Broadcast Flag Sneak Not Attempted 365
Trizero writes "THOMAS, one of the best sources for Congressional action on the Internet has shown that no amendments occured to the CJS Appropriations Bill. Monday, Slashdot covered the EFF announcing a rumor that a senator was attempting to sneak an amendment to bring the Broadcast Flag into law. From THOMAS (scroll down to the bottom): "6/21/2005:
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. Approved for full committee consideration without amendment favorably." Translation: No one attempted to sneak the Broadcast flag into law." Update: 06/22 18:55 GMT by J : The EFF's new Activism Coordinator, Danny O'Brien, sees this as a victory for swift citizen action. Impressive numbers. Nice work by EFF and Public Knowledge, and everyone who raised their voice.
So what happened? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the Broadcast flag wasn't smuggled into law within the CJS appropriations bill, as threatened earlier.
The question now is: why not?
Discuss.
Re:So what happened? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sneaking something into an appropriations bill, by definition, requires it be "sneaked"... impossible to do, if everyone knows about it. 3 weeks from now, 3 months from now, 3 years from now, there will be another bill, people won't be on guard for it, and it will return.
Re:So what happened? (Score:2)
Donate to the EFF so there will be (Score:3, Informative)
And that's exactly why you should donate [eff.org] to the EFF, and stay on thier action alert mailing list - so when they do try again the EFF can raise the alarm and you can hear it to take action.
Basically now there's ALWAYS someone watching. And that is a REALLY good thing.
Re:So what happened? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, see below.
Did the senators decide against this course of action on their own?
Senators don't have free thought. They are paid by corporations to think/act like the corporations tell them to.
Or was this just an unfounded rumor to begin with?
Probably unfounded or at least only partially true. If anything, there was something far more insidious going on elsewhere and this was an attempt to divert the all powerful Slashdot crowd's attention to something worthless.
Discuss.
I'd prefer to just joke about it thanks.
Re:So what happened? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say most of them are simply just highly attached to their own prejudices, many of which are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted, while the rest are idealistic without the benefit of either pragmatism or human empathy. And without exception, they hunger for more power. Most corporations prey on these attributes first before falling back to naked avarice.
So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
Attaching an ammendment like Real ID or Broadcast Flag will not slow the process. So maybe the CJS Appropriations Bill was not an ideal carrier for Broadcast Flag since appropriations bills tend to be the most debated and delayed.
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely if you are voting on a specific Bill then thats all you should be voting on - not "The Senate should buy more duck food for the ducks on the lake Bill" with the appended "Nuke Russia Bill" and "Give Hollywood and Microsoft everyone's firstborn Bill"
Re:So what happened? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I suppose making things more efficient and effective isn't The American Way (TM).
How long till someone proposes a whole year's worth of legislation as one bill... up or down? And voting down means depriving war orphans of free milk, which makes you worse than Hitler (at least according to Senator Durbin), whereas voting up cedes citizens' rights to the **AA, insurance companies and other large, rich corporations, buried so deeply in the legislation no one even knows it's there.
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Informative)
President Clinton briefly had the power of the Line Item Veto [loc.gov] between 1997 - 1998. It was Declared Unconstitutional [wikipedia.org] in 1998, after President Clinton's first attempt to use the veto. If I remember right, Clinton knew that the Line-item veto wouldn't survive, and chose to use it in a mostly symbolic act.
The Courts said that this particular attempt at a line-item veto gave unprececented legislative power to the executive branch.
Re:So what happened? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, your conclusion is quite possible. I actually predict it is likely the U.S. will not survive the 21st century in one piece. Hopefully it won't be another Civil War, but I can't imagine this country remaining united for another 100 years.
Re:So what happened? (Score:2)
The way they kill bills is as stupid as the way (Score:3, Interesting)
By permitting 'pork' to get tacked onto bills, the bill's originators insure that they will get support from whoever's 'pork' it happens to be.
