Beta
×

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!

Fox Explains Why SSSCA Is Bad

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the making-it-clear dept.

News 739

corbettw writes "Fox News is running an article that slams Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and the Democrats (with the notable exception of Rick Boucher) as having betrayed their principles. More importantly, the article explains why the SSSCA is so bad, in language any American can understand. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media taking this beast on before it becomes law."

cancel ×

739 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

*cough* (-1, Offtopic)

DarthWiggle (537589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126051)

Boobies! oops... thought I was on Fark... You know, at this rate I'll never get modded up... Ah well, at least _I_ know I have something original to say... :)

Re:*cough* (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126126)

I miss Robo-Troll.

Re:*cough* (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126191)

me too :(

Re:*cough* (-1, Offtopic)

DarthWiggle (537589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126254)

Maybe we could get Hollings to introduce legislation to bring RT back... We'll just convince him it's a new Disney character and watch him work his legislative magic...

Ok, back to my nap...

Your mom says hi (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126057)

SHe can suck me dry!

TP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126063)

Third post?
Count for anything..?

Of course it counts.... (-1)

Mike Hock (249988) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126081)

Just bend over & Taco will give you what you deserve!!

This is bad too (-1)

l33t j03 (222209) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126065)

OT III

1. Check for any BTs (E-meter, theta perceptics, intention, pressure areas, telepathy is HOW) on and in:

1. Body surface (WHERE)
2. Body inside
3. In thetan's space (Approx. 40' X 60')
4. On thetan

2. Run Incident 2, then Incident 1, until BT(s) have gone and are released. Then, check for additional Incidents 1's and 2's until dry (on the meter).

3. Return to Step 2, to find new ones to run. Use ruds while running if necessary. There is an effort to stop and hurry on Incident 1.

4. When complete, exact date and run both of the incidents on self.

5. If a bog, do Millazo Pack. Write down some 'mutual associations'. Re each one on this list, FIND THE INCIDENT THAT MADE THEM ONE, and run that. Then, run OT III, Incident 2 and 1 after that cluster is broken up. Occasionally, BTs will have an incident that made them one other then Incident 2, thus this action.

INCIDENT 2: Dates approx. 75 million years ago, earth years, location, Earth, named TEEGEEACK at that time (meaning planet of sorrow), involved 33 planets of this sector, each with populations of 80 - 200 BILLION PER PLANET. XENU, the ruler, and 'Renegades' decided to solve overpopulation as follows, but was halted and XENU placed in a mountain trap after over 5 years of war.

Incident 2 Patter: DETERMINE IF A LOYAL OFFICER, RESIDENT OF EARTH, or FROM ANOTHER PLANET. If the latter two, start at their being picked up and shot and if from another planet, frozen in an ice cube, transported (flying saucer), taken to mountain, a volcano always, H BOMB EXPLOSION, TERRIFIC WINDS, EFFORT TO ORIENT, MAGNETIC STRIP UP FROM CENTER OF VOLCANO OR DOWN FROM AN AIRPLANE, EFFORT TO GET OFF AND FIND REST OF SELF, PROTEST, BEING PULLED ON STRIP, VISUAL DISPLAY OF INSTRUCTION BY A 'GO TO THE PILOT', WHO SAYS 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP'. There are 26 - 29 days of implanting (the CC and OT II, God and Devil material, reasons for this being done, helicopters, etc.) that need not be run. SOME WERE PACKAGED INTO CLUSTERS in the HAWAII and LOS PALMAS ISLANDS (8 to a cluster). If a loyal officer, the sequence is SURPRISE at being shot, placed at the volcano. Use meter to determine and determine volcano. Watch for earlier beginning (pulled in for a tax audit), run only up to the 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP' as BTs can go into 'free fall', spin and get sick from the 29 days implanting, with pneumonia and death the implanted phenomena of free fall in addition to insomnia. Coltus, the Reigning planet, Hubbard a part of the 'rescuing force that put an end to it'. Don't force or push them off, and answer the BTs questions. There were probably not any good or bad guys in this incident, although Hubbard insists the sector to have been a cultural desert since. Very SP BTs can usually be brought around with adept 2WC, Charm, Ruds, but if not use Power Processing on the rare hard core.

Incident 1: Dates 4 QUADRILLION YEARS AGO (which is 15 zeros or 4,000 trillion years ago).

Incident 1 Patter: LOUD SNAP, WAVES OF LIGHT, HORSES DRAWING CHARIOT RIGHT TO LEFT, CHERUB COMES OUT, BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE, SHATTERING SERIES OF SNAPS, CHERUB FADES, RETREATS, BLACK MASS IS DUMPED ON THE THETAN.

Volcano List

HAWAII Pacific Ocean
MT HOOD Pacific NW
MT BAYER Pacific NW
MT RAINIER Washington
MT ETNA Mediterranean
MT ST. HELENS Washington
MT EREBUS Antarctica
MT FUJI Japan
MT EVEREST Himalayas - Nepal & Tibet
MT KILIMANJARO Northeastern Africa
LAS PALMAS Canary Islands off NE
Africa MT SHASTA California
MT VESUVIUS Italy
MT KRAKATOA Indonesia
MT PELEE Martinique
MT MCKINLEY Alaska
Volcanoes existed New Zealand
at these locations Philippines
then, but no Mexico
longer South America
North Dakota
Vermont
Scotland
Iceland

Note: These were the most common locations. 600 other volcanoes did and do exist, which I did not list.

