Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GOP Study Committee Director Disowns Brief Attacking Current IP Law

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the extra-special-interests dept.

Republicans 176

cervesaebraciator writes "Saturday an article was featured on Slashdot which expressed some hope, if just a fool's hope, that a recent Republican Study Committee Brief could be a sign of broader national discussion about the value of current copyright law. When one sees such progress, credit is deservedly given. Unfortunately, others in Washington did not perhaps see this as worthy of praise. The committee's executive director, Paul Teller, sent a memo today disavowing the earlier pro-copyright reform brief. From the memo: 'Yesterday you received a Policy Brief or [sic] copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.' People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief. I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

cancel ×

176 comments

down with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018461)

For the dictatorship of the proletariat! potatos anatartica! limnborogoropogort!!!!!

of course (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018473)

of course the GOP is not for this.

I said as much and got modded down during the last time this came up, a few days ago.

most of us knew that the gop would not support this. they are so much NOT into the concepts given here that it had to be a 'mistake'.

and we were right.

yes, the republicans are this predictable. and untrustworthy.

nothing has changed with them and probably won't in the short term, either. if anything, they double-down on their derp when called on it.

Re:of course (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018491)

"Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand"

Are those 'facts and viewpoints' green in color?

Re:of course (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019241)

Bullshit moderation on this.

Of course it is about money. The fact is that EITHER party sits up and begs when their donors (corporate or otherwise) crack the whip. Someone got on the phone with the right people and made sure any movement to sanify copyright law was quashed.

This is was a case of the truth accidentally making it to the surface.

Re:of course (4, Insightful)

Plekto (1018050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020171)

It's even worse that you think.

We think of it as the companies being donors. With people in Congress calling and asking for money. But the reality is that the companies come TO the politician first and say "we'll give this money to either you or your opponent - you decide." It's not the officials asking for donations for their election/re-election efforts. It's an outright threat by the corporations to keep their "workers" in Congress in line. We're going to give you this money and you'll accept it - or we'll find someone who will.

93% of the time, the candidate with more money wins. That isn't a threat, it's a promise that you'll be unemployed if you piss off your masters.

Re:of course (2)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020859)

Of course in the eternal jockeying for power, with Republicans having quashed this great and popular idea there is a chance the Democrats will pick up the banner and run with it. That would make the GOP look even more like jerks. It's a very, very small chance - but it's there.

The GOP is very divided. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018655)

You portray the Republicans as being one, cohesive entity, but that's extremely far from the truth. The reality is that there is much division within the party.

So you've got the so-called "neoconservatives". These are holdovers from the Bush administration. They're generally pro-big-business, pro-war, and in favor of anything that'll make them more money. The GOP is more of a tool to them, than it is something that they hold any inherent belief in.

Then you've got the "religious fundamentalists" and "teapartiers". These are the ones who are against abortion, against homosexuals, and who are crazy for their twisted idea of Jesus Christ. They are less focused on business, but rather on social issues. They have shown themselves to be the less-intelligent of all of the groups within the GOP. These are often the Southerners who receive significant amounts of direct government assistance, but then turn around and protest the very government social programs that they leech off of continually.

Over the past decade or so, the neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists have courted one another, in order to gain control over the Republican Party. They've been the public face of the GOP during this time.

There are other major groups within the party, however. There are also the "paleoconservatives" and the "libertarians". They're the ones who advocate smaller government, less involvement of the government within the daily lives of Americans, and so forth. Since these views often conflict with those of the neoconservatives and religious fundamentalists, these groups have been marginalized recently, although they formerly were a large part of the GOP.

The most interesting subgroup, however, are generally referred to as the "sensibles". These are often younger Republicans who are generally completely against the craziness of the religious fundamentalists, against the domestically-harmful warmaking of the neoconservatives, and who generally have a more relaxed view than the paleoconservatives or the libertarians.

One other thing to consider about the sensibles is that they represent a much wider swath of American society. They include blacks, Hispanics, Middle Easterners and Asians, for instance. People like this are generally shunned by the rest of the Republican subgroups. Interestingly, although these people don't have white skin, they have adopted political stances that have traditionally been held by whites.

They are willing to openly admit to facts that otherwise haven't (or politically couldn't) be admitted to by the existing Republican groups, nor by the Democrats. They're more than willing to admit that blacks are responsible for more crimes than other races, even when there are many more whites and Hispanics who are far worse off, economically and socially. They'll admit that the unbridled illegal immigration from Central and South America has been extremely harmful to the American economy. They see that existing IP laws and practices are hindering the American economy. They know that American military involvement in the Middle East and in other areas of the world has been harmful to America as a whole. They see the War on Drugs as a waste of valuable resources. They don't care if one man wants to stick his penis up another willing man's rectum.

I think that it's these "sensibles" who are the Republican's best bet for relevance in the future. They're the only ones who don't hold antiquated, or just straight-out insane, views. They hold a much more realistic view of the world. They see truths that the other Republicans can't see, or that they refuse to see. They are the only ones who present a sane, viable alternative to the Democrats. And while they're relatively small in number now, it's likely that they'll become far more prominent as time goes on.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (4, Insightful)

Tsu-na-mi (88576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018667)

I have another term or two for your "sensibles". We refer to them as "Independents", or possibly "Democrats".

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018693)

Presenting Democrats as a single monolithic party is just as dishonest as doing the same for the GOP.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018751)

Let me know when the Republicans stop doing that.

