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.
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
And next time? (Score:3, 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.
Re:oh great.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:So what happened? (Score:1, Insightful)
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: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.
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:This is what is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete the well-known phrase or saying: "The price of freedom...."
Re:Great, now I sound like a crackpot to my senato (Score:1, Insightful)
I wouldn't put it past passive-aggressive corporations to create a rumor like this for EXACTLY that purpose: to make opponents sound like crackpots crying wolf.
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: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.
Re:So what happened? (Score:3, Insightful)
Line item veto needed, badly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Ask obviously implied questions
3) ???
4) Karma!
The mods here are idiots.
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:Poor senator (Score:5, 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.
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:Line item veto needed, badly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
(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: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.
Like Cockroaches in the Night (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.
Re:So what happened? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is better to simply not allow riders so that each bill survives on its own merits.
Re:So what happened? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what happened? (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, if they want to pass the handgun law, they need to have it voted on on its own merits.
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.
Re:So what happened? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't know. But, how do you do that in your state with people who (as far as you know) aren't carrying guns? Presumably you don't. But neither do you know that the person next to you on the freeway is responsible (or even licensed) driver. And yet most of us make it to work each day. At some point, you just need to have a little faith in your fellow man, or if you can't stomach that; at least be willing to put his freedom over your comfort.
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.