You clear up that a BT is a body thetan, The instructions are self explanatory, Basically, the reason they are doing this is to where they won't be confused with hundreds of different thoughts so that they can have some peace and quiet, and so they won't be other-determined. After they have run all these remnants of folks out by telepathic auditing on them, they attain the state of freedom from overwhelm and a return of full self determinism. One cleans off those 4 areas in the order listed. It is generally underrun, it is rarely overrun. What you have been doing all the way up the Bridge is breaking these clusters apart. With Expanded Dianetics, Grades and all the previous auditing, you have been taking these off. About 1/2 of the BTs come off and leave and go live their own lives by doing the lower Bridge right, and the other 1/2 come off here by doing OT III correctly. So, if you don't do the lower Bridge correctly on someone and they do a real good job on OT III, they will get about 1/2 of it done. It is pretty wild material to run and the gains of it are beyond description. It is not a crazy idea at all. The irony of it is that it happened alot more than once. It is listed as an event that happened 75 million years ago. It probably happened to the preclear dozens of times. So, watch out for your dates.

After that you do not do OT VII, and then put them on OT III again, like the churches do. You do OT IV which is included here. After they have done that they have attained the state of certainty of self as a being and freedom from uncertainty of self.

On OT V they attain the state of freedom from fixated introversion into MEST and gain the ability to refamiliarize as a thetan exterior with the physical universe.

Proof for all you naysayers! (-1, Troll)

The_Iconcolast_666 (239933) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126071)

This is even more proof that FOX is not a real network. They've been trying to assimilate with the other conglomerates recently (sports, news, serious programs). I knew it! Muahahahahahaha. I'm glad to see FOX returning to their roots.
BAHNG!

coming of age for Fox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126072)

Finally, Fox does real journalism, instead of that crappy "let's put some perky models in front of a camera and have them read the news".

Re:coming of age for Fox? (0)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126123)

I'll take watching Laurie Dew over Judy Woodruff any day of the week

Re:coming of age for Fox? (3, Interesting)

Brandeissansoo (553129) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126144)

It's not fox(x-files, family guy), it's Fox News. They've been doing a lot of very excellent journalism lately, especially with programs like The Oreilly Factor. They were the first to bring up the fact that the Red Cross, united way, and other charitable organizations were misusing donations from the money they collected under the guise of helping sept 11th victims. They carried the gary condit scandal before anyone. Fair and balanced, Fox News takes on both the democrats and republicans, and holds them accountable for their actions.

Re:coming of age for Fox? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126200)

They take on Republicans? I officially declare bullshit. They lick Republican asses so much that their teeth are stained brown.

Re:coming of age for Fox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126202)

When you get done giving a handjob to Bill Oreilly, can you give me one?

Fair and balanced? ROFTL.. (2)

PaxTech (103481) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126212)

Not that any of the other bug news channels are either, but Fox News' idea of fair and balanced just means that they tilt right as far
as CNN tilts left.

Re:coming of age for Fox? (1)

Muddie (72996) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126244)

A much as I hate it, having Rupert Murdoch (the owner of Fox News) on your side, who also happens to have congressmen of his own in his pocket as well as a few Supreme Court Justices and House members, may be helpfull if papa murdoch happens to agree with this.
Either that, or Fox news wants some mainstream attention and is trying to break their opinion on the story early.
I still feel dirty. Greasy law, or greasy businessmen on your side against the law. It's like Olestra.
Nothing good will come from any of this.

The Senator from Disney (5, Insightful)

Mordain (204988) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126077)

I would be really dissapointed if Hollings is ever re-elected. The point of an elected government is to get rid of those who want to lower our freedom, and this guy is definetly going down that road, and dragging everyone he can with him.

We can rant and rave on /. all we want, but if we don't send the message in our ballots also, we have given up the battle.

I sincerely hope that the people in his district are well aware of Sen. Holling's attrocities.

Don't forget Kelly (5, Insightful)

slugfro (533652) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126131)

The article also mentions Hollings teaming up with Democratic Senator John Kerry (CA) who has plans to run for President in 2004:
Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected).
Sending a message via our ballots will become even more important if he really does run for president!

Ignorant (0, Troll)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126240)

Its John Kerry from Massachusetts. Dumbass.

Re:Ignorant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126252)

It doesn't matter, he's a doofus who won't win a primary outside of Massachusetts.

Re:The Senator from Disney (3, Insightful)

Eravau (12435) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126145)

According to the article, it doesn't matter whether we get rid of Hollings. There are plenty more in line behind him to take his place in the back pocket of the music and movie industries.

We'll be lucky to ever get a "non-biased" politician in a position of power. To get elected takes a lot of money (to get your name out there in advertising, etc.). Real people don't have that kind of money. So where does the money come from? Big industries like these. After their elected, they can't stray from what these industries what because they'll need their money to be re-elected in a few more years. There is no forseeable end to the cycle.

There is no "good guy" any more is there? A politician's a politician.

Re:The Senator from Disney (3, Insightful)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126190)

If more "real" people gave a bit of money -- keep in mind that the per-candidate and total limits restrict how much any one company can contribute -- then Congressmen would be more free to ignore industry contributions.

Re:The Senator from Disney (5, Interesting)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126175)

Senat-ah Fahritz Hawllings (if you've heard the man speak, you'll know what I mean) brings home the pork to the residents of S.C. Same reason Strom "Life Support" Thurmond, Ted "You Open the Car Door And Float To The Top" Kennedy and Tom "Puff Daddy" Daschle keep getting elected.