Actually, get them to stop calling Democrats the following: Socialists, Communists, Atheists, anti-gun, pro-baby killers, anti-Christian, anti-patriotic, and so forth.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (-1, Flamebait)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018873)

If the shoe fits ...

Re:The GOP is very divided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42020463)

We know your butt hurts. But, your head is not a shoe.

Now, do you still want to invite others to wear it?

Re:The GOP is very divided. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019339)

The correct point of Tsu-na-mi's comment is that the people you describe are mostly NOT Republicans. I'm sure there are some in the Republican party, but the vast majorty of people who meet the AC's description identify as Republicans. More likely independents.

There are enough "reasonables" who are presently independents to take over either the Republican or Democratic party if they got organized.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020265)

I have another term or two for your "sensibles". We refer to them as "Democrats" and occasionally republicans.

Fixed that for you ... because running as an independent in a two-party system is somehow considered sensible. Yes, it gets a message out. No, it doesn't make change. It hardly pressures change on the two parties on a national level.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018843)

Neoconservatives aren't exactly "holdovers from the Bush administration". They predated Bush. They helped to put Bush in power. And, they are still around, looking for the next Bush.

As with so many other dangerous groups, like neonazis, the neocons are still lurking in the shadows, waiting for another opportunity.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (4, Informative)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018861)

The real telling fact is that more than 2 weeks after the election the GOP apparently still doesn't know why it lost. The reason is the American people weren't interested in buying what the GOP was selling. We still don't know the details of what Romney's tax plan would have been... the whole "vote for me and I'll tell you after the election" stance just didn't fly. Why should it? The GOP seems to be at war with itself. As parent said, you have the more traditional "yay for the rich" power base competing with the insane religious right mentality. There's also the built-in racism of how poor people (ESPECIALLY minorities) "want free stuff" even though our tax money paid for it yet for some reason it's ok when the rich get welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks because they're the "job creators". It's like a broken record with these guys.

They have yet to offer one compelling reason why anyone (who isn't an old rich white man) should side with them. For their sakes they should hope that sort of thing will die out with the current generation. The GOP has always used bigotry and religion to get regular people to vote against their own best interests, but this year they went too far with it and people began to see it for what it was. Forget the economy, the worst income inequality in nearly a century, and crushing deficit... the real important issues to the GOP are contraception, abortion, keeping gay people from marrying, and the definition of legitimate rape. I kid you not.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018947)

Forget the economy, the worst income inequality in nearly a century, and crushing deficit...

so you are telling me democrats showed unmatched maturity and based their vote on these things? And maybe expressed their distaste for bombing brown people too? That's strange, because i thought it was pretty much 'omgomgomg, Mittens is going to oppress gays and women and the corporations will take over!!!' talk.
I think nobody is really interested in making wedge issues go away. How would you mobilize your electorate without them? Take them away and suddenly it becomes clear the D-team and the R-team are pretty much the same.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019003)

After weighing the issues this past election, I voted based on the stance that while the guys we have now aren't perfect, they were still better than the alternative. Everyone else I've talked to about it since then reached a similar conclusion.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019131)

The real telling fact is that more than 2 weeks after the election the GOP apparently still doesn't know why it lost. The reason is the American people weren't interested in buying what the GOP was selling.

Please. The election was close - very close. Part of the reason for the loss was the meltdown of Orca, which was covered on Slashdot. Part of the reason was simply that, yes, people didn't like what Romney was selling: responsibility. Obama offered people "free" things taken "from the rich," Romney offered them the responsibility to care for themselves and the opportunity to get ahead in life. 49% went for opportunity, but unfortunately for them and America, 47+4% went for free things.

They have yet to offer one compelling reason why anyone (who isn't an old rich white man) should side with them.

For the chance to get ahead in life. For the opportunity to live the American dream. For getting government out of your lives. There are plenty of things the Republican party offers everyone.

Forget the economy, the worst income inequality in nearly a century, and crushing deficit... the real important issues to the GOP are contraception, abortion, keeping gay people from marrying, and the definition of legitimate rape. I kid you not.

Bullshit. The economy WAS the most important focus this last election. At least it was what everyone who wasn't the media was focused on. Yes, you're right, Republicans want people to take responsibility for their own lives. They don't feel the need to give people "free" birth control (stolen from "the rich"). They believe that everyone should be given an opportunity in life, including the unborn. They believe that the government should not be allowed to redefine a religious concept like marriage. The "legitimate rape" comment was ONE PERSON. It wasn't the entire party.

But, yes, if you only listened to the main stream media, you probably only heard about those issues. The most important issue for Romney was always the economy. Too bad the main stream media bent over backwards to try and get Obama reelected. Probably because you'll NEVER hear word one about copyright reform from the Disney Party.

Funny:The GOP is very divided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019863)

Romney offered them the responsibility to care for themselves and the opportunity to get ahead in life.

I 100,000,000,000,000% agree with what Mitt and The Republicans say about in that above statement, I only wish
Mitt and the Republicans really believed in that (and God), which clearly, they don't at the point where the rubber meets the road.

I pay significant amount in taxes. These taxes prevent me from exercising the opportunity to get ahead - if The Republicans are sincere,
return the financial means for me to accomplish their goals - reduce taxes to a maximum of 10-12% of my income, not the 70-80% it is now
(income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.). Fact of the matter is, they (The Republicans) are unwilling to perform their part of the deal.