That how you end up with bills on railroad subsidies carying some agriculture provisions. Its all like that: "You scratch my pig and I'll scratch yours."
It also how you kill a bill.
Just attach a portion that touches on abortion (for or against, doesn't matter,) religion (a sure fire bill killer since it will be stuck down constitutionally, ever by the most rabid right wing judge,) or some other 'hot-button' topic (strip mining in our national parks, in a state that actually has a tourist trade.)
You can even get the president to veto a military budget or a budget bill voting increases in pay for senators and congressmen if you tack a provision supporting abortion (say for sexually assulted military personel or assulted BY military personel.) It'll never pass.
All I know is that Americans give democracy a bad name by constantly muddying the issues. When you vote, it shouldn't need some one with a law degree and a doctorate in PoliSci to tell you what you actually voted for.
Democracy, lets give it a try...
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Funny)
Ob. Simpson's reference:
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
Re:So what happened? (Score:2)
Ugh. Frustrating. Why aren't these pork-barrel bills ever named for what they really do. I'd love to see "The Anti-Consumer WillOfThePeople-Circumvention and Privacy Disposal Act" someday.
*NONE* of this would happen if we limited the length of individual bills, acts and actions to maximum of 1,000 words on 10 printed letter-size pages in a single-spaced 12point courier font.
Re:So what happened? (Score:2)
Re:So what happened? (Score:2)
Given that this is slashdot, land of unfounded rumor, take an educated guess :-)
Re:So what happened? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Ask obviously implied questions
3) ???
4) Karma!
The mods here are idiots.
(OT)Re:So what happened? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Ask obviously implied questions
3) ???
4) Karma!
The mods here are idiots.
Yes, but karma, like most of the posts, is inherently worthless. Kinda like this post!
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Interesting)
bhsx: I'd like to know Senator Durbin's stance on the rumor of a ryder being added to the appropreations bill regarding the mandate of the broadcast flag.
Nice, very professional sounding rep: You know, we just started hearing about this yesterday, and we really don't know enough about it to say, at this point.
bhsx: Well, the rumor only broke yesterday. I voted for the Senator last election; and will rethink that vote if this happens.
Nice, very professional sounding rep: We are taking a tally, we've gotten plenty of phone calls about this. Do I understand that you are against this possible ryder?
bhsx: Yes, very much so...
Nice, very professional sounding rep: That does seem to be the concensus here sir, we will be looking at this very closely. Thank you for calling.
Of course, Senator Durbin is eating crow over breaking Godwin's Law, so maybe he saw this as a possible platform for looking like the good guy again. Who know's why it happenned; but believe that every one of us here that faxed and phoned got heard. Keep up the good work everyone!
I did too (Score:3, Interesting)
I called mine too - Arlen Specter of PA. Like you, the first thing I asked was "does Senator Specter have a position on this?" Like yours, the answer was no, not really. Big surprise, since this is surely the first these people have ever heard about this mysterious thing that they don't understand.
Continue to emphasize it, there has been no debate over this issue in the appropriations committee or the technology subcommittee! My guess is, this is more likely to compel them to yank the rider out of the reolution while it's in committee - if it survives to be voted on, it's over - no one will hold up an appropriations bill on account of the broadcast flag.
Like Cockroaches in the Night (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Informative)
Just between you, me, and a few other passing Slashdot folk, here's the extent of what we know: there's a senator who is (or was) friendly to the idea of dropping a BF amendment into the Senate Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill.
There are a number of opportunities for them to do this: drop it in sub-committee (Tues), full committee (Thurs), or even later in the passage of the bill.
If it's an uncontroversial amendment, and you're a sneaky senator, you're better off dropping it in early, because then the job is done, and someone else has to fight to get it out of the bill.
The more controversial it becomes, the later you should place it (when the bill has some momentum, and fixes are harder).
The BF got a lot more controversial this week.