'Course, it's interesting to note the changes in Congress over the last 20 years (and particularly since the "Republican Revolution" of '94 and the Newt-ites). Most concepts of seniority have been thrown out the window and senators (in particular) have become less "gentleman statesmen" and more like the party hacks that fill the House. "Tow the party line and nobody gets hurt" has become the de facto philosophy of the Senate, rather than the classic "let's all be gentlemen and discuss things in a rational manner" way things used to be done. (I think shadows of this change were visible back during Tip O'Neill's tenure and even before).

So it becoms an issue of senators not taking views too far out of line with a) their party platform and b) their constituents' views, so as to not appear in the national press, except when signing bills or slinging mud at the party in power.

It may be this "keep your head down, get re-elected" shift that will oust Hollings, Daschle, et. al. (It certainly cost Gary Condit his job...)

Just my $.02

Re:The Senator from Disney (1)

ZaMoose (24734) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126199)

Errm, should have been "except when attending bill signings". The Pres. signs the bills, the senators vote for 'em. Derrrr.

Re:The Senator from Disney (1)

briosa (565000) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126182)

The article only mentions Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and two other Democrats, not the whole party as the article title seems to suggest. Then the article makes a blanket statement about how much money the entertainment industry gave to Democrats (which I will will admit is a little suspicious). On that note, I'm not defending these Democrats that are in the pockets of the MPAA, et al, but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD. Briosa.

Re:The Senator from Disney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126235)

but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD

You mean right-ist.

Re:The Senator from Disney (0)

syn3rg (530741) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126194)

This is also on http://hardware.earthweb.com/

Re:The Senator from Disney (2, Interesting)

Kamel Jockey (409856) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126204)

I sincerely hope that the people in his district are well aware of Sen. Holling's attrocities.

Well, he did initially raise the Rebel Flag over the state house as S.C. governor to protest the civil rights movement.

Hollings routinely refers to blacks as "darkies"

A search for "KKK" and "Hollings" on google will link to numerous articles and postings substantiating these facts.

Re:The Senator from Disney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126208)

wonder how would his chances to get elected be if you could also antivote against the worst idiots. think about it - this could really change a few things around.

Re:The Senator from Disney (5, Interesting)

pangur (95072) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126226)

I lived on SC for four years, and let me tell you something. They are allergic to change.

Sen Hollings has been in the Senate for something like forty years. He is the longest running junior senator ever. At forty years of continuous service, he is still the young'un from SC.

The senior senator is Strom Thurmond. He's 99. He said that he won't run again when his term ends in 2002. He was elected again, mainly on the idea that he would die in office and that he should be allowed to do so.

Also, remember that the longer your Senator serves in Congress, the higher his seniority. If you elect someone else, you lose all special privleges there. For example, Shaw AFB is never included in base closings, because Sen Thurmond would crush any Senator that voted to do so.

Basically, Sen. Hollings could parade naked down Huger St. in Columbia SC, and the Republican party would run commercials on how the Sen. must have nothing to hide.

Senator, not Representative (1)

Scryber (244784) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126237)

Minor nitpick:
I sincerely hope that the people in his district are well aware of Sen. Holling's attrocities.

Hollings is a Senator and thus represents a state, not a district, as a Representative does.

I love the last line... (-1)

I.T.R.A.R.K. (533627) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126078)

"Such an approach would turn the Democrats' greatest political weapons into vulnerabilities. Are the Republicans smart enough to do that?

In other words, we're all fucking doomed.

This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126079)

...Fox News slams Democratic party on obscure issue.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126168)

Fox news runs another puff story trying to prop up the worthless Chimpanzee in Chief. Slams Democrats; sucks Bush Boys Cock, just another day of fine journalistic integrity from Faux Snooze --- We Distort You Deride.

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (0, Flamebait)

pinkUZI (515787) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126083)

Well, the Democrats invented the internet, don't they have the right to regulate it?

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126100)

It wasn't the democrats that invented the internet, was just al gore. Nobody else had any say in the matter whatsoever.

A little out there? (2, Insightful)

Mr_Matt (225037) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126084)

I understand that Fox News likes to portray itself as the "alternative" news source, free of "liberal bias" (but only because they wouldn't be able to compete with other real news organizations if they didn't do something to distinguish themselves :) but did anybody else find this article more of a hatchet job than an intelligent article about the SSSCA?

I mean, c'mon, linking to a Wired article and then speaking endlessly about "opportunities for Republicans" doesn't sound like an informative article about the evils of the SSSCA. Maybe they forgot about the other evil crap that John Ashcroft has brought us: the PATRIOT Act, monitoring of cable modems, what have you. It's clear that neither party is wholly clean of messing with our rights, but this article just skews the discussion into endless political ranting. Kind of like this topic will devolve into, I foresee. :)

Re:A little out there? (2, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126116)

Well Fox has hired many people from both sides of the spectrum and are basically told not to hide their feelings and say what they really think. So you do hear extremly right wing and left wing beliefs. As opposed to more news orginizations which tend to lean to the left but try their best to hide that fact.

Re:A little out there? (2)

Enry (630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126169)

Pfft! Oh sure, make me spit my coffee.

The "liberals" they bring on are just to the right-of-center. I have *never* seen a liberal slant on any Fox news reporting, counting the local dreck. Now, conservative slant, that's a different story.

I take real issue with anyone that does this, then goes out of their way to advertise how balanced they are.

Re:A little out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126233)

>>So you do hear extremly right wing and left wing beliefs

Hey dipshit Mort Kondrake is not a Liberal and Alan Colmes is a Wuss. So lets see 50+ conservatives 2 psuedo Liberals. Fair and balanced my ass.