Mitt (I don't know the exact number because Mitt was not forth coming about his returns) earns over 20 million U.S. dollars/year and pays
virtually no income tax on that. If Mitt were honest and sincere, his fair share in taxes should be over 16 million U.S. dollars/year. I don't
believe he currently pays even 1% of his rightful debt to society. Further, Mitt's wealth is very dirty - I'd like to say it's drug money, but it's far
more insidious than that, I'm afraid.

Mitt's being one of The Republicans is more a coincidence; Mitt's a reflection of being a Mormon. Mormon's practice a "cast" system (much like
people from India). They really believe poor people are the scourge and are thus treated appropriately. I have first hand experience in this matter.

So, yes I'm on-board with The Republicans - but they aren't there yet themselves.

CAPTCHA = inform

Re:Funny:The GOP is very divided. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020749)

reduce taxes to a maximum of 10-12% of my income, not the 70-80% it is now (income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc.).

I'm at the bottom end of the top 10% of wage earners. I pay 10% federal income tax. I pay about 10% all others (sales, property, SS, medicare).

I've never seen anyone get to 70-80% unless they are taking impossibly improbable combinations of income without deductions and cherry-picking the worst rates from around the country (and usually, but not always, count corporate taxes paid by corporations as taxes paid by them).

Re:The GOP is very divided. (3, Informative)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020437)

Please. The election was close - very close. Part of the reason for the loss was the meltdown of Orca, which was covered on Slashdot. Part of the reason was simply that, yes, people didn't like what Romney was selling: responsibility. Obama offered people "free" things taken "from the rich," Romney offered them the responsibility to care for themselves and the opportunity to get ahead in life. 49% went for opportunity, but unfortunately for them and America, 47+4% went for free things.

Obama won the popular vote by a significant margin ( 3,476,775 votes) and the electoral vote was a total blowout. (332:206) Romney barely broke the 200s and >270 was needed to win so Romney never even had a chance. (he didn't even get his home state) That happened even with all the last-minute voter disenfranchisement tactics guys like Rick Scott and John Husted were pulling in swing states like Florida and Ohio. The GOP tried to steal the election and they still lost badly. We would have had a Dem-controlled house as well if not for the gerrymandering from 2010 favoring the GOP.

I take it you are against social programs? It's amazing how many libertarians tend to go socialist at the drop of a hat when times get tough. The rich should pay more because they can afford it and they owe the society which allowed them to be successful.

For the chance to get ahead in life. For the opportunity to live the American dream. For getting government out of your lives. There are plenty of things the Republican party offers everyone.

Ah yes, the American dream. Just what is that? You talk about "opportunity" but I sure don't see much of that these days because the GOP went out of their way to block anything that might have helped the country these past 4 years. You really think that people who voted for Obama aren't responsible for their own lives? It takes a lot of responsibility to make it in today's world where it seems to get harder and harder to make it every single year. Also, how in the hell are people supposed to get ahead in life when people like Romney were busy gutting companies and outsourcing jobs for their own profit?

Bullshit. The economy WAS the most important focus this last election. At least it was what everyone who wasn't the media was focused on. Yes, you're right, Republicans want people to take responsibility for their own lives. They don't feel the need to give people "free" birth control (stolen from "the rich"). They believe that everyone should be given an opportunity in life, including the unborn. They believe that the government should not be allowed to redefine a religious concept like marriage. The "legitimate rape" comment was ONE PERSON. It wasn't the entire party.

Ok, what were the GOP's plans for the economy? What little I managed to glean from Romney during the debates sounded a lot like what Bush did a few years ago and we all know how that went. The GOP is against abortion but at the same time they are also against contraception...which prevents abortion. Maybe they're just doing it out of spite, I can't be sure. You say the GOP wants to get the government out of your life... except it doesn't. It wants to use the full power of government to force its particular brand of fundamentalist morality on everyone in direct violation of the first amendment. Are you saying we should let a bunch of religious bigots define what marriage is? No thanks. Also, there were lots of guys who made embarrassing sound bytes this past cycle... Murdock and Akin are simply the most recent.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020913)

The GOP is against abortion but at the same time they are also against contraception...which prevents abortion. Maybe they're just doing it out of spite, I can't be sure. You say the GOP wants to get the government out of your life... except it doesn't.

Where do those of us pro-life pro-choice people go? I'd like it if nobody ever had an abortion, but I believe in personal responsibility and choice. To the Republicans, "personal responsibility" means "forcing them to endure pain for the choices they made which I do not like". But giving people the power to make bad choices is something they are against. So the issue is that we have vastly different definitions of "personal responsibility".

That, and I want a smaller government:
No standing army.
Studies show that $10 on Head Start now save more than $10 later on other "mandatory" costs like prisions and such, so such fiscally justified programs should be done, rather than abandoning the people and cleaning up later with 20-50% of them in prisions and workhouses.
Abolish all "victimless" crimes.
Hold the government accountable (I'd personally charge legislators with treason if they passed a law they believed to be unconstitutional because a clause of it unrelated to the rest should survive the challenge and survive. Vote for something you believe to be unconstitutional is a violation of your oath, and a direct attack on the USA (as defined in the Constitution), and so they should be expelled from the voting body.

But there's no party that wants any of those. Sure, some will promise pieces of things leading up to elections, but none follow through on the good stuff.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (2)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019249)

In many ways this is why there needs to be a reform to the political system to make it easier to have more than to parties. A binary system is not very realistic, given the variations of view points - sure it is easy to understand, but it means more infighting than there needs to be.

