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!

Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA?

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the here's-hoping-people dept.

Democrats 1363

dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law 'to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."

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

Geek Vote? (4, Insightful)

FriedTurkey (761642) | about 10 years ago | (#10623302)

Are people seriously going to vote for the better candidate on copyrights and making backup copies of software? There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president. I know /. is full of nerds, but speaking as a nerd I don't vote like a nerd.

Re:Geek Vote? (5, Funny)

mahdi13 (660205) | about 10 years ago | (#10623339)

Probably, hell...Clinton got in office because he said he smoked pot, but didn't inhale!

Re:Geek Vote? (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | about 10 years ago | (#10623444)

No, Clinton got in for playing the saxaphone on Arsenio Hall.

Re:Geek Vote? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623454)

Clinton got in office because he said he smoked pot, but didn't inhale!

Yeah, and after he got into office what exactly did he do to promote legal marijuana?

A good lesson there for potential Kerry voters...

Re:Geek Vote? (1)

Beatbyte (163694) | about 10 years ago | (#10623536)

he had his flux capacitor installed in his bong. it would seperate the marijuana from the smoke and he'd inject!

bill clinton doesn't HAVE to inhale!

Re:Geek Vote? (5, Insightful)

strictfoo (805322) | about 10 years ago | (#10623351)

Of course he's for it. He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it.

Like the Patriot Act,Kerry also voted for the DMCA [senate.gov] .

Re:Geek Vote? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623403)

In fairness, only a couple of senators read it and it was dropped on them at the last moment for voting.

It is a problem though.

Re:Geek Vote? (5, Insightful)

John Pliskin (769478) | about 10 years ago | (#10623559)

That does not matter, they should've taken the time to read it, and if they had NOT been afforded the time to read it, voted No.

Amendment X speaks loud and clear still, Congress can't pull this crap, and it's time we showed them who the hell is boss.
The People.

$

Re:Geek Vote? (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | about 10 years ago | (#10623560)

> Of course he's for it. He's for anything that might get him a vote, but not so much that might piss the people off would be against it. Like the Patriot Act, Kerry also voted for the DMCA. [senate.gov]

Wait. Are you saying he's for anything that might get him a vote, but he's for getting the votes before he turns against it? Or is he not for it so much as to piss the people off who'd be against it, as long as he voted against it after he voted for it? In Soviet Russia, I hear they vote aga*WHAM WHAM WHAM*

My head hurts. Politics is so confusing these days.

Re:Geek Vote? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623384)

I don't vote like a nerd.

no, but you also don't vote like a dumb jock!

Re:Geek Vote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623450)

Spoken like a true 15 year old...

Re:Geek Vote? (3, Insightful)

bwalling (195998) | about 10 years ago | (#10623402)

There seems to be more important issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, and terrorism to judge candidates for president

It doesn't really matter - name one candidate that doesn't suck. Sure, you hate Bush, but don't let that blind you from the fact that Kerry sucks. Bush might be the only major party candidate that Kerry could beat. Maybe I just get more cynical over time, but these two make Al Gore and Walter Mondale look good!

Re:Geek Vote? (1)

eyegone (644831) | about 10 years ago | (#10623488)


As a self-described moderate Democrat, these guys make me long for the days of Dole/Kemp '96!

Re:Geek Vote? (4, Insightful)

diamondsw (685967) | about 10 years ago | (#10623491)

Every time I hear that "it doesn't matter, they're both evil/sucky/the same", I ask the following:

You have the option of being punched on November 2nd, or shot on November 2nd. One IS going to happen, no matter how much you don't like it, so choose which you want.

Re:Geek Vote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623571)

Bush and Kerry both suck, that's why I'm voting for Kerry.

Re:Geek Vote? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 10 years ago | (#10623415)

Well, maybe many geeks agree with his opinions there too.

Re:Geek Vote? (5, Insightful)

static0verdrive (776495) | about 10 years ago | (#10623442)

I'd rather people voted like nerds rather than voting like sheep...

What's so wrong about voting like a nerd? Doesn't "Nerd" stand for "Noteworthy Engineer/Researcher/Developer" ?

Re:Geek Vote? (1)

ericdano (113424) | about 10 years ago | (#10623563)

You know how sheep vote? Hmmmm......