Re:A little out there? (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126256)

on a similar note
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A163 10-2002Feb28.html
is an intersting article on the topic
this is fox news reply to that
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47265,00.html

in my opinion, the fox one (??!!) makes more sense.. worth a read if you want to look at the media bias.

Re:A little out there? (4, Informative)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126135)

That's because it's NOT an "article", it's an opinion piece. Look closely at the page; it's called "Straight Talk", and it's in the Views section, and it was submitted by a law professor.

This is an opinion piece, not an article. They're not claiming journalistic objectivity here.

Re:A little out there? (2)

Mr_Matt (225037) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126188)

...and yet it on Slashdot it's presented as "Fox says SSSCA is bad." Nowhere do I say that Fox has to maintain "journalistic integrity" (if such an abstract notion of human nobility exists or has existed since Watergate) but I do take issue with the opinion piece being presented as a list of reasons why the SSSCA is bad.

Maybe I should have clarified that by not using the word "article" in my post, but the gist of my idea is the same: we've been slipped an opinion piece under a headline that suggests otherwise. Just thought I'd point the incongruity of that out.

Re:A little out there? (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126207)

Yup. The original submitter of this piece erred when he called it an article. If the /. editors came up with their own title rather than using the submitter's, they erred as well.

Re:A little out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126227)

Mr_Matt certainly has nothing better to do than bitch and moan while on vacation :-p

Re:A little out there? (0)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126142)

You just can't stand it that the liberal bias of CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC is not the only game in town anymore

Re:A little out there? (2)

tb3 (313150) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126149)

Exactly what I was thinking. There was one paragraph free of political rhetoric, but the rest was just dem-bashing. Which is great for the right-wing hard-liners, but does little to attract anyone else.
In fact, it hurts the cause, because any democrats reading it will be so turned off by the ranting that they'll ignore the issue. I want the card-carrying democrats to kick Hollings out, and pieces like this ain't gonna do it.

Re:A little out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126162)

Yeah, it's good to see that YOU are not biased at all. That's what I love about liberals, freedom of speech is great as long as you say what I want you to say.

It's great to see a liberal bash Fox for presenting at least some conservative views. Yet they never talk about Dan Rather being the guest speaker at Democrats' fund raisers, etc.

Hypocrite.

Re:A little out there? (1)

jweb (520801) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126165)

but did anybody else find this article more of a hatchet job than an intelligent article about the SSSCA?

Well, yes, but you do have to realize that not everyone outside the /. crowd can understand a more complex and in-depth article on the SSSCA. I see this as a starting point for the masses: if a few non-techie folks read this article, and it prompts them to react, do some additional research, or perhaps even take some action, that's a Good Thing(TM)

Gotta crawl before you can walk.

Re:A little out there? (1)

Irvu (248207) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126201)

I personally loved the fact that he *didn't* mention the bill's co-sponsor Republican Senator Ted Stevens.

I would also point out that, contrary to the /. header this doesn't explain what's wrong with the SSSCA (lack of fair use, pointless intrusion, etc.) So much as it discusses how the Republicans could capitalize on the furor it has created.

Re:A little out there? (2)

rudedog (7339) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126257)

Nor did he mention the other Disney-sponsored copyright act, the Sony Bono [R-DeadNow] Copyright Extension Act. Both sides of the aisle have big problems with pandering to media giants.

Re:A little out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126223)

It is a political commentary, an opinion piece. As such, you would be off base to expect a white-paper/technical writeup.

John Ashcroft brought us the Patriot Act?
If you're a democrat, it would seem that you should blame your representatives. All 125 of them in the house who voted 'aye'.

Re:A little out there? (3, Informative)

medcalf (68293) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126241)

The article was not about "the evils of the SSSCA," but instead was about "opportunities for Republicans" to take advantage of a political position taken by the Democrats that goes against the Democrats' normal instincts. Given your tone, I wonder if you would consider the article a rant if the parties were reversed?

Re:A little out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126251)

Well, if they really wanted to inflame the people, they could just point out that if anything like the SSSCA becomes law, it will wipe out the video rental business - what with media being locked to specific playback devices there will be no way to handle rentals as well as getting rid of "sharing". And since lots of Democratic support comes from those "liitle guys" that count Blockbuster as a big part of their entertainment budget this can be used as an issue.

Of course, what will really wipe out the rental business (as defined by Blockbuster et al) will be real Video on Demand at a lower price than the rental stores can match. But darn it! We are talking politics here and a half truth goes a lot further than a whole.

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (2, Insightful)

CptNoSkill (528594) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126089)

"So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough."
"This partiality is a betrayal of principle."
"Talk about screwing the little guy:"
"denouncing the "spyware" already on Windows Media Player "
{a few snips from the article} Can I get an AMEN! It is now offical, I am becoming a republican. ;).
To bad there a 'cowboynealican' party...

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (2)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126114)

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer"

Anyone want to make bumperstickers of this?

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (2, Informative)

commonchaos (309500) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126151)

Bumper stickers would be awesome, I'm intrested!

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (-1)

l33t j03 (222209) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126152)

Good idea, that way I can pick you out in traffic and kick your ass.

Re:"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (2)

marcop (205587) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126140)

"So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough."

That's my favorite quote. It made me laugh, then cry. I am glad to see mainstream media ridicule these puppets we call leaders so blatantly. For a second I thought I was reading The UK Register.