The campaign switched this to becoming the "Broadcast what?" amendment, to the "Is this that Godforsaken thing that's been melting my staffers phones all week?".
It was always an even split whether the sneak move would go in Tues or Thurs (which was why it was a 48 hour campaign, and we've been targetting the full Appropriations Committee). They could still try and stick it in tomorrow, but that's becoming increasingly unlikely (we're betting 50/50 right now). Too hot a potato.
Next stop in this line of attack would be an amendment on the senate floor, but there's some time to go before that.
I've written about the effect of your messages on the EFF site [eff.org], but that's mostly statistics on exactly how big the response was (summary: for a campaign targetted at a few senators in a short time-frame, it was huge).
I'm currently pulling together all the possible opportunities the broadcasters have for sneaking the flag in. I'm tempted to publish that, because it would give people a better overview, but there's a bit of me that thinks "Don't let them know what the opposition knows!". What do people think?
Wait there's more! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait there's more! (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe these protection methods would make more sense if they had something really worth protecting.
And before anyone gets all "well people do actually watch Friends, tom". That's simply a product of not having a choice. After decades of decreasing quality television people assume that they're getting what they actually want/need/crave/desire.
So I say go for the whole shebang. Cancel analogue television and make it all $5/min for viewing for all I care. When it comes down to it outside of the odd good cartoon or documentary there isn't much to miss.
Tom
Re:Wait there's more! (Score:2)
When has television ever not sucked? Have you ever gone back and watched old TV shows? They don't just suck, they blow!
If anything, TV today is better than TV in the past (but by enlarge it still sucks).
Re:Wait there's more! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey - did you send me like 20 emails this morning?
Of course there's a choice... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that anyone in the US was chained to their screen and literally forced to watch. Of course there's a choice - kill your television.
This is not to say that I'm indifferent to the broadcast flag - I think it's a terrible idea. But you do have a choice. You can vote with the power button on your remote.
Sean
Re:Wait there's more! (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
So the rumor got the name of the bill wrong? (Score:2)
These are not the droids you're looking for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Some MPAA congresstooge will slip it in under the cover of night, as it were.
On the other hand, consider the possibility that the story was leaked as a trial balloon, to see how much attention it would get. They'll put it out again every couple of months, until we all decide that a broadcast flag is inevitable.
Considering how many people think digital TV is some kind of constitutional right, I suspect we'll get a broadcast flag along with subsidized digital TV -- to protect our way of life, fight terrorism, and to save the children.
The MPAA will get their broadcast flag, and the government will borrow money from my kids to pay for it.
Re:These are not the droids you're looking for... (Score:2)
Yup, been there and talked about that [slashdot.org].
Sad isn't it?
Poor senator (Score:4, Informative)
One of the most needed pieces of legislation in this country is a Federal-level law that states the amendments and provisions of a bill must directly relate to its topic. I know a few states have this now but Congress uses this backdoor to get all sorts of shady and illegal legislation passed every year.
Re:Poor senator (Score:4, Funny)
Like that will change a thing, really. It'll just mean that our bills will be titled
"Wont somebody think of the children in Iraq and my taxes on my million dollar house are too high and random porkbarrel act of 2006"
On the other hand, we'll quit getting stupid cutesy acronyms like PATRIOT and what not.
Re:Poor senator (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to call you on that one. If Congress passes the law, and the president signs it, it is by definition legal. There ain't no such thing as illegal legislation. There is such a thing as unconstitutional legislation, though, which is maybe what you were thinking of.
Re:Poor senator (Score:2)
Why is there a difference? If I were to break a local, state, or federal law, I'd have committed an illegal act. But if Congress breaks the rules in the Constitution, which is the highest law of the country, it's merely "unconstitutional".
Too bad it isn't illegal to pass laws or otherwise act against the constitution. "It seemed like a good idea at the time" isn't much of a defense for any other crime, and it might actually force our representatives to care about what they're doing for once, instead of signing whatever they're paid to sign or passing whatever the majority whip tells them to.
