Broadcast Flag Back in Congress 417
Tyler Too writes "When the broadcast flag was smacked down in court, it was only a matter of time before the MPAA tried to ram it through Congress. The first attempt in June failed, but the EFF reports that they are gearing up for another try. From Ars Technica's write-up: 'This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented, nor can it be filibustered.' Looks like it's a good time to call your congressman."
If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:3, Funny)
not being an american, it is one of the things i have found most perplexing about your legal system ...
shouldn't a law for Penguin Control at least be in a bill that is somehow related to penguins??
Yes, it should, and it's asinine the way that the system is abused. Pisses me off to no end.
When I run for president in 2016, it's going to be on a strict "no-pork" platform. If there's even one unrelated rider, it gets vetoed, no matter how important the bill may be otherwise. No exceptions.
/no, I'm
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Insightful)
The ability to try again with failed legislation is one of the greatest strengths of our political system, but at the same time it is one of the biggest problems.
The number of other provisions and amendments that make it through in this manner is probably staggering. The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap. Of course, that would require a major change in our our legislative process works...
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Funny)
Why not just tack your proposal onto some popular bill?
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:5, Funny)
KENT BROCKMAN
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 second, 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?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.
KENT BROCKMAN
I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work...
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternatively you could just enforce the Constitution: then 99% of laws would be thrown out immediately... including this one.
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:2)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Marbury vs. Madison (Score:5, Informative)
You guessed it. (Or maybe you already knew that, having remained awake for the first day of your US History class.) The case was Marbury vs. Madison.
Re:Marbury vs. Madison (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
It required amendments to make the Constitution's intent explicit, but fortunately they [wikipedia.org] both [wikipedia.org] were passed two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, Amendment IX is practically unenforceable because while everyone can agree that there are human rights not explicitly protected by the Consitution, nobody entirely agrees on which rights those are. Amendment X i
Re:Please explain (Score:3, Informative)
If you properly enforced the Constitution, any power
Line Item Veto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:2)
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:3, Insightful)
And neither the power to veto nor to introduce legislation make him a "de facto legislator?" And let's not forget the fact that the other named member of the executive has an occasional vote. Ever wonder why there's no admonishment in the federal constitution that the three branches of the federal government shall be separate even though such a provision was in most state constitutions at the time?
After all, look at all the executive power given
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a "must pass" bill (such as is typically used for the slimiest of these tricks) and the President says "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork", it is then up to Congress to 'justify' the pork. The same circumstances that
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:5, Insightful)
And HIS citizens are going to be happy he brought home the bacon, so they're not going to do anything about it either.
So the only thing I can do is make sure my senator does the same thing, which benefits no one, and subverts the system.
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:2)
devils (RIAA) advocate here (Score:2)
Well a good example would be Jim Crow
Lubbyist Lube - the only way to greese over congress so you can fsk the American people up the ass
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:2, Interesting)
In congress, if your request is denied and you bring the same request again, it will require more contributions.
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, it is a bad piece of policy which should be junked.
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:5, Informative)
Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! I saw that match! The Rock crushed the MPAA with the People's Elbow.
if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:5, Interesting)
From the post: This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented...
So, the MPAA is now taking the route on total non-representation. Their initial approach obviously was non-representational/non populist and of course they have their own greedy self-motivation. That's okay, you can petition the government for legislation, and for protection. But they lost that battle and now look to win the war with their own Trojan Horse, a virus if you will (how ironic). The thing I find MOST egregious and offensive about this is they are sneaking their agenda in under the radar in a bill totally unrelated to their issue and likely to be passed. Normally this is a technique to snag pork for legislators and representatives, a sleezy technique for allocating money. But this is more pernicious and evil -- where the intent is to screw the entire entertainment consuming public (virtually everyone). What a crock.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:2)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:5, Insightful)
It would make for some amusing titles, and some great TV on CSPAN.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:3, Insightful)
"Patriot Act"
"Clear Skies"
"Medical Privacy Act"
The best-named recent bill was probably
"Can Spam"
Pork Delivery System (Score:3, Interesting)
It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.
No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.
Whad
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:4, Informative)
There is a limited germaness rule in the Senate. My recollection is that amendments to appropriations bills must be germane.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:4, Interesting)
Disney got a law ORDERING the FAA to impose a no fly zone over Disneyland and Disney World into the Omnibus spending bill - the national budget. When the budget came up for renewal the two years thereafter Disney made sure this order stayed in it. Actually it came from Senator Hollings, "The Senator from Disney."
The ORDER was necessary because the FAA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security said there was no threat to Mickey. No matter. Disney always wanted a way to keep banner tow planes away.
Grant me a vent, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone seriously needs to organize a giant, demonstrative protest.
We could all crap in tupperware and ship our excrement straight to the MPAA/RIAA, with a signed note saying "Thank you for shitting on the law making system in America".
Not really... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the bill's title? Number?
How can I verify this article?
I will not write an email to my Senators unless I can present myself as an informed citizen.
