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.
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.
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: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: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: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!
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...
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.