Re:Poor senator (Score:2)
I personally have wished for worse penalties for contempt of the constitution and the people than simply losing an election and moving on to some cushy thinktank or board job. But on further reflection, I think that punishment for exercising the power freely given to them is still best reserved for the worst cases like outright malfeasance. Yes, I believe there are a few in power now that deserve such a penalty, but it's a small number. The alternative is the possibility of the judiciary wielding its power capriciously in the name of its own ideology, against the elected government. See Iran for an example of that.
Re: Unconstitutional laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, if a law can't be shown to have a specific harm to a person or other entity capable of bringing suit, it's effectively constitutional regardless of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
Of course, IANAL, so feel free to disregard any of this as you see fit.
Re: Unconstitutional laws (Score:2)
Re:Poor senator (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Poor senator (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be even better is a constitutional amendment which would require either that bills be limited to one item and one item alone (no riders, etc.), or that each and every provision to a bill would have to be voted on for it to be included. A great addition to either of those would be a limit on the number of laws allowed. If we fill up the number, an old one has to go. That would rock...
brwski
Re:Poor senator (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a better solution would be to have a quick process for undoing the effects of a rider. The day after passing a bill with a rider that wouldn't have passed as a bill by itself, anyone could propose repealing the rider, everyone would look at the rider and realize that it's something noteworthy that wasn't actually discussed at all, and they'd vote with no argument for keeping it (since no argument was initially raised for adding it). Chances are that such a bill would survive a presidental veto on general principle (or the threat of sneaking something nasty about the areas that fail to support it into the next popular bill).
Re:Read the Bills Act (Score:5, Funny)
If government can't be effective, it might as well be entertaining.
A legislation flag? (Score:4, Funny)
Either that, or REQUIRE that every piece of legislation be read in full on the House floor by Gilbert Gottfried, and on the Senate floor by Ben Stein before it gets voted into law. If you haven't heard it both screamed and droned, it can't be signed into law.
Snarkist (Score:2)
Re:A legislation flag? (Score:2)
Re:A legislation flag? (Score:2)
The purpose of the line-item veto is so that unrelated lesiglation placed into a sure-to-pass bill can be removed without striking the entire bill down.
Re:A legislation flag? (Score:2)
The republicans in Congress actually supported Clinton having the line-item veto. It was ruled unconstitional by the Supreme Court in 1998, which was a few years after the republicans got control of Congress. That was what stopped it.
Sneak Not Attempted (Score:3, Funny)
Great, now I sound like a crackpot to my senators. (Score:2)
Re:Great, now I sound like a crackpot to my senato (Score:3, Funny)
never happens . . .
Is it too late... (Score:2)
And next time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Harder than it sounds (Score:5, Informative)
The US Congressional procedures are very strange. Bills are created by committees; they don't usually go to the floor until it's been approved by the committee. After that, it's tricky to change the bill.
Most deliberative bodies have a "motion to split", which allows you to take a bill and chop it into pieces and vote the separate pieces. The US Congress rules of order don't have a motion to split. That means that you actually have to amend the bill to remove offending language. On the floor, debate and amendments are limited.
The point of not having the motion to split is to allow compromises to be enforced. If somebody says, "OK, I'll let you have your restriction on cadmium disposal, but only if I can have $15 million for my district to build roads." If you remove one piece or the other from the bill, the compromise falls apart.
It's hard to make compromises in a 435-member House (or even a 100 member Senate). That's why bills come out of committees, where there are usually a dozen people at most. In theory that also allows them to be experts (or at least have experts on hand) in transportation/defense/telecommuncations/etc.
The point is that your senator has less than 1% input into most bills. In theory he makes up for it with more than 1% input into other bills, depending on seniority. Of course it never works out that way, depending on favors he's done, whether he's in the majority or minority, etc.