In terms of presidential systems, France may have it better? There you have two rounds, with the second round being dependent on the first. Essentially in the first round you vote for the party you want and if no party gets more than 50%, then the two front runners of the first round go into the second round and you vote for them. The reason I like this is that there should be less risk of a 'lost vote'. Also, the congress would be populated by a clearer variation of view points, based on the various parties. In this scenario the tea party would be able to represent themselves, instead of hampering the GOP, for example.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019877)

They won't get your point. I'm not sure it is even valid. Romney talked past to many people in trying to get his message out and treated the targets of it as if they were smarter and more in the know then they were. That was Romney's biggest failure of the campaigns. Your portrayal of the contraception and legitimate rape definition is proof of that. They didn't make those an issue, they made statements on the concepts of them (big government, abortion) and others made it an issue.

But they lost by 2%. A 2% loss does not indicate the need to throw everything out and start over. Especially when that means it worked to gain the 98% of voted needed to win the white house. Neither party is trying to convince 100% of the populous to vote for them, they are working for 51% or better.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018929)

And this is why every functioning democracy in the world (except USA and UK) has a multi-party system. So that all of your subgroups can vote for the party that best represents their interests, and be weighted proportionally in the country's parliament.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

samoanbiscuit (1273176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018935)

The most interesting subgroup, however, are generally referred to as the "sensibles". These are often younger Republicans who are generally completely against the craziness of the religious fundamentalists, against the domestically-harmful warmaking of the neoconservatives, and who generally have a more relaxed view than the paleoconservatives or the libertarians.

Well, tell these "sensibles", if they even exist in significant numbers (I'm pretty sure the majority of such people either swung Democrat or refused to vote after the platform of rape and homophobia being promoted in the last election), that maybe the GOP needs to stop putting up with people like Akin and company. They shouldn't expect to be believed when they say "I'm only economically conservative, not socially conservative!" while at the same time voting for and promoting human waste like Akin, Bachmann and others.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019253)

bollocks. They're all monolithic when it comes to accepting money from the donors, from lobbists, and their other pals.

Re:The GOP is very divided. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020705)

The Republicans are a more cohesive group than the Democrats. The binding force is hate. They don't like Romney, but they came out in numbers about the same as Obama supporters to vote against the Democrats. They don't "want" anything, other than the opposite of what the Democrats want. Obamacare was based on things proposed by Republicans, but when a Democrat does it, it's bad.

The democrats are like a gathering of the Apathy Club.

"Do we have a good idea?
"YES"
"What are we going to do about it?
"Meh!"

Re:of course (4, Insightful)

devleopard (317515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018663)

Pretty sure this is more a lobby issue, and less a party issue.

I realize that on Slashdot, "GOP is derp, Democrats are magic unicorns" is the way we're supposed to think. However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party: GOP cares about things like defense spending and big oil, and takes a "get off my lawn" attitude. Democratic party is backed by entertainment and software industries pretty heavy.

I'm not saying the Democratic platform is inferior or anything like that. Rather than check my brain at the door and say "Republicans are dumb" to throngs of derpalicious applause, I recognize that each party has very distinct ideologies. The Republican one is more closely aligned with what is necessary for copyright reform. I know it might sicken some Slashdotters to have to admit that they agree with (some parts of) the Republican party on something, but when ideology exists along a continuum (or probably better, thought of as a three dimensional matrix), its inevitable that a 2 party system will result in one or the other having conflicting values for any given person.

I'll be the first to admit, however, that the Republican party would be better served by a split. Right wing over there (Christian activists, opposed to social policy, shoot em up warmongers), those that are pro business and fiscal conservatives over here. I know the Libertarian party already meets the needs of the latter group, but I think party change needs to happen from within, as opposed to be recruited away. Of course, this is probably a pipe dream, as a fractured Republican party would have difficulty winning any elections without major election reform (do away with primaries, popular vote only, etc)

Careful, Citizen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018765)

You appear to be using your brain, rather than following in mindless lockstep with the [insert web site here] crowd. That might get you labeled as one of those dangerous subversives everyone is urged to report to the authorities.

At this rate you might end up in a re-education camp... or as they're called now, "sensitivity training".

Or at the very least marked as a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018795)

Since doing this almost automatically gets you marked as one. (Oh, and I should mention the other instance of getting marked as a troll? Moderator didn't understand joke.)

Re:Careful, Citizen! (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019163)

posting to kill accidental moderation

Re:of course (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018797)

However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party: GOP cares about things like defense spending and big oil, and takes a "get off my lawn" attitude. Democratic party is backed by entertainment and software industries pretty heavy.

I don't think that's true, you're saying ideological differences but then looking at who's supporting them.

The ideological difference, to be honest, is that the Republicans tend to favor any laws that established businesses are benefitting from and tend to reject laws that businesses feel ties their hands. And that means that they're not likely to liberalize copyright law any time soon, even if the stereotypes ("Hollywood is infested by liberals and they want copyrights!") seem to go against that.

Remember too that the Republicans do, actually, get overwhelming support from the content industries. Just because Alec Baldwin and Jessica Alba support President Obama doesn't change the fact that these people's bosses overwhelmingly tend to support Republicans (even leaving aside the fact that outspoken Republican actors and actresses aren't, actually, as rare as Republicans like to pretend.) Ask Rupert Murdoch or Steve Burke, or Sumner Redstone how they'd feel about a liberalization of copyrights.

Re:of course (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019271)

I think you're misinterpreting a lot of the feeling against the GOP. It's not so much "GOP is derp, Democrats are magic unicorns", but "GOP are total sellouts while the Democrats occasionally do something for the good of the country".