Why not? (2, Insightful)

bstadil (7110) | about 10 years ago | (#10623478)

The point is that anyone need to make a balanced assesment of the issues, so why would Geek issues be any less important?

Take your suggested important issues of Health care. For a geek in his mid twenties I would think that the evolution of technology and how freely is can evolve would be of higher importance than Healt care. He is unlikely to get serious sick during next 40 years but for sure need to find a place/ environment where his technical talents can be used.

I will forego comment on the Iraq quagmire and how we go into this mess.

Re:Geek Vote? (2, Insightful)

FictionPimp (712802) | about 10 years ago | (#10623567)

Why not a lot of people I know tell me they are voting for bush because he is a good christian. They said bush would take the side of the church and bring more religion into goverment and that was a good thing.

Funny thing is, they dont know anything else. They think presidents make laws, and have blinders on in regards to any other issue. There are too many people who can't look at things with an objective point of view. Its "Bush is a good christain, so he must be right", or "I can't turn my back on the commander in chief who is protecting this country", etc. People need to stop turing a blind eye. I dont care who you vote for, but I wish people can give me a better reason then "He's a christain". I'd like to see, "I agree with his stances on X and he signed law Y, and refused to give into presure from the WTO...etc"

DCMA (5, Insightful)

sndtech (738958) | about 10 years ago | (#10623303)

if he does defang the DCMA, maybe he can work on the patriot act as well.

Re:DCMA (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 10 years ago | (#10623376)

if he does defang the DCMA, maybe he can work on the patriot act as well.

I believe he's already stated his intentions to revise that particular travesty...

Re:DCMA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623426)

Kerry has the best platform I have ever seen. He is both for and against every issue.
How the fuck can you trust this guy
At least Bush tell you how he is going to fuck things up.

Re:DCMA (5, Interesting)

Salo2112 (628590) | about 10 years ago | (#10623467)

Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.

Re:DCMA (5, Informative)

osu-neko (2604) | about 10 years ago | (#10623510)

Seeing as he voted for the Patriot Act, not likely.

Weren't paying attention to the news at the time? Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix. According to publicly stated positions of the people at the time, the majority of people who voted for the Patriot Act would like to revise it.

Re:DCMA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623517)

He voted for the Patriot Act in temporary form. He did not vote for it to be a permanent institution.

One word answer (1, Insightful)

VonGuard (39260) | about 10 years ago | (#10623307)

No.

No differnces? (1, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 10 years ago | (#10623308)

No differnces between these two candidates? Ok, I don't expect deep political analysis from a tech columnist anymore than I expect a clear understanding of tech from a political one, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.

Although I do give credit for his well researched analysis of the tech policies of each candidate. Even though Kerry hasn't done squat on the issues in his two decades in the Senate, by vigorously enforcing DMCA and working to exoort it, Bush is causeing harm. If Kerry could have passed the smell test I might have voted for him on the least harm principle.

Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.

Re:No differnces? (3, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10623357)

Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.

I'd rather have individual people survive than the Republic any day. Besides, the Republic has basically been dead since the Corporations were allowed to enter politics in 1885.

Re:No differnces? (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 10 years ago | (#10623393)

"Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year."

Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."

Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."

Bush on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."

Kerry on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."

Really, the list goes on, including some of what they say about Iraq. The differences between the two are mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety.

Re:No differnces? (0, Flamebait)

osu-neko (2604) | about 10 years ago | (#10623434)

I think they both believe the sky is blue, too! Really, they agree about nearly everything!

(Someone hand me the cluestick, I need to beat someone...)

Re:No differnces? (1)

jdray (645332) | about 10 years ago | (#10623568)

Here you go. [clueserver.org]

Re:No differnces? (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 10 years ago | (#10623533)

> Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."

> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."

Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.

As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.

> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety

Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.

Re:No differnces? (5, Funny)

RandomFactor (22447) | about 10 years ago | (#10623395)

Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win

Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to survive even if he wins.

can't survive? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623453)

You are biggest fuckshit I've encountered on Slashdot. I salute you.

Re:can't survive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623566)

Wow, you couldn't even take the time to question or refute the argument? Or even to state a different point of view? You are a waste of storage and bandwidth.

Re:No differnces? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623521)

...survive Bush...oh come on, that war monger will only cause greater harm, and he will do so at the cost of OUR lives, so he and his buddies can get mo-money!!!