Best part of the article (2)

PaxTech (103481) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126167)

I mentioned the vulnerability of the record industry to racketeering charges a few months ago at an entertainment-law panel discussion that I was moderating, in the hopes of stirring up a hot dispute between lawyers who represent artists and those who represent record companies. But, strikingly, everyone there agreed that the record companies were vulnerable on this ground.

Come on, DOJ, let's have some RICO investigations of the MPAA and RIAA! Here's a chance to make up for dropping the ball in the MS case..

Correction.. (3, Insightful)

gergi (220700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126097)

The article only mentions Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and two other Democrats, not the whole party as the article title seems to suggest. Then the article makes a blanket statement about how much money the entertainment industry gave to Democrats (which I will will admit is a little suspicious).

On that note, I'm not defending these Democrats that are in the pockets of the MPAA, et al, but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD.

Re:Correction.. (2, Funny)

Mr_Matt (225037) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126136)

...but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD.

Funny, sounded kinda right-wing to me. :)

One of which may run for President (3, Interesting)

slugfro (533652) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126170)

I see your point but dont't forget that the article mentions that one of those two other Democrats that you mention is planning on running for President in 2004.
Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected).
Then the fact that John Kerry is backed by the entertainment industry will become very important indeed.

Re:Correction.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126206)

very left-ist piece
of FUD.

Would it be less FUDy if it were far rightest?
Strange (and stupid and wrong) assumptions here.

Re:Correction.. (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126211)

i am curious to know what you would say if this were about republicans doing the same thing.
the fact is democrats are heavily dependent on hollywood for money and in many ways are like the way we say coprs control the republicans

besides it a general practice to say Dems when speaking about democrats.. if you look in cnn, msnbc or other news outlets, they do not list the number of republicans of democrats doing something, they will just say the party name in general. probably intended to save space and get you to read it

Re:Correction.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126245)

The article only mentions Sen. Fritz Hollings ("The Senator from Disney") and two other Democrats, not the whole party as the article title seems to suggest

The article talks about the Democratic leadership and the general response (follow the leader rather than speak up against the money) of the Democratic party. It may only mention 3 Democrats, but the fascinating part of the article (as you mentioned) is the money trail. Democrats do get a lot of money from Hollywood & the whole entertainment crowd (there are notable exceptions).

but this article is a very left-ist piece of FUD.
how do you get left-ist out of a little democrat bashing? It's certainly not FUD. The title is "Republicans Should Back Recording Artists, Consumers".. not "Democrats back SSSCA".

Re:Correction.. (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126247)

Leftist? Have you ever *seen* fox news? Also, I would have to say it's not traditional left-ist tactics to smash the Democrats' policies while giving Republicans tips on how to exploit them to win votes.

I do wish there were a more vivid description of what the SSSCA is trying to do - legislate that every computer and operating system and piece of software be engineered to prevent illegal copying of every bucket of bits, even though it would prevent much legal copying as well. This would also require that Linux and other free OSes be outlawed and require massive re-engineering of nearly every piece of consumer software, thus greatly increasing the cost to the consumer, while simultaneously giving record companies and movie studios a number of interesting ways to squeeze more dollars out of consumers for the privilege of enjoying goods they already bought.

Read it fast (1)

NortonDC (211601) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126099)

...before it gets Foxed.

Foxed? (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126229)

What's that? They gunna put lots of soft porn around the article?

This is a first... (3, Insightful)

PenguinX (18932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126103)

Few journalists will get the chance to report on the SSSCA - even fewer will understand what it is like this reporter. I often find myself being overly cynical about journalism for a number of reasons, but this article hits the issue right on the head.

Ok, a real reply, from Fritz' state (3, Interesting)

DarthWiggle (537589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126105)

You know, it used to be that Fritz was just a nice old man. And he really is. He's a smart guy, too. But I'm beginning to wonder if the pressure of being the World's Oldest Junior Senator (Strom is ahead of him) is beginning to make him bitter.

Frankly, I'm not so worried about the implications of this legislation. If it passes (unlikely), it'll just get attacked in the House or defeated in the courts if it somehow makes it past Dubya's desk.

It's more that SC (and the US in general) has a gentleman like this steering legislative policy on something that didn't even exist when he was celebrating his 60th birthday. I'm not saying older folks can't learn, but in this case, I think it's safe to say that SC is not going to become a technology center (nor will the United States remain one) as long as its legislators insist on kissing up to interests that have less consideration for the proper deployment of technology than they do for the protection of their short-term revenue streams.

Anyway, God help us all. Fritz is a nice man, but he should be ignored on this issue.

The Article (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126109)

Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., is at it again. Although he represents South Carolina, Hollings is sometimes known as the "Senator from Disney" because of his eagerness to support the interests of the motion picture and record industries and their lobbying arms, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Record Industry Association of America.

Hollings' loyalty to Big Entertainment -- which favored him with contributions of nearly $300,000 in the past election cycle -- was manifested last fall by his championing of the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act, which would mandate the inclusion of copy-protection in every digital device and every computer operating system.

And Hollings has proved that he is true to his salt, by holding hearings in support of the same idea last week, hearings at which he made no secret of his siding with the entertainment industries and against the interests of consumers.

This might seem odd for a senior member of the Democratic Party, which usually styles itself a friend of the little guy, and it can't simply be explained away as an eccentricity his -- Hollings was joined by Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, both of whom are heavily reliant on entertainment-industry money (with Kerry sure to become even more so if he runs for President in 2004, as expected).