Re:of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019305)

They aren't aligned. GOP is right, Libertarian is usually right in the US. Democrats are left. The thing is though, GOP is generally statist rather than libertarian. Likewise for the democratic party.

Re:of course (1, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019409)

However, from an ideological perspective, the GOP is more closely aligned with the ethos that could back copyright reform than the Democratic party

The party of Fox News?

The party that divides the world between the makers and the takers?

The party that looks at the geek and sees Kim Dotcom?

The party that is slowly being extinguished in all but the deep South and Great Plains states --- where notions of property rights are anchored in bedrock?

This is the party you see leading the charge for copyright reform?

Re:of course (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020059)

This is the party you see leading the charge for copyright reform?

of course not.

I'd expect to see jesus riding on a dinosaur before I see the republicans show interest in the common man's plight.

Re:of course (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018829)

I agree that the GOP wouldn't stand for copyright reform.

But, you seem to imply, or beleive, that the other party would? Do some googling to see where Obama and his party stand with NPP, and ACTA, and other obominations that the corporations would have us call "treaties".

Yes, I also posted - and I repeat - BOTH parties have sold out to corporate interests, otherwise known as "rights holders".

Re:of course (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018921)

It is not the GOP per se. It is the whole political system. The reality is that no party will ever thread on the hands that feed them. They won't ever go against corporate interests. The next election is just around the corner and they need a lot of money in order to win it. This is how we ended up with Medicare Part D.... with Obama care but no public option... this is why nobody has been sent to jail after the financial crisis of 2008 .

Re:of course (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019073)

Sounds like my prior post too.

Same story, and the GOP is doing exactly what I said they would. React with incredulity, then decry the brief as a waste of time.

Just waiting for the waste of money part.

Regardless, plugging their ears and going "Lalalalalala" is EXACTLY what they are doing here. (if a bit hyperbolic an expression)

And yes, I too was modded troll for it. Cheers!

Re:of course (2)

hemo_jr (1122113) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019601)

And, of course, the Democratic Party is also not for this. It is a an indictment of the system that a group that poor mouths itself so much (rights holders such as RIAA MPAA) can afford to keep the leadership of both parties so much in their debt. You'd think they could start paying an intellectual property tax.

Re:of course (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019733)

You do not know the GOP doesn't support the copyright reform indicated by the other memo. All this memo says is that the other had not been properly processed through the review of the comity and that step was important.

Anything outside of that is completely in your mind at this point. The article submission doesn't make it clear where the memo stops and the submitter's opinion starts but it's clear if you follow the link to the story.

Re:of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019931)

yes, the republicans are this predictable. and untrustworthy.

But if they're that predictable, aren't they therefore quite trustworthy in that respect?

Re:of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019969)

Your exact words the last time this came up were, 'if their lips are moving or there is print on paper or dots on a screen, they are lying. republicans are absent of morals and are NOT looking out for us!'

I call that trolling, which is the moderation you received (not from me) last time.

Reform Could Benefit Politicians (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018479)

The original memo was probably a sneaky way of trying to get just enough reform through to let politicians use songs by musicians who don't want them to. It's surprising how often the politicians feign ignorance of copyright laws when they want something like "Eye of the Tiger" as their campaign's theme song.

S4B Separation complete (4, Interesting)

Cassius.Bilbao (893851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018493)

With this, I guess the GOP's chances of redeeming themselves by letting go of the corporate backscratching will lose forward momentum. Without additional engines in the party, there's no steam left to do some good in the copyright world.

Re:S4B Separation complete (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018605)

Yes, well, let's put this in front of the democrats, and see how far it gets.

Translation (3, Funny)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018513)

Yesterday you received a Policy Brief or [sic] copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard.

Yesterday you received a Policy Brief of copyright law that was published without adequate scrubbing of any truth or fact the RSC sets as a standard for supporting, so I'm disavowing the brief after the fact.

Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.

Copyright reform could severely cut into campaign contributions--contributions that amount to little more than kick backs from rent seekers over the economically unsound practices that the Policy Brief spells out--, so it's incredibly important that we allow the copyright industry to present "facts" and present their "viewpoints" to counter anything that the brief lays out. I mean, sure, we don't do the same thing when it comes to climate research or currently illegal drug studies. But, we really don't want to fiddle around with the status quo and upset our power base. I mean, did you really thing think we were any less in bed with Hollywood than the Democrats? We'll gladly take their money; we just wish they were less gay or liberal or whatever.

PS - I think we all saw this coming. :/

More Political Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018529)

*sigh*

I was hoping a whole day would pass without a political thread.
What happened to new for nerds? Is it just me or has the quality of articles been slipping?

radical suggestion (2)

spikenerd (642677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018533)

...radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

...radical a suggestion as doing what the Constitution says.

*I shake my head slowly.

MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018541)

No doubt they got a lot of phone calls from MAFIAA lobbyists with totally convincing $facts and $viewpoints.

Re:MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018569)

(I'm confused as to whether the dollar signs indicate bribery or that $facts and $viewpoints are variables in a Perl/PHP script. :P )

Re:MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018813)

They looked more like Applesoft BASIC variables to me. Apple ][ Forever!

Re:MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018869)

(I'm confused as to whether the dollar signs indicate bribery or that $facts and $viewpoints are variables in a Perl/PHP script. :P )

Hereabouts, the $ sign always stands for bribery.

It's the geeks all-purpose explanation for his failures in law, politics and government.