Kerry isn't a great alternitive either!

I recommend we vote for "George Washington", and if the booths have the same result as a web site with slashdot, we will have a dead president in office. (at least he can't harm the country as Dubya has, and Kerry could)

The Prez is in the executive branch... (5, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 10 years ago | (#10623315)

For those who forgot their high school civics our live outside the USA...

The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed

Therefore, even if Kerry wins the presidential race, he still will have no direct impact on laws. He'll only be able to sign a DMCA repeal or softening amendment if Congress sends him one to consider.

As always happens in the even-numbered years, all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election. Right now, it's a "Republican steamroller" because Republicans control both houses and and the White house. However, the Republicans hold on to a very thin margin to make their majority in both cases, so this could completely flip or end up in a mixed state after the elections. The Congress has much more say over the laws than the President gets.

Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 10 years ago | (#10623427)

You are right, however with the rise of modern political parties(whose representitives in congress are, in my opinion, way too much like sheep), if the president's party is in charge, a lot of what he suggests actually makes it into law(however maybe not in the exact form that he had hoped because the actual wording of bills is drafted by committe usually, and modified in the process of getting approved in both the house and senate.
The power of the president has been increasing recently, and it's not a trend that I really want to see continue, however neither Kerry or Bush are running on the platform of reducing their own/potential power....

Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (1)

Matt Clare (692178) | about 10 years ago | (#10623486)

Standard foreigner's question (perhaps Canadian) to US citizen:

  • How can you live within a two party system?
  • I don't know. I like the checks and balances.
  • Can you name any?
  • ummm...
LostCluster post is a good example to refrence.

Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (1)

JLavezzo (161308) | about 10 years ago | (#10623489)

That being said, the President is the head of his party. Since almost all government work is partisan, his influence over party members is very strong. He is also going to be able to set party policies, to some extent.

The president wants a bill introduced? Make a phone call.

Referring to stuff that happens on TV is pretty cheesy, but on West Wing, they've on several occasions called around to different legislators to get someone to do this for them.

Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623501)

That might be true on paper that the President has no way of making laws. But in reality the president has the ability to recommend the agenda for congress, the president can lobby for legislation, the president can even retaliate against members who vote against his initiatives by distancing themselves away from those members and leaving them without an ally or a referee while other congressmen devour their influence. FDR and LBJ rammed legislation through congress, and when congress member refused they were destroyed.

Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (5, Informative)

tsg (262138) | about 10 years ago | (#10623535)

The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed


[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; [source] [house.gov]


The President cannot directly write any law. But he can direct Congress in any way he sees fit. No, they don't have to listen to them, but he can be very influential. His power in this area comes from making recommendations on what Congress should be spending its time on. You can be sure that if the President wants to fix the DMCA, it will get a lot of attention from Congress.

"Open to examining..." (4, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about 10 years ago | (#10623318)

I believe thats politicalese for "I have not been briefed on this issue and have no idea what to say about it."

That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.

In short: No (3, Insightful)

infinite9 (319274) | about 10 years ago | (#10623321)

It doesn't matter who wins the presidency. Nothing will happen. At first I was going to say that the president only signs laws. It's up to congress to change the law. But in the end, this is now the Corporate States of America. And no one in Washingon will ever get off the gravy train.

I doubt it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623323)

He'll get around to that right after he and the Ambulance Chaser finish making the paralyzed rise up and walk, the deaf hear, the blind see, yada yada. He's campaigning, so he will promise whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

Flip Flop? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623327)

Is this another case of the Flip Flop? It would be very easy for him to tease us into believing that he would defang the DMCA and then turn around after the election and not do it. All he would have to do is Privately re-assure the RIAA and the MPAA and it would be fine and dnandy for him.

The More Important Question.. (1)

USAPatriot (730422) | about 10 years ago | (#10623329)

What John Kerry defend America or grovel to the French, the Germans, and the UN before putting American national security first?

That is the most important question of all. On that note, I will be voting for George W. Bush.

Re:The More Important Question.. (-1, Troll)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10623414)

When Bush gets interested in AMERICAN security (as opposed to Irai Secuirty, Afghan Security, Saudi Security, Corporation Security, etc), let me know.

Real American Security includes having enough troops at home to protect the homeland against ALL comers- and an immigration/border system that actually prevents certain people from ever entering the country. I don't see EITHER Kerry or Bush interested in American security at all. Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens.