And the money seems to be the explanation here. A Wired article on the hearings noted that in the 2000 election cycle, the entertainment industry gave Democrats a whopping $24.2 million in contributions compared to $13.3 million to Republicans.

So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough.

This partiality is a betrayal of principle. As such, it represents a real political opportunity for the Republicans. Democrats do like to portray themselves as the friends of the little guy and the protectors of ordinary Americans against greedy big business -- as demonstrated by their posturing over the Enron collapse. But as Ken Layne pointed out last week, the entertainment industries make Enron's management look like Boy Scouts.

Talk about screwing the little guy: audits of record companies routinely indicate "errors" that are always in the companies' favor. (Recording artist Peggy Lee just won a big judgment, and many other artists' lawsuits are pending). Accounting is byzantine enough to make Enron's look simple.

Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount. Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week. And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" sounds like a pretty good slogan, and it's one that Republicans could use against Democrats nationwide. A few smart Democrats, like Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, realize this. As Boucher puts it, these companies are "seeking to use their copyright not just to obtain fair compensation but in effect to exercise complete dominance and total control of the copyrighted work...I have told the heads of the major labels I think this is a major mistake that will engender a major public backlash." Unfortunately, Boucher seems to be a voice in the wilderness within the Democratic Party, which has forged a symbiotic relationship with the entertainment industries over the past few decades.

But what's bad judgment and betrayal of principle for Democrats is a political opportunity for Republicans, who can capitalize on that "backlash." Imagine this scenario: the Department of Justice investigates the record and motion picture industries for fraud, where artists are concerned, and price-fixing, where charges to consumers are concerned. (There wouldn't be anything bogus about doing so: I mentioned the vulnerability of the record industry to racketeering charges a few months ago at an entertainment-law panel discussion that I was moderating, in the hopes of stirring up a hot dispute between lawyers who represent artists and those who represent record companies. But, strikingly, everyone there agreed that the record companies were vulnerable on this ground.)

Meanwhile, Republican legislators denounce these industries for trying to take control of individuals' computers, denouncing the "spyware" already on Windows Media Player that tracks what you listen to, and promising to outlaw such intrusive technologies in the future. Democrats are left with a choice: side with fatcats, and against consumers and popular artists, or turn on a constituency that has been a major source of campaign funds.

Such an approach would turn the Democrats' greatest political weapons into vulnerabilities. Are the Republicans smart enough to do that?

Give 'em enough rope... (1, Interesting)

A coward on a mouse (238331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126111)

The Recording Industry Ass. of America and Motion Picture Ass. of America seem to have stepped in it here. Going after people's ability to make mix CDs may finally wake up the general public to their game. The .23 cent royalties on downloaded songs give the lie to their mission to "protect the artists". Saying that music piracy is more important than AIDS makes them look like the self-absorbed pricks that they are.

Is it just me, or do they seem more and more desperate with every passing day?

Opinions, opinions (5, Informative)

Frater 219 (1455) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126118)

Please note that the linked article is a partisan opinion piece by a law professor. It isn't the work of a Fox columnist; it doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Fox or its affiliates. Nonetheless, it is quite refreshing to see cogent arguments for freedom in the "mainstream" media.

FWIW, the "partisan opinion" in question is small-"L" libertarian Republican. What the author is arguing isn't just that the SSSCA is bad. It's that Republicans should take advantage of the fact that Democrats' support for the SSSCA makes Democrats look to be in bed with Big Business. I, for one, find it nice when either of the duopolistic parties adopt pro-freedom positions. It gives me hope that someday they might do so out of principle rather than just because it makes them look good. Is a pretense to virtue a possible antecedent to true virtue? I don't know.

Not *everything* is the fault of the MPAA. (4, Insightful)

Latent IT (121513) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126119)

Take from the article, for instance:

Despite being illegal, payola is rife, keeping interesting artists off the air in favor of the manufactured hitmaker of the week.

Okay, assume that statement is fully true, and major labels pay radio stations big bucks to play their manufactured hitmaker of the week. This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?

Wrong.

Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'

The same with Hanson, Britney, 98, blah-de-freakin'-blah. Someone's listening to this crap. And you know what? It's trendy to call it crap. But when a radio station, that makes money off ad revenue, has to choose what to play, it's either going to choose the mainstream 'crap', or the indie 'interesting' stuff. The rest of what will happen is left as an exercise for the reader.

Other things pointed out in the article are just plain criminal, however:

Record companies regularly deduct 15 percent off the top of sales as an allowance for "breakage" -- a survival from the days of shellac records that now simply serves to reduce artist royalties by that amount

and

And now, record companies -- who have allied themselves with the just-as-bad motion picture industry - want to make it a felony for you to own a computer that is capable of copying music from a CD to your portable player without paying them money, even though courts have held that such copying is entirely legal.

Blame the MPAA for a lot - the DMCA, copy protected CD's, starving artists that sell more than 50,000 records, but not for the bad taste of the little girl down the block.

More Political than Factual (2, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126122)

FOX has a rep for being to the right and this tends to back up that perception.

Many here will love the article because they agree with the conclusion that the law is a bad one but overall the article has little to do with copy right protection.

The author is merely reflecting on poliitical ramifications for the Republicans and Democrats. In the process we see that Washington no longer worries about right vs. wrong- but rather solely on what will bring in votes and or money. Here the democrats have a bit of a pickle because they may have to choose rather than have both.

I remain confident that the American people will be screwed regardless-- while the parties fight over their little kingdoms.

.

Re:More Political than Factual (-1, Flamebait)

aCapitalist (552761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126187)

FOX has a rep for being to the right

And CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC have a rep for being on the left.