Re:MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (1, Funny)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019891)

That's obvious. Both. Or do you really think Perl/PHP scripts work because they're computational sound?

Re:MAFIAA popped the trial balloon. (0)

jmichaelg (148257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018857)

You mean the attorneys Obama appointed to Justice [google.com] ?

Both parties are guilty of cronyism. Or did you think Hollywood just supported Obama because they think he's a nice guy?

That didn't take long. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018567)

They must have realized that it made sense. Can't have any of that.

No constitutional scholar here (5, Interesting)

klingens (147173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018575)

since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't
"I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?

Re:No constitutional scholar here (2)

Elbereth (58257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018883)

Like anyone else, they ignore the parts they disagree with and deliberately interpret the rest of it in a way that allows them to retain their power and privilege, couching it in populist rhetoric. When was the last time you saw someone interpret something in a way that didn't allow them to rationalize their behavior or validate their ideology?

Religion, law, and even science get interpreted in a way most beneficial to the one doing the interpretation.

Re:No constitutional scholar here (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019097)

since I'm a dirty foruhner from socialist Europe, but isn't "I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts." going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA? He admits he considers the current law blatantly unconstitutional and still knowingly supports it. If he is a member of congress or any other public politic body and has swore any oaths on the constitution, he's now in breach of said oath, no?

If he were, yes, but if you check the quote marks carefully, you find that quote to be from Submitter, not from the Committee Director.

Re:No constitutional scholar here (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019673)

going totally against the spirit and literally wording of the Constitution of the USA?

The Founders were profoundly wary of embedding policy decisions into the Constitution. They thought in terms of structure and function, checks and balances. It's for the Congress to decide how patents and copyrights can best serve the national interest,

Re:No constitutional scholar here (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020977)

But Congress may only do so within the Constitution, where it states that congress "may" create copyright if it enhances progress. Every law should be judged against that standard.

Re:No constitutional scholar here (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020963)

The US Constitution is mainly about the people setting the structure of and granting powers to the government. The parts about why the powers are given have long been considered advisory recommendations without force of law. And pretty much ignored.

At least it's out there (3, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018589)

At least this report is out there. Its now up to us to contact Republican congresspeople and let them know that we want them to pursue this.

When your writing your representative, don't forget to remind them that nearly everyone involved in the music and movie industries hates their guts and believes they're evil and says so openly. Let them know that what the industry says it wants and what the people want and need from copyright are chasms apart.

It's time for someone to stand up for the people's rights in this copyright fight, and the Republicans can do that. They really dont have much to lose and have a lot to gain.

Innundate them with letters supporting this proposal. Show overwhelming support for it. Let them know that "we the people" think it's time for them to tell the copyright maximalists to go straight to hell.

Re:At least it's out there (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018625)

If you do write them, ensure that you identify yourself as a fat white man that's frightened of change. Otherwise they're not going to listen.

Re:At least it's out there (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018713)

So just sign the letters as Michael Moore?

Re:At least it's out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018835)

It is out there, and should stay there. Keep a copy, post links to cached copies (here's one [googleusercontent.com] and here's another [vortex.com] , marked up with "WITHDRAWN". .

Re:At least it's out there (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018983)

At least this report is out there. Its now up to us to contact Republican congresspeople and let them know that we want them to pursue this.

Take a look at where the big electoral votes are.

Then ask yourself where most media content --- in all languages --- is produced and financed.

The states where IP is a major driver of the economy.

The answers you will get are New York, California, Florida, Washington, and so on.

Winning over the Republican Congressman from Nowhere, Nebraska, isn't going to help you,

Re:At least it's out there (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019701)

The answers you will get are New York, California, Florida, Washington, and so on.

Winning over the Republican Congressman from Nowhere, Nebraska, isn't going to help you,

You should take a wider look at US politics, people are majority voting for a particular party for various reasons, changes in the GOP policies might very well make the party more palpable for those that so far have voted D.
The gains in popular vote might indeed outweigh the losses in corporate or Teaparty support.

The party of anti-regulation (5, Insightful)

OldSport (2677879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018621)

For a party that bitches and moans about excessive regulations as much as the GOP, it astounds me that they cannot see how current IP law is smothering proper innovation.

(Okay, it doesn't astound me; in the context of corporate power in the US, it makes perfect sense. I guess what's most surprising is the doublethink required to enable these guys to spout off anti-regulation propaganda while wholeheartedly supporting complex systems of regulation, rail against welfare while supporting vast corporate welfare programs and subsidies, etc. etc.)

Re:The party of anti-regulation (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018681)

And the party that bitches and moans about the media, liberal Hollywood, etc, etc. Maybe they thought if they made some noise, some more of those liberal Hollywood dollars would come their way.

The thing that always surprises me is that people don't realize that the two main parties are basically the same with slightly different boogeymen. Above all they're interested in preserving their own power. I suppose if a third party of equal strength rose to power, they'd quickly start playing this game, too. That doesn't mean I don't want one. I don't think three is sufficient to really represent America, either, but it'd be a start.

Re:The party of anti-regulation (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018723)

The word is "lies." Look, if they were interested in smaller government, they would cut spending on things that do not serve the interests of the US. Sending out trillions in foreign aid to people who do not return anything of use or benefit to the US is just pure waste.

The taxes they take from us. The social security money they take from us. It goes to fund war (into the pockets of war materials makers mainly) and into 'foreign aid' to places like Israel.

Want to save some money in the big government to make it smaller? There's the elephant in the room.