Shoot the Mexicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623520)

"Real American Security includes having enough troops at home to protect the homeland against ALL comers- and an immigration/border system that actually prevents certain people from ever entering the country"

Which will result in your trigger-happy border guards killing Mexicans for the crime of coming over to do a job that needs doing. Thank, you, Pat Buchanan!

Re:The More Important Question.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623512)

I think the more important question is, "Would John Kerry lie to the US to invade a country that is not a threat?"

There you have the difference in the candidates. If you were a true USAPatriot you would be doing everything you could to rid our great nation of Bush and his failed imperial policies, instead you merely wallow in republican propoganda [slashdot.org] while thinking that if you say something often enough it makes it true.

In other news... (-1, Flamebait)

FatherKabral (819599) | about 10 years ago | (#10623337)

over at DNE.com, Dan Rathernot has just gotten the word that Kerry has announced that he would "never defang such a wonderful law. We need to protect every individual's rights to intellectual property."

This news just minutes after Kerry's announcement to support a change to the law, and mere seconds after his advisors told him "Dumbass! Bush is going the other way! How are you going to copy him if you say the opposite?"

OMFG (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623338)

if john kerry will pass legislations that will allow me to make legal backups of my precious fu-schnickens, black sheep, and house of pain tapes he has my vote!!!

Don't blame me (5, Funny)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | about 10 years ago | (#10623349)

I voted for Kodos

Not "would" but "could"... (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about 10 years ago | (#10623350)

I didn't realize the president could simply wipe existing laws out of existance.

Dan East

Re:Not "would" but "could"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623438)

*Warning... partisan joke coming*

Why not? The current one seems to have been able to de facto wipe existing portions of the constitution out...

*End joke*

Re:Not "would" but "could"... (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10623472)

Why not? Ever since Truman, it seems, laws and the Constitution certainly don't matter. Every war since WWII has been undeclared. Executive Priviledge and the Executive Order rule what actually happens, not law. All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.

Would it really matter. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623354)

Would it really matter. It is already a law, and as president he has no control over it. However he would have power to veto it if changes came down the pipe to alter or kill it off.

Why do we as americans put so much into the presidential elections, when infact our congress critters have the power to draft and approve new laws, while the president is in the position to say yes or no to them?

I'll tell you the difference... (5, Informative)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10623365)

Neither politician has the moxie to say in public that he agrees with gay marriage...

That's because neither of the candidates support it. Bush doesn't support it and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Kerry doesn't support it but is against any such legislation.

Strangely enough, both candidates are nearly mirroring their stances on the issue of IP theft:

Said Bush: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected...We must vigorously enforce intellectual-property protections and prosecute the violators, not the technology." He noted that his administration launched an initiative to enforce such laws and has worked closely with China to support penalties associated with violating American intellectual-property rights.

Kerry, meanwhile, has a slightly different stance. "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."


Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who would be president.

I just pointed out a major difference... Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.

Re:I'll tell you the difference... (4, Insightful)

nojomofo (123944) | about 10 years ago | (#10623494)

Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.

Or, to put it another way, Kerry doesn't personally believe in some things, but he doesn't necessarily think that his beliefs should be made the basis of the law of the land because other people should be allowed to believe differently from him. Bush wants his personal belief system to become the law of the land.

Vote records are less reliable than they seem (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 10 years ago | (#10623373)

Using John Kerry's Senate voting history to say that he supported or opposed any given thing is like trying to upconvert a low-bitrate signal... you end up guessing to make data you don't really have.

For example, there never was a true vote "on the war". Congress has not ever even voted on an official decloration of war during recent years. What was actually voted on was permission to use the armed forces if things couldn't be resolved any other way. Kerry claims that Bush forgot about that if-clause and went to war too quickly.

This is a problem anybody who tries to advance from the legislative branch into the executive branch always faces. Legislators are always asked to vote on hundreds of things on the record, while the President and governors only have to consider the final versions that have cleared their legislature. It may seem like a flip-flop to vote yes "on" version A, but "no" on version B of the same bill, but versions A and B by definition cannot be the same thing. What such a voting record indicates is not that the person was opposed to the main concept of the whole bill and then changed their mind. It instead indcates that there was some flaw in version A that was fixed by the time version B came around so they could now support the bill.