This article is lite on 'information', therefore doesn't really inform me of anything.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:2)
Every issue should have a separate up or down vote. Two constitutional amendments would help to acheive this end.
AMENDMENT A
Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length this Constitution.
AMENDMENT B
The President may
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How long... (Score:5, Interesting)
Open Ended (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, all consumer devices capable of receiving digital television signals? That is very open ended legislation. I hope this only applies to over-the-air signals? Even so, I think it's too much.
Bill riders (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill riders (Score:2)
I think you meant to say not "shall be" but "have been".
Re:Bill riders (Score:3, Interesting)
The term "snuck into bills" is misleading. After a bill is reported out of committee, amendments must be offered on the floor during the Committee of the Whole. There's nothing secret or sneaky about it.
The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* (Score:5, Interesting)
These laws, when combined with the DMCA, take power away from congress and give it to anybody. Corporations, and individuals alike. Even if they're not US citizens or US based. Congress should reserve the power to grant rights for intellectual property creators for themselves, instead of giving a blank law-making check to content industries.
Make sure you tell your congresspeople that they are giving power reserved for them by the Constitution to whomever wants to wield it.
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* (Score:2, Troll)
What Congress *should* do and what the conglomorates pay them to do are two different things.
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* (Score:3, Interesting)
---
September 27,
2005
[My home address edited out]
Dear Mr. Baboval:
Thank you for contacting me. I
appreciate that you took the time to write
and am glad to hear your concerns. Your
message has been forwarded to the
appropriate staff in my Senate office. I
take into account the correspondence my
office receives. However, due to the amoun
Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
Only slightly off topic-does anyone else find the fact that Congress is allowed to "bundle" legislation like this distasteful? Shouldn't each up or down vote be on -one- thing, without all these ridiculous "riders" attached?
Back to the subject-it is indeed also important to contact broadcasters, and possibly the MPAA itself, and make sure they know you won't be watching, and why. And then stick to it. It's not like there's a whole lot worthwhile on TV anyway, and they'll continue to attempt to ram this thing through Congress unless it's made to hit 'em in the wallet.
Timing is right (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Timing is right (Score:2)
What a horrible, badly timed troll! Especially in light of all the money we are sending out the back door to the president's pet project: Iraq.
Besides, your view isn't realistic. Senators, Republican senators mostly, have already said they won't spend money to rebuild New Orleans. Senators as far away as Alaska have been fighting the idea that we even feed any
Re:Timing is right (Score:2, Offtopic)
Perhaps you think you're making a joke? Sadly, you're not too far off the mark. Lots of vitally important government spending is being cut to make room for (needed) Katrina money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dump boatloads of money into the rebuilding process, but rather that we need to seriously look at where it's coming from. (I'd start with recalling Bush's tax cuts for the upper
why is it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?
Re:why is it... (Score:2, Funny)
Could you cite stats on that or at least give examples of, say, a dozen specific people?
TIA.
Re:why is it... (Score:2)
Just because I am not excersizing all of my rights this very instant does not mean I wish to give them away.
Re:why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, though I have no real desire to tape shows off TV, I have a very real desire to preserve my right to do so.
Re:why is it... (Score:2)
Good thing I don't have mod points, or you wouldn't get an explanation - just a Troll rating. The reason is that they don't actually have a "right to control the distribution of their works". Please site the part of copyright law that says so if that's what you think. They also don't have a leg
Re:why is it... (Score:3, Informative)
You mean 17 USC 106(3)?
They also don't have a legal right to stop me from recording broadcasts.
You mean 17 USC 106(1)?
The Sony case confirms my right to record shows for later viewing.
No it doesn't. It basically says that it's ok sometimes, and it indicates that it's difficult for copyright holders to demonstrate instances where it
Re:why is it... (Score:3, Informative)
No, broadcasting is a transmission of a performance or display. Distribution can't be done by broadcast alone.
The industry does not have a right to stop my recording (they are not law enforcement, much as they'd like to be).
First, what's law enforcement got to do with anything? Copyright is more a civil matter than a criminal one. Second, they do have that right; the question is whether you have a defense that allows you to do so anyway.
And if it's hard for them to "demonst
Neat juxtiposition on the Main Page (Score:2)
So are they going to set the "evil bit" also? (Score:5, Funny)
"budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" (Score:5, Informative)
Congress has made a law that allows a certain increase in budgetary line items per year without calling it an increase. I'm not sure what that allowed percentage is, but if they allow 7% and only raise an item 6%, they can legally say they LOWERED that item's budget!
Our budget includes Social Security receipts but not complete payments. We've never had a truly balanced budget in decades.
Our budget is allowed emergency appropriations that can include money for any pork project as long as "emergency" is in the bill's title.
108th Congress Analysis [lewrockwell.com] what a scam!
My solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently, the bundles that cable/satellite offer smack similar to how CD's work, there is a couple good channels in each price increase, along with lots of stuff I don't want (one hit wonder songs and filler).