Re:The party of anti-regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019875)

Where are you getting your figures? There is simply not that much spent on foreign aid. There is about $50 billion each year spent on foreign aid, or about 1% of the total budget.

Defense is a much larger part of the budget and includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense is about $700 billion each year, or 20% of the budget.

Re:The party of anti-regulation (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42020445)

Does it have to be annual figures? I don't think so.

The US has spent nearly unimaginable amounts of money on weapons and foreign aid.

Political tactics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018623)

I suspect the tactic you suggest will itself fail. Bills that change the budget must originate in the house which is currently R majority. However copyright can be proposed for change by the House, the Senate, or even the president or any of the many Federal Regulators. The problem is not getting something proposed. It is getting something likely to get the support of a wide range of constituencies. If anybody in the /. or other forum communities want to have real impact, I wojuld focus on the particular language and circulate that and carefully record feedback you get from politicians and lobbying groups.

I have helped craft several house bills and I assure you logic and reason are in no way involved. It is 100% political, posturing, and misleading criticism that is involved. It has to survive that crazy environment.

This in an era where economics is trumped by politics ti the point it could actually financially crash the entire country.

The public doesn't deserve that entitlement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018637)

Like the Republican's view of legitimate rape, or that God odranes rape as a viable conception method,
they are concerned about legitimate copyright - let's face it, works going into the Public Domain is a give-away
to those 47% slackers who take, take, take and are a scourge on their hard work.

The public doesn't deserve that entitlement.

They really believe this stuff; it's not an act.

CAPTCHA = shooters (Hey, not my suggestion)

Idiot (2)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018641)

He got a call from a massive donor who benefits from restrictive copyright (Disney, etc.) and he was told to immediately 'review' this position or he'd see an impact on national funding.

They're all such whores. Simply whores....except whores at least make one other person happy, they're not QUITE as selfish as politicians.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018905)

Whores when they have enough money, they'll stop doing, it's rarely by chance and once down that path, it's hard to turn back. Politicians always have money but sell themselves for more and more; they have a choice, most politicians start with not money, but lots and lots of money, they WANT to sell themselves. So, please stop insulting whores.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019275)

This comment is good. Nice work fellow AC.

Re:Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019207)

I was trying to create a link to the Political Prostitution video discussed here [torrentfreak.com] but the YouTube account is closed by the user and the website is gone?!

Links (3, Informative)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018645)

Here are three links to the text form of the brief:

On One of My Boxes [traxel.com]

On Reference Blog [nfshost.com]

On Pastebin [pastebin.com]

Re:Links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019355)

The "real" pdf can be downloaded from a techdirt article. [techdirt.com] Get it before it gets taken down there too.

I knew it was too good to be true. (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018685)

Just one more issue the GOP is on the wrong side of!

i wrote my congressman about this (1)

andrew2325 (2647845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018745)

I wrote a quick email to my congressman, who is a Republican. I was a little sleepy when I did because I get I'll from time to time. I voted for him. Basically, I feel as though copyright law has oppressed people from time to time. More than you'd think. There are areas of our country that never get many books to read, artwork, or music. There are countries that would never get to read the Bible or even Edgar Allen Poe's poetry because of censorship. I'm all for paying the fiddler, but take a ride through the south right now if you have the guts to do so and see some of these areas I speak of man. Piracy can oppress or bring you out of it, depending. Literacy is important to the GOP, right?

GOP should take this on for strategic reasons. (3, Interesting)

hessian (467078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018761)

The people benefiting from copyright law being where it is are the big media and entertainment types.

These give all of their money to Democrats.

The Republicans need to grow some balls and attack the media establishment. Their best move would be a high rate of tax and zero copyright protection, which would drive Hollyweird and big media into bankruptcy.

Yes, it would be an industry destroyed, but it's also clear that outside of Fox News, the media is almost uniformly pro-left and anti-right.

Any lessening of the power of media would be a strategic win for the Republicans.

Re:GOP should take this on for strategic reasons. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019357)

Most of the media is following the Government line like it always has, not specifically left or right.

Just because Fox News isn't following the government line, nor does it cater to 'liberal' concerns doesn't mean it's unbiased or actually putting out any factual, non-partisan information.

I was going to elaborate further however I just saw 'Hollyweird' in your comment.

Gotta love that last line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018809)

"I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

So they out right SAY they don't want to "promote the progress of science and useful arts"

You have got to be kidding me. (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018851)

People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief.

Ohio's 4th has been Republican since 1938.

It's 93% white, 40% rural, with a median income of $40,000. Ohio's 4th congressional district [wikipedia.org] The only city in the district you are likely to recognize is Marion, population 35,000, and the home town of Warren G. Harding, Marion, Ohio [wikipedia.org]

Jordan called for fiscal responsibility and noted his strong beliefs in traditional family values. Slone [Democrat] pointed to his labor and union background while calling on Washington to help create jobs. Kalla [Libertarian] cited a number of government reforms that would reduce federal regulations while bolstering freedom in the country.

Jordan, Slone, Kalla vie for Ohio 4th congressional district [morningjournal.com]

The Libertarian candidate drew 5% of the vote, which is as good as it gets for his party in Ohio,

In a district that is old industrial and agricultural, talk of copyright reform excites no one. There are much bigger issues on the table.

What is the bigger problem in the USA today? (0)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42018881)

1. overlong terms on copyrighted materials of mostly entertainment goods (mind you, not patents, but copyrights)
or
2. the wholesale theft of intellectual property developed in the USA, including nearly all forms of entertainment media and very considerable theft of all manner of industrial process and design by foreign firms in virtually every market imaginable?