Re:Vote records are less reliable than they seem (2, Informative)

strictfoo (805322) | about 10 years ago | (#10623465)

So Kerry's (and everyone but one absentee's) vote in the Senate for the DMCA is... unreliable? You sound like Senator Kerry himself. Maybe this one of the bills that Kerry wrote, but didn't have his name on?

On the final version of the bill, Kerry voted "Yea" [senate.gov] .

In CONGRESS now (5, Insightful)

jdunlevy (187745) | about 10 years ago | (#10623379)

Well, he's a Senator now. Since the Senate's one of two houses of Congress, and Congress makes the laws, it might be good to ask what Kerry's done -- if anything -- in Congress to change or even "examine" the DMCA.

How could he? (2, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | about 10 years ago | (#10623385)

The POTUS does not make laws, that's what Congress is for. This is simply propaganda. Like blaming a sitting president for deficit spending when the Congress is the one with the power to spend.

Kerry's Flintstones Song (1)

grunt107 (739510) | about 10 years ago | (#10623386)

Pander, I can pander
I will tell you what you want to hear
If you elect George Bush
There's a lot of things you'll have to fear


Given the Congress will most likely be GOP, Kerry will probably be ineffectual on any DMCA changes. And they would be low priority anyway.

Offtopic, but needs your attention right now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623487)

CBS News actually says something useful WRT personal security:
--
Subject: CBS Report * Please Read

Keep a watch out for people standing near you in the checkout line at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc who have a camera cell phone in hand. With the camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date. CBS reported this type of identification theft is one of the fastest growing scams today. Be aware of your surroundings, forward to all your friends and family.

keep in mind (2, Insightful)

minus_273 (174041) | about 10 years ago | (#10623387)

that kerry is known to say whatever will please the audience and go back on it later if he is in front of another crowd. For example, when among homosexuals, he talks about homosexual marriage but will never mention that in a black church or among blacks in general and people make sure no one asks about it. The same goes for his position on the war. Among anti-war groups, he is anti-war among more main stream people he is a moderate. Gievn his history, he will not do anything about the DMCA. do you really think the movie actors and recording artists that have given millions to him in cash and campaign ads will accept that? Politicians always consider reelection. If Kerry weakens the position of his base, he will not be elected.

Re:keep in mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623557)

the Film Actors Guild will not stand for it.

Many outstanding members of F.A.G. are Kerry supporters.

it was overheard at a meeting, "The next president will be a F.A.G.! We will see to it!"

F.A.G.'s are everywhere, and they are going to control the government.

Better Question (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623388)

Would John Kerry be able to defang the DMCA with a Republican House and Republican Senate who passed it in the first place, you bastards?

Amazing the right wing bull that gets injected into this... and yet we forget that CONGRESS PASSES THE LAWS.

Hello. Talk to your congressman. Preznits blow up countries. They don't pass laws.

Would John Kerry defang the YMCA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623389)

Y M C A !!!!! I love the leather guy :)

Do the presidents have time for .... (1)

allden (748789) | about 10 years ago | (#10623407)

Do the presidents really have time for this? I suspect they would have any incentive to even think about this.

Re:Do the presidents have time for .... (0)

garcia (6573) | about 10 years ago | (#10623451)

Do the presidents really have time for this? I suspect they would have any incentive to even think about this.

Somehow they seem to have plenty of time to parade around in front of the people trying to gather votes. Personally, I think the President (especially during a war that we aren't exactly "winning") should be off doing more important things than stuttering in front of a group people who will likely vote for him anyway.

Don't understand this dynamic (4, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | about 10 years ago | (#10623410)

First of all, I agree with the guy who said that there are bigger issues this time around than geek issues.

But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.

Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.

The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.

I don't know -- it's always been a small thing that's puzzled me.

Dunno about Kerry, but ... McCain good, Leahy bad (2, Interesting)

sommerfeld (106049) | about 10 years ago | (#10623411)

this is one of those issues where the factions don't line up neatly with the party lines

See Ed Felten's blog from about 10 days ago:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000701 .h tml,

where he asks, rhetorically, "Do the Democrats really want to be known as the party that would ban fast-forwarding?"

(P.S., Leahy is up for election this year in VT.)

NO. (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | about 10 years ago | (#10623418)

No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.

