularity" (and therefore what gets air-time on radio stations) is determined by a "top 40" list, which is determined by sales figures from the large "music producers" (i.e. all the companies that want DRM). Because of this it's almost impossible for free music to get air-time, regardless of how good it is (which means no-one knows it exists).

I think over time, as the quality improves and the community gets itself moving, in much the same way as the FOSS community some of the big players will get involved (like Google). Summer of music, anyone?

Without getting too off topic, the top 10/40/50/100 systems used in most countries are a manipulative construct designed to encourage you buy more of a certain and very specific artist/brand. The actual music is such a small part of the process, publicity and marketing deals, freola airplay, video and network deals, magazine shoots and exclusives....all over a very very short span of time.

Someone like Jessica Simpson will never ever ever appear on something like ccMixter, because when you strip away all the component parts back down to the music.....well, I don't want to insult the girl ;) To quote Adam Green, "..where has your love gone, it's not in your music, no".

Manufactured bands are always top 10, does that mean they're the best? No. "Top" systems are flawed. We need a better system. We need preferential learning filters, it's coming.

You sound like a fool who still thinks the USA is a democracy. Here's a hint - the USA is a "representative democracy", which is completely different thing. Instead of everyone having a say in all things that matter, the people only get a say on issues that the politicians think is "safe" just before an infrequently held election.

Nice of you to say so, is this the forum for $5 insults or $10?...here's a hint for you, I'm not American ;) And by the way it disturbs me a little that my American friends do seem to accept modern democracy with a sigh and a shrug.

If you don't like YOUR system, change it.

....Those infrequent elections (the only say normal citizens have) aren't quite democratic either, at least not in the fairest, truest sense (if we both build a house and my house is better, does that mean I'm the better builder, even if I started with a million dollars and you started with 2 dry sticks and some chewing gum?).

It's not always about money. With two dry sticks I can start a fire and make a choice, to keep warm and slowly build resistance or drop by your house and watch a million dollars burn.

Reply Score: 1

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Nice of you to say so, is this the forum for $5 insults or $10?...here's a hint for you, I'm not American ;) And by the way it disturbs me a little that my American friends do seem to accept modern democracy with a sigh and a shrug.

My apologies, it was very late at night (early in the morning) when I wrote that (if I hadn't been so tired I probably would've refrained). It wasn't intended as an insult to anyone - more of a "wake up" call to those who might not understand how the American government works.

I'm not American either - (unfortunately?) I'm Australian, and the Australian politicians have a tendency to copy the American goverment so that they don't have to think for themselves (and so they don't hurt trade agreements, etc). This means that if America accepts this stupid DRM law, Australia will probably also end up stuck with it. Further, the entire world will probably, eventually, end up with DRM crippled hardware/software and DRM crippled content to some degree, regardless of how much their governments object to it.

Democracy, the principles of capitalism and the rights of citizens will all be completely ignored - it's about cash (both "bribes" and American exports) not common sense.

Reply Score: 1

Snobbey aristos
by Bonus on Tue 2nd May 2006 13:10 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

"They had been told that there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented - they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn't yet happened."

The officer should have stayed in the room and monitored the siuation before touching RMS.

Just a snobby college campus that pushes learners around over teachers and speakers because of more money.

Reply Score: 1