So ultimately even when it comes down to the up-or-down vote, your senator could be forced to say, "I'm going to vote against this entire bill guaranteeing proper nutrition for kittycats because I don't like the broadcast flag that's gotten crammed into it." And when he runs for re-election, the opposition says, "Senator Bob vote to starve kittycats!"
The Republicans absolutely REAMED Kerry in the last election because of this. It's one reason that Senators haven't been elected to Congress in forever: they end up leaving these long track records of voting against things they agree with.
It didn't help that Kerry fumbled the answer, "Well, I voted for that bill before they crammed all that pork into it" (the correct answer) came out as, "I voted for it before I voted against it," and the election pretty much ended right then.
So Senators on the committee have massive power to write legislative pork and do favors for friends. That won't go away without a rewrite of the rules. Sadly, you'll discover that whatever party has 51% of the vote is not likely to vote to change the rules, since it tends to limit their power.
Viva la revolucion!
Re:Harder than it sounds (Score:2)
I like that far better than a line-item veto. Mostly because I figure that if the broadcast flag came in front of Bush attatched to a bill, it wouldn't be line-item vetoed.
Re:Harder than it sounds (Score:3, Informative)
Reamed as in 'they rode that horse as far as it would take them, and them they carried the corpse a bit further,' not as in 'trounced them in the election.'
They harped on it for a very long time. "Kerry voted AGAINST money for troops!" Well, no. Not quite.
Perhaps it is time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying it would be easy, just that it is time to add this to the conversation.
Re:Perhaps it is time (Score:3, Informative)
Grammar Cop (Score:3, Informative)
That would be correct as:
"THOMAS, one of the best sources on the Internet for Congressional action"
English is a language with positional importance of words and phrases. Some verbs, like "action", more closely associate subsequent clauses as objects of their meaning than do clauses that preceed those verbs.
Re:Grammar Cop (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I have no need for a source of "Congressional action." In fact, I'd really rather not think about it at all.
Re:Grammar Cop (Score:2)
It would be "correct" either way! It would be more clear, less ambiguous and less open to misinterpretation the way you phrased it (and kudos for that), but being unclear, ambiguous and misinterpretable is par for the course for an English sentence, correctly grammarified or not.
To quote Mustrum Ridcully, "it's more of a guideline than a rule." English grammar has a great deal of flexibility--more than you seem to give it credit for--a fact which is praised by poets and humorists and condemned by engineers, computer scientists and high-school English teachers.
> Some verbs, like "action"...
"Action" is always a noun, except, perhaps, in PHB-speak (where it can be an adjective). If "action" had been a verb, I would probably have agreed with you, but the sentence would have had far deeper problems in that case. For one thing, it would have had a noun action--er, acting as a verb!
Re:Grammar Cop (Score:2)
This is what is wrong (Score:2)
Why do we, as American citizens, have to keep a close eye on everything that our elected officials do so that they do not sneak unlawful provision into law.
I thought that our elected officials were supposed to be honorable folks looking out for the best interest of the general public.
This is clearly not the case anymore.
Re:This is what is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete the well-known phrase or saying: "The price of freedom...."
Re:This is what is wrong (Score:2)
Um... it's not unlawful if it becomes a law. That's sort of the point of making laws: they define what's lawful. Then it's a question of whether or not it's constitutionally valid, and further more, whether it's in practical terms usable.
As for "sneaking"... your reps/senators work for you, on stuff that impacts your life. You should be keeping up with what they're doing, at least in areas that are interesting to you.