He has not. What does that tell you?

Re:NO. (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | about 10 years ago | (#10623548)

No, if he wanted to he could RIGHT NOW introduce a bill in the Senate to do it.

He has not. What does that tell you?


It tells me that he's busy on the campaign trail and not wasting his time trying to write bills he knows wouldn't pass given the current Senate configuration.

It tells me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623550)

That there's a Republican controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House. Introducing such a bill would be a waste of energy, as it would never pass in a Congress that passed the DMCA in the first place!

not serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623423)

this is not a serious enough issue to warrant vote, but if this truly helps bush leave the office, like he should, then amen!

Short answer: NO (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 10 years ago | (#10623424)

No, he would not. Its not a liberal or conservative thing, its a power thing. Its about campaign contributions and power.

I don't care for Kerry, but that doesn't matter because he is not any less corrupt than any other politician (read as: 100%)

So no, Kerry would not do anything that would take money away from his power, just as Bush or any other life long politician would not. And people ask why I am not voting this year....

Ambiguous as usual (0, Flamebait)

gnu-sucks (561404) | about 10 years ago | (#10623429)

It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is

Is this supposed to be news?

As Yoda would say... (1)

JPamplin (804322) | about 10 years ago | (#10623439)

Begun, the Political Flame Wars, have...

Oh, to live in an era where any politically-oriented Slashdot post didn't degrade into a hate-fest between sides.

Not this year.

JP

Let the studios kill themselves. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623443)

If the RIAA wants to prohibit backups I say let them.

The worse the DMCA gets, the more chance reasonably licensed media like the Creative Commons stuff has of catching on.

The worst of all worlds is if they water down the DMCA just enough to say that Windows Longhord is the only legal way of copying songs, and its DRM will enforce 1 copy per household.

DMCA Backups (1)

Eberlin (570874) | about 10 years ago | (#10623458)

Isn't the DMCA more than just the ability to make "backups" of anything? Sure, that's what it sounds like topically but it applies to anything that supposedly circumvents copyright protection.

Granted most of the other popular cases involve circumventing "security" to be able to make backups of something-or-other. On that note, I do dislike the fact that when one of my cd's get uber-scratched and I still wish to listen to the songs, I have to purchase a new one by law...where I could've backed it up instead.

In the end, though, the financial implications of the DMCA is in the forefront of the deCSS issue. Why am I not allowed to watch legally purchased DVDs on my favorite linux distro? I don't believe that has anything to do with backups at all.

Well, that's the whole problem (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 10 years ago | (#10623461)

It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is

That's his whole problem, IMHO.

Not meant as a flame or anything, I'm voting for him and all...but in his quest to not offend a single voter, he's not really been firm on a lot of things. The DCMA being relatively minor on that list.

Irony (0, Flamebait)

gregarican (694358) | about 10 years ago | (#10623473)

It's ironic that the verb "defang" is used here. Especially since Mr. Kerry looks like Frankenstein's monster after a pancake and mascara session.

Reasons to vote Bush (-1, Offtopic)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 10 years ago | (#10623482)

Ok, now I think it's on topic to ask:

I never understood why people would vote for Bush. I'll not mention any arguments against him here, but please tell me: what are the reasons for voting Bush? Why do people like him? Why do people think he's a better person to lead the country?

Summit!! (0, Flamebait)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | about 10 years ago | (#10623484)

Hey, Kerry can call a summit on the DMCA. He can hold it in Cambodia with the UNSC.

If the above statement is confusing to you then ask around.

Kerry's defanging priorities (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623485)

He'll get around to it. But first, he'll defang the United States to the point that Osama can take over Illinois armed with an old plank with a nail in it, and Fidel Castro's army will take over Florida armed with one kitchen cutlery set.

Don’t get excited (1)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | about 10 years ago | (#10623492)

Kerry's survey response said he is "open to examining" whether to change current law "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" or transfer it to another device. CompTIA's open-ended question had merely asked "What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet?"--without mentioning backup copies. [emphasis added]

People, let's don't get so excited just yet. This statement is so broad that in reality can mean almost anything. He is not even examining it yet, much less has any opinion on this subject. Please, however, don't read this as an answer "no" either. It basically mean "I'm not telling" but using a very intelligent and polite wording. Please keep in mind that saying that he is open to the change itself rather than marely examining its merits, might be disastrous for the campain, so we won't hear it even if he was strongly against the entire DMCA. Please remember that DMCA is a gift for media barons. Those very same barons who control public TV debates. So let's stay calm and try to understand that this answer, or the lack thereof, was the only reasonable move in those circumstances.