Re:More Political than Factual (1)

bob_clippy (562460) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126228)

Ten years ago when Murdoch applied to the FCC for a rule waiver so he could own a TV station and a newspaper in the same city (NYC, and also Boston), Ted Kennedy was there to swat it down. I suspect he hasn't forgotten.

In other news.... (1, Insightful)

univgeek (442857) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126124)

The Congress today found out that the Earth is round.


Seriously folks, with the money they are making [slashdot.org] , the the arguments against them [slashdot.org] and the turning tide of public opinion on one side and their soft money contributions on the other.... I hope we the public win.....


May be as Chris Sprigman says, this may happen if campaign reform takes place.

Interesting Political trend. (2, Insightful)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126127)

Slashdot, as can be found out by looking at the Presidental poll from the 2000 election, is mostly democrat. Yet, the bad guy in SSSCA is a democrat, and the Republicans for the most part think the bill would wrong the American public.

Republicans help big business! Democrats help the common man! Perhaps we should re-evaluate their views.

Re:Interesting Political trend. (0)

cabodog77 (561120) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126166)

I was attracted by your bible quote...and curious...do you really believe Dems help the common man? I don't wish to get into a political arg. here, but Dems encourage both dependency and servitude on and to the government.

Re:Interesting Political trend. (0, Flamebait)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126231)

No, I don't belive Democrats help common men, that's just their political "platform". It's been wrong all along, but perhaps Slashdot will wake up now that it's effecting us harshly.

Your point is correct, they should be called socialists.

Re:Interesting Political trend. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126209)

It would be interesting to examine just why the entertainment industry, unlike most industries, donates more heavily to Democrats than Republicans. I think I know the answer: Censorship. Time and again, that's the issue that has most frightened Hollywood, and who's their natural ally on that issue? The Democrats. Now, having allied themselves, the industry finds it convenient to call on their new friends for other concerns, even when these ultimately turn out to be anti-democratic.

"Keep your grubby laws off my computer" (5, Funny)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126137)

That is indeed a good slogan. But they could draft Charlton Heston as a spokeman too.

How about:

"Keep your stinking laws off my computer you filthy apes!" (the real "Planet Of the Apes")

"Pop culture is people!" ("Soylent Green")

There have to be some good possibilities from "the Ten Commandments" and "The Omega Man", but I just can't think of them...

It's a pity those quotes couldn't be used while playing the clips from the movie they almost came from - it wouldn't quite make the fiar use criteria. :(

money talks (1)

gessel (310103) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126138)

Clearly the article's main point is slamming democrats and the SSSCA is merely a tool to do that; entirely in keeping with FOX News' basic ultra-conservative viewpoint butt... The points are still basically correct. I'm a resident of CA and the most effective way I can figure to make my point is to send Rick Boucher a few bucks and then tell Barbara Boxer he got her money and if she wants it back she needs to get a clue.

Re:money talks (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126198)

I'm a resident of CA

Which means you're an ultra-liberal. I can tell you this, Fox news is not conservative. You're just off the spectrum. Fox news does have some shows that are conservative, but there's no real twist on the news like you get with CNN.

Bought and paid for (3, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126146)

To paraphrase Gore Vidal, the Democrats and the Republicans are both branches of the property party. The only difference is each party has different industries providing core corporate sponsorship.

This is all great news anyway - the best way to stay away from corporate ownership of your computer and data is to stop buying their crappy content, which will have the beneficial side-effect of promoting indie artists.

The spin of FoxNews (2)

cowboy junkie (35926) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126155)

While there's no doubt that the Democrats mentioned in the article are hardly acting with consumers' best interests in mind, it's laughable to believe that Republicans are going to lead the charge in the other direction as the author seems to suggest. Both parties are so in bed with big business that the difference between the two is is like vanilla vs. french vanilla.

I'm shocked... (sarcasm) (3, Interesting)

jhaberman (246905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126157)

C'mon folks... you absolutely have to "follow the money" when looking
for political motivation. From Enron to SSSCA. Nobody should be shocked when
they hear something like this. Its just an extension of the old golden rule...
he who has the gold, makes the rules. Unless the people (perhaps with help from
the hardware manufacturers) vehemently make their views known, there will be
people like this who try to run through legislation designed to screw the little
guy.


We obviously don't count as much in the process. Voters are needed to be elected...
but MONEY is needed to get voters to vote for you. They don't get money from
the voters. Besides... they figure we'll forget and just vote for the incumbent
anyway.


I'm babbling...


Jason

I don't know what's worse (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126163)

Slashdot bias, or the 'let's masturbate about ways to kill people, Bush can do no wrong' bias of FoxNews. I can get more news and more intelligent discourse out of a can of Clam Chowder than in an hour of FoxNews.

Democrats betrayed their principles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126171)

Democrats betrayed their principles?

How could that be???

[/sarcasm]

And for those of us who have figured that out (5, Informative)

loosenut (116184) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126174)

Do something about it!

Visit the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010921_eff_sssca_alert .html [eff.org]

I used that page to send a few emails to my Congresspeople. And they are listening!! I got this reply from Senator Maria Cantwell:

Dear ---:
Thank you for contacting me about the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA). I appreciate hearing your concerns.