Re:This is what is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be clear about the distinction between "illegal" and "unconstitutional." There are plenty of laws that have been found, appropriately, to be unconstitutional. Those, at that point, are no longer laws. Until the court says they're not, though, they are laws, and describe how the legal system works. Years can go by between a law being created and judicial action undoing it. In the meantime, it's legal, by definition. Let's also not confuse "legal" with "morally right." Plenty of laws, even those that pass consitutional tests, are just plain wrong-headed. But that won't keep you out of jail if you break them. Only changing the law will do that... and if the law in question passes a challenge at the court, then only legislative actions will be able to change the law. So, vote! Your elected congressional and senate representatives are the people that make the laws, and are the people that can un-make them when they no longer mesh well enough with society.
This has always been the case. (Score:2)
Re:This is what is wrong (Score:2)
In this manner, the senators are generally trying to deceive each other more than the public, so the part about "go behind [i]our[/i] backs" sounds a bit off. Unless, of course, you're speaking in your capacity as a US senator. If that's the case... well, let me take this opportunity to say, "Screw you, you overpaid, worthless bastard."
Now we wonder... (Score:2)
Too many eyes (Score:2)
They will wait until our focus is on something else.
Some common sense (Score:2, Interesting)
First off, was this just a rumor? Well, most likely not, considering how much the MPAA has gone after the BCF in the last several years, it would be pretty damn asinine to think they are not wanting to get this signed into law. Orrin Hatch has been sucking the c**k of the RIAA and MPAA to such an extent, it's hard to remember he is from Utah. (Yes, I know OH wasn't the one involved here, but he has been the assmonkey behind most of the BS from them)
Did the EFF campaign trump the alledged attempt? Well, unless you get an admittance from a congressman, it will be very hard to ever no the answer to this question.
A shift in congress? Well, there have been more and more congressman lately standing up and admitting that the DCMA is a bastardized screw up that needs major overhauling. Wired even had an interview in the last few days with a congressman who openly admitts he will stand up to anyone in Hollywood. Not too mention, the courts have recently weighed in and staunchly shot down the current attempts. Yes, they stated that it would be up to congress to make the provisions for allowing the BCF.
The fourth option not discussed yet, that the tech companies, have finally gotten off their butts, and realized that only they will watch their butts in congress. The article I mentioned from Wired, the congressman involved discusses how the tech companies are no longer trusting congress to do what is right, and have finally started lobbying their positions in congress.
The fifth option, imho, is that the public outcrying from the court challenge over the BCF was heard in congress, and is being taken into consideration.
That's my five cents worth.
Warning! (Score:2, Funny)
Any attempt to copy and distribute the information contained herein will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
No animals were injured in the posting of this article.
Re:Warning! (Score:2)
Just try me. I dare you, government bitchiceses!
Let's just find whoever came up with that broadcast flag thing, and burn it and him.
Law Hacking (Score:2)
Well GOOD! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, why should American's rights be trampled upon because the MPAA and the networks are all crying?
Can we fire all of congress and start anew somehow? Perhaps these 80+ year old senators need some goddamned term limits. I remember watching an interview with one of the oldest Senators (forget which one) from the 80s and when asked if he knew how much a trillion dollars even was, he didn't know. He said something to the extent that it seemed like an awful lot of money, but he had no idea how much.
Secondly, we need to close this stupid awful back door policy. We need to stop adding sections to bills that are wholly unrelated, especially since lawmakers have so candidly told us that they don't even have time to actually read what they are voting for, but at the same time, they can waste days and days of congress sessions for filibusters on Supreme Court nominees.
Well, I guess nobody would ever say that big government is efficient.
That's all I gotta say for now, but I could definately ramble on about the feds for days and weeks and still never exhaust my discontent with the state of the union.
Re:Well GOOD! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we don't need term limits on Congresscritters. What we need is a Constitutional amendment to the following effect:
The sum total of all laws currently in force as enacted by Congress must be less than 50,000 words, with *no* references to external sources allowed (that's approximately 96 pages).
If Congress wants to put something new in, that's great... but they'll have to take something out. Furthermore, it does a terrific job of (a) allowing the average citizen to understand what the laws are and (b) forcing the law to be concise, well-thought-out and well-written, and most importantly, a statement of general principles that are to be equitably applies across the board - not one riddled with loopholes.