TV is still trying to hold onto the fact that unless you buy a outrageously priced DVD of LAST SEASON, you are forced to pay for content you don't want. The BBC is going to start moving to a simultaneous release model (online and on air, but people think the online will either have DRM, have commercials, or just be some fancy streaming) for some of its bigger downloaded shows like Dr Who.
Medevo
Totally inappropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
How can (Score:2, Interesting)
And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....
It's too painful to defend these guys (Score:4, Interesting)
I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).
I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.
Re:It's too painful to defend these guys (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because people ignored the eroison of rights all along. It won't be until it's too late that the public will come to their senses and realize the Constitutional attrocities that have been committed under their noses all these years.
Just wait, when TVs no longer work because the media conglomorates can't determine if you are us
Why are they allowed to do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish we had line item veto at the national level. It would keep crap like this from ever seeing the light of day.
If you can't pass a law without being sneeking behind peoples backs, you should really rethink your usefulness within society.
Re:Why are they allowed to do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Solving the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously. Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US? DMCA is only valid in US, until now, and a passthrough to ignore broadcast-flag is very easy to implement.
Even if US enforces DMCA to other countries (in CAFTA, for example), I have serious doubts that third-world countries will be able to have a serious fiscalization.
Re:Solving the problem: your stuck there bud. (Score:2)
It's called economics.
ATI is releasing ONE version of their cards. The version that won't get them into court by another organisation with more money than them. (aka Broadcast-enabled only)
We Canucks get the same shaft as you.
Our politicians aren't bought and sold like yours are.
Th
Despicable tactics (Score:2)
What about HDCP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Spending should be seperate from non-spending (Score:2)
Links to more easily contact your representatives (Score:4, Informative)
link from EFF [eff.org]
Contact your represntative (Score:5, Informative)
Attention on the broadcast flag (Score:2)
First they came for the Jews (Score:2, Insightful)
BRING IT ON! (Score:3, Funny)
as King George would say: "Bring it on!"
If they are going to make television less appealing
I'm prepared to ditch my TV and spend the rest of my
life reading and writing.
Try applying DRM to paperbound books I already own, SUCKAS!
I invite everyone else to do the same - If we do, free TV will reappear.
but no one will want it. Indeed, they will have to pay people to
watch it.
3) Profit!!!
If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz!
Of course its back (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the money, and the will. So its just a matter of time before its passed into a law.
Then good luck ever getting it repealed. In another generation or so, it will just be accepted as ' its always been that way'.
Re:Of course its back (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of his reasoning being right, or wrong, he felt that his country was at risk and took action. In the process laying his life on the line, for his country.
That would qualify him as a patriot.
Re:Of course its back (Score:3, Insightful)
Trojan Legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it even possible or legal that this type of legislation can be appended to a bill who's purpose doesn't even come close to the flag proposal? It's not much of a stretch to view this as trojan legislation.
I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK? Does it stand on precedent alone (others have done it)? We see it all the time. It doesn't make sense that something as non-topical to cutting spending as the broadcast flag could be introduced this way...
Ouch (Score:4, Funny)
The practical question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been thinking of a pending hdtv card, planning to buy before the broadcast flag came into effect. Last spring when the courts threw out the FCC's ability to impose the broadcast flag, I shelved my plans. Keep in mind that I have no other hdtv hardware or services, and this is just a hedge against the future. Even without the other hardware, I want the non-broadcast-flag hdtv card while I can still get it, because someday I will have hdtv hardware/services.
So does anyone have a clue when Son of Broadcast Flag will rear it's ugly head?
What's the new deadline to buy an hdtv card?
Can anyone comment on preferences between pchdtv-3000 and air2pc (or any others) for use with MythTV?
Honestly, this is about rights of corporations vs rights of people. With this congress and this administration, I expect to lose. I'll fight in the meantime, but I also plan to make preparations to lose.
My letter, FWIW (Score:4, Interesting)
Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.
It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.
I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.
And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???
I Shouldn't Have to (Score:3)
Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything with broadcasters trying to sell the same content more than once, and preventing you from keeping what they've broadcast.
Re:Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dont see why this is needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, when you look at their public attitudes, has to be "everything". The only thing I can see them allowing is sports events and news. I'm sure they don't want to miss out on possible revenue from DVD versions of TV shows.
Re:Dont see why this is needed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, the NFL and MLB will find a way to block those too I'm sure. "No NFL broadcast may be reproduced without the express written permission of the NFL" If they could, they would make that extend to Tivo and other DVR units as well.
Re:Dont see why this is needed. (Score:2)
Oh wait!
Re:Dont see why this is needed. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! (Score:2)
Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! (Score:2)
Indeed. What qualifies as a "worst disaster" is a disaster where not just more people died, but where more Americans died.
(And that less than a year after the Tsunami...)
Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying it wasn't bad- and I've got my own wishes for persecution of government officials, both local and federal, for their crimes against the people during this dis
Re:but what can we do (Score:3, Funny)