The SSSCA has not yet been introduced in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, nor does it exist in final form. My staff has been in contact with the Senator Hollings' office, one of the authors of the SSSCA along with Senator Stevens. I was informed that the SSSCA is yet to be completed, and the timeline for the introduction of the SSSCA is uncertain at this point. The early draft that was made publicly available on the Internet, to which your comments are likely directed, may be significantly different from the legislation that may be introduced by Senators Hollings and Stevens. You may be interested to know that Sen. Hollings held a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee to address this issue on February 28 (To view statements and testimony from this hearing, see: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/hearings.htm)

I understand your concern that we must work to achieve the right balance between protecting copyrights and remunerating the creators of those works and reasonable consumer use of copyrighted works. Indeed, the pace of innovation requires a diligent consideration of both of these interests. I believe that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) passed in 1998 helps to accomplish this goal. I feel we need to continue to encourage innovation in technology while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors, artists, authors and musicians. The DMCA prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures and the trafficking of such technology. Thus, the law facilitates legitimate distribution of copyrighted work by allowing for the use of technological measures by the copyright holder and providing legal protections for those measures. However, you should know that I will not be supportive of legislation that unduly limits technological innovation or consumers' rights.

At this relatively early point in the development of digital distribution of copyrighted works, the U.S. Copyright Office has recommended that Congress make no significant changes to copyright law right now. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright law, I will be actively considering these issues. Please be assured that should the SSSCA come before the Senate, I will keep your concerns in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell United States Senator

Can I get some opinion from other countries? (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126189)

Republicans Should Back Recording Artists, Consumers

If this is not blatent bias I don't know what is. Has anyone watched foxnews with their token liberal here and there and actually thought it was ever purposedly objective? This is an attempt to make rebulicans shine on a issue that touches a group that are mostly apolitical and secondly lean toward the left.

To my question: In other countries as I understand it there is a known bias for the mainstream news organizations in some countries that is open. Does it make news more poignant to come from an openly slanted viewpoint that has the freedom to question relentlessly other viewpoints or is it better to be in world with, psuedo-just the facts sort of news reporting that may use more subtle mechanisms to undercut other's viewpoints?

Consume less and create more! (5, Insightful)

mikeboone (163222) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126193)

This was a good article. Congressmen were just as easily bought by the entertainment industry as they were by Enron. Makes you wish you could "reboot" the government and start with some people who don't expect money from corporations.

Anyway, I was thinking that a huge part of the problem is that the public in general is looked upon solely as consumers of entertainment. It's as if we can't think for ourselves...we must be fed entertainment by corporations.

While I enjoy TV shows and movies and music, I spend a lot of time trying to create my own "content." I take photographs and post them on my website. I write travelogs about my trips, and post those too. I fool around with my guitar, though I'm not very good at it. I write software. Basically, I think this serves two purposes. It is time spent that I'm not "consuming" the coporate-fed entertainment, and at the same time it's more home-brewed content out there, for someone else to look at and ignore the output of big companies who want to control their works with an iron fist.

So get out there and publish your own content. Just don't do it with the idea that your heirs will still be profiting from it in the year 3000.

Re:Consume less and create more! (2)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126236)

The reboot switch is found near the Libertarian candidate on the ballot. It's usually a small lever or a checkbox, or a place to punch a "chad" out.

Big Fox didn't nix this? (1)

slykens (85844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126213)

First, I find it interesting that someone would actually admit Fox is mainstream news...

Second, I guess that Fox News really is independent from Papa Fox as I am sure Papa Fox's studio concerns would be in favor of the SSSCA.

Third, I find it to be even further interesting that it is the Democrats that are stereotyped as in favor of the SSSCA. I thought the democrats were all for watching out for the little guy, something the SSSCA obviously doesn't do.

This quote:

So championing the cause of the little guy only counts until the bidding gets high enough.

from the article explains a lot about *all* politics any more, and helps to make a good argument in favor of campaign finance reform.

But in regards to the SSSCA, the article mentions that copy protection would have to be required in all operating systems... What if the OS was produced outside the US and not intended for the US market? Does that mean it will be illegal to possess Red Flag Linux? What effect does this have on open source systems? It seems to me that this will simply create a market for the import of software or hardware which doesn't meet the SSSCA standards but can be either downloaded or smuggled past customs. (ie s/w and h/w not designed for use in the USA)

A Change in Political Structure (2, Interesting)

Shadowin (312793) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126216)

This article made me think of something. Maybe the political makeup of the major parties have changed again. Used to be Federalists against Democratic Republicans, then turned into Democrats (supporting the common people), and the Republicans (supporting the richer people). Now it seems to have turned into Democrats (supporters of the entertainment industry) and Republicans (supporters of other big businesses).

Maybe they need to change the party names to the Hollywhigs and the Oilies?

3 == all ? (1)

Bad_CRC (137146) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126220)

am I missing something, or did that guy just say that one guy, possibly 2 more, is the same as saying all democrats?


wow, a troll article from FOX.

Copying allowed? (1)

crevette (461203) | more than 12 years ago | (#3126224)

The article mentions that a court ruled that copying your own CD is legal. I thought that this issue simply has never been brought in court before. Meaning that the record industry never tried to block copying of your own CD.

Does that make it legal or simply makes the matter not enforced yet? Seems like a grey area to me.

the republicans are "bought" too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3126234)

"But what's bad judgment and betrayal of principle for Democrats is a political opportunity for Republicans, who can capitalize on that "backlash." Imagine this scenario: the Department of Justice investigates the record and motion picture industries for fraud, where artists are concerned, and price-fixing, where charges to consumers are concerned."

While the entertainments gave the republicans over 10 million, that buys something .. don't ya know!;-).. Most of all the gravey money for their stages elections!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>