For reference, the US Constitution, including all amendments and enumeration of amendment numbers, clauses, phrases, sections, etc. is a total of 7,709 words (as counted by copy/pasting into MS Word). It's pretty freaking clear on the general principles of law involved (some of the amendments less so).
Just a thought.
Line item veto needed, badly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Line item veto needed, badly (Score:2, Insightful)
I support the b'cast flag (Score:2, Funny)
Keep crying wolf! (Score:2)
In the words of the immortal Homer Simpson.... (Score:2)
Fix the flag icon (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA did something similar in the 90s when it snuck in "work for hire" legislation, which made all recording artists mere "work for hires" without any right to retain or obtain copyrights on their songs.
Well, I think it was more than Rumour (Score:2)
Re:oh great.... (Score:2)
Re:oh great.... (off topic, fair warning) (Score:2)
Let's see...there's..an analogy...somewhere around here...
Oh that's right, the studio engineers and producers! The engineers are very much concerned with capturing the moment in audio, and what's more, the producers are very much conerned with manipluating the moment to be the best it can be. Geez, that sounds exactly like what photographers do, yet engineers never get the copyright, and I've never heard of a producer getting the copyright (though in some cases, it wouldn't surprise me if he/she was awarded some part).
Re:oh great.... (off topic, fair warning) (Score:4)
In fact, i'd say it is the wedding photographer's job to capture the wedding couple's previsualized concept of their wedding on film as accurately as possible.
In the specific case of wedding photographers, I would consider them work for hire. In the case of someone like Ansel Adams, however, I would definitely consider it an artistic work that the photographer should hold a copyright on.
Re:oh great.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh great.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... that's because it's not a rumor. They have blown stuff up again (know anyone that lives in Madrid?), and keep saying how they're going to do more of it, and death to America, etc. It's not really a matter of rumor when you can follow the money from shady businesses to people buying and selling weapons, to the people who are actually, demonstrably tied to people that are blowing up restaurants, chopping off heads on video, and saying they won't rest until democracy (a "true evil") is banished from the world. Come on, now, the fact that these clowns are out there, and willing to kill/die working against basic stuff like represntative government or women being allowed to work if they want to... that's not rumor. It's just medievalist jackasses with enough cash to buy decidedly post-medieval weapons and enough young people in their thrall to talk them into shredding themselves in a restaurant and taking innocent people with them.
Calling it a rumor is like saying that crackers and blackhats are a rumor, just because you've never personally had your box owned. Any chance that you've never had malware running on your machine not because there's no such thing as crackers, but because you're careful, and can think abstractly about the consequences if you were to let your guard down? National security has become just like that. And since our public memory is about 12 minutes long, all of that post-9/11 caution is regarded as "Bush=Nazi," and very few people can think abstractly about the consequences of not fending off the bad guys. You'd think, after watching New York, or that Beslan school in Russia, or the trains Madrid, that it would be a no-brainer and everyone would get that there really are people that happy to kill - but since most of us can't think like those people, it's hard to imagine that their past acts are anything other than an abberation. But they're not, and they're not going to be for a long time. Generations, probably (since that how long it will take for all of the kids in the middle east and other oppressive places to shake off the whole doom-and-gloom as a way of life thing). Generations before the whole 70 Virgins concept starts to look a little shaky as a reason to kill police cadets as they eat their lunch.
This time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Y2K didn't happen because everyone feared it, and did a heck of a lot of work to prevent it, possibly fueling the dot-com boom. (and bust, when Y2K dollars were finished being spent.)
Maybe the Broadcast Flag didn't happen (this time) because the EFF was on guard, and alerted the most obnoxious people they could find, for the response.
Re:This time. (Score:2)
Re:No, it got in.... read what the poster wrote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Soooo, what your saying is.... (Score:2)