Clear (1)

ericdano (113424) | about 10 years ago | (#10623493)

"It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is"

Yeah. Seems to be a trend here. Is for something, then against. Where is his core?

Wish Nader was taken more seriously.....

Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623495)

Man this issue made me change my mind to vote for Kerry.

Reading between the lines (4, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | about 10 years ago | (#10623505)

> Kerry's response: "open to examining" whether to change current law "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes".

1) "Open to examining whether to change" does not imply "will advocate change".

2) "Changing" the DMCA doesn't necessarily mean "changing it in the way that geeks would like".

3) "Examining whether to change" can lead to the conclusion "no, it needs no changing" just as easily as its opposite.

4) "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" could be the first paragraph of the INDUCE act. After all, the INDUCE act was spun as going after P2Pers, not those who were "lawfully making backups for archival purposes".

5) Finally, "lawfully obtains or [lawfully] receives transmission" -- leaves a lot of wiggle room. What if "Lawfully" means "in accordance with every term of the EULA under which it was sold?"

Conclusion: Kerry's got no intention of asking Congress to weaken the DMCA; he's pandering for every vote he can get in the home stretch of a tightly-contested Presidential race.

That's not a partisan slur -- both parties are bought and paid for by Hollywood, and you can bet your eighth bit that no matter who wins in November, any "changes" to the DMCA in the next four years will be to Hollywood's benefit, not yours.

political non-speak (1)

dustinbarbour (721795) | about 10 years ago | (#10623508)

"open to examining"

This says nothing. "Oh.. Uh.. We'll look at it." Please, John, tell us how it is. A simple "don't bet on it" would be much more appreciated. I'm tired of politician-speak. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Yes or no, John. I'm a man.. I can take it!

If Declan McCullagh doesn't know the difference... (2, Insightful)

artemis67 (93453) | about 10 years ago | (#10623509)

between having one-on-one discussions with North Korea and having a six-on-one discussion involving the most powerful nations surrounding NK (who just happen to have a more vested interest in the situation than we do), then he should probably stop writing about politics and stick to playing with technology toys.

Do you really think he'd have the ability? (2, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | about 10 years ago | (#10623511)

1. He probably won't have control of Congress.

2. He is in the entertainment industry's back pocket like the rest of the Democrats.

Be real - he will do nothing about it.

Waaaay down the list of priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10623524)

Iraq, Jobs, Deficit...Kerry won't have any time or inclination to address much else, even if he wanted to.

Would Bush defang it? (3, Interesting)

RealAlaskan (576404) | about 10 years ago | (#10623553)

Think about this: the record industry, the TV industry and the motion picture industry have all been hammering hard on Bush. After the election, he probably wouldn't have any moral qualms about signing any bill they didn't like.

Kerry, on the other hand, might still feel beholden to some of the big-name stars that have been stumping for him.

If copyright law and the DMCA are your single issue, I'm not at all sure that you want to vote Kerry.

News that doesn't matter. (1)

Jaywalk (94910) | about 10 years ago | (#10623555)

That a candidate on the campaign trail says he is willing to "study" or "review" an unpopular law is as non-news as a political statement can be. It doesn't commit to any principles or even suggest any action. There isn't anything to call him on here after the election; he only promised to think about it. All it means is that his handlers couldn't come up with a good sound bite on this one.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

A little focus, please. (5, Interesting)

Moby Cock (771358) | about 10 years ago | (#10623565)

Why is it that every post on Slashdot these days that mentions Bush or Kerry winds up with partisan nonsense? This article is about the DCMA and how Kerry has indicated that he would be open to re-eximining it. However, half the posts are about Iraq and the possibilty of the American Union crumbling if one or the other is elected.

I for one, feel that Kerry indicating that the DCMA may be opened for examination is a positive point. This discussion may raise the issue to the fore such that it becomes a issue for debate (or relentless repition of partisan talking points as the American media is wont to do). Lets hope that the tech folks out there continue to voice their concern over the stupid DCMA and that Senators and