By anything even approaching a rational or numerate analysis, the second answer is obviously correct.

But what do we get from /.ers like agStypopa?

[QUOTE]
He got a call from a massive donor who benefits from restrictive copyright (Disney, etc.) and he was told to immediately 'review' this position or he'd see an impact on national funding. They're all such whores. Simply whores....except whores at least make one other person happy, they're not QUITE as selfish as politicians
[/QUOTE]

Right.

Re:What is the bigger problem in the USA today? (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019201)

I agree, the second is an alarming problem. The tragedy of the commons should not be ignored. Large corporations like Disney pillage the shared cultural backlog of content, slap some candy frosting on it, and in some cases, even mangle the story to inject yet another (highly profitable) Disney Princess into the mix, then shut down any other fair use of the public domain stories they blatantly rip off.

Then you have the RIAA and its Canadian counterpart, flagrantly and willfully flaunting copyright law by consistently failing to reimburse or even LISTEN to artists who's music they compiled into unsanctioned "Greatest Hits" albums and sold like hotcakes. I heard they got a wrists slap for that, at worst, despite bleeding millions from artists they ripped off.

Dont even get me started on how Hollywood in general does business.

20 years is a little under a third of a person's expected lifetime. It is a VERY long time in regard to copyright. Are you telling me that as a creator, you cannot possibly recoup your investment in the creation of your works in that time? For real?

OR, are you simply suffering from entitlement complex issues, where you feel your great great grandchildren, who are completely incapable of producing more of YOUR work after you die of old age, are somehow magically more important than anyone else's grandchildren, and therefor deserving of being paid forever and ever and ever? An eternal legacy for your progeny?

Which of us is promoting theft from the community again?

Re:What is the bigger problem in the USA today? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019243)

the wholesale theft of intellectual property developed in the USA, including nearly all forms of entertainment media and very considerable theft of all manner of industrial process and design by foreign firms in virtually every market imaginable?

Surely you're trolling? Come on, the work to develop those industrial processes and entertainment media was done ONCE. Yet you're OK with the government granting folks a monopoly so they can charge excessive fees for EVERY instance of the idea or media after the fact? To me this is "theft" from the society. What's been stolen is my right to come up with my own ideas and use them, yes, patent law prevents me from doing this at least once a month. The theft is me being denied the right to share a cultural work with my friends, or Sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY IN PUBLIC.

Get back to me when restaurants can sing me Happy Birthday instead of some bullshit they have to make up instead. Until then, surely you jest.

The facts are pretty obvious, yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42018977)

"Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts,"

Example: Content owners wouldn't keep pouring money into our campaigns.

"..so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand."

Fact is, we would get less money, and our viewpoint is that anything that reduces the amount of money we receive is a bad thing, regardless of viewpoint of the public.

I knew there was another shoe somewhere. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019227)

"I cannot imagine party leadership will be happy with so radical a suggestion as granting copyright protection for the limited times needed to promote the progress of science and useful arts."

-- Translation: Advancement of science and the useful arts play second fiddle to profits for donors to the RNC.

"People who live in districts such as Ohio's 4th would do well to send letters of support to those who crafted the original brief."

-- Translation: You people in Ohio's 4th CD can go pound sand. Your elected representative is irrelevant because copyright law will always be made by members subservient to the recording and motion picture and IP litigation industries -- people like me.

Expect More Such Head Fakes (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019323)

Everyone should be on the lookout for more head fakes by the GOP trying to convince us all that they are something they are not with the hope that they can fool enough people into voting for them. This is a perfect example that emphasizes that GOP policy is determined by those at the top to trickle down to those at the bottom, who then follow along behind to parrot the talking points provided on Faux News. Since about half of the electoral has an IQ 100 and below, this strategy always has a good chance of winning. With the GOP it's not about the issues. It's about the marketing of what the 1% wants.

Fai7zors! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42019359)

others what to from now on or The point more to download the are incompatible as WideOpen, said. 'Screaming glOves, cNondoms Everyday...We

It's called a Trial Balloon (5, Insightful)

daemonenwind (178848) | about a year and a half ago | (#42019413)

This is something politicians of all stripes do with concepts they're considering.

You have some odd group, loosely connected with the mainline, release a paper on some odd policy shift. You immediately decry the readiness of the idea, but never actually put the idea down.

Then, you sit back and watch what people do with it. Do your party bigwigs panic? Does your base embrace it? What do the major money sources say about it?

If you watch politics long enough with an eye for this sort of thing, you'll see this done everywhere.

So, considering it's the Republicans, I'm sure Reince Priebus and a few others will be monitoring talk radio, Breitbart, and the major news outlets to see how this is received. They'll also poll their elected officals to see if anyone called/wrote in about it.

So, if you like this, TALK ABOUT IT. Call into Rush Limbaugh or your local version of it. Call or email your R representatives, if you have any. Tell them you like this. Highlight the positives. Talk it up. Argue for it!

Keep in mind that the Republicans are, *right now*, reevaluating their platform for ideas that get people elected. Instead of being a snarky ass, this is a great time to show them that thoughts like this could get them the "youth vote". If you're willing to shed some of your preconceptions about politics in general and Republicans in particular, that is.

Official GOP Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42020439)

GOP elder-spirit here. Totally support the brief. Anyone with a brain will remember the core tenets of the founding of the Republican Party: Free land, free labor. Not free as in beer but free as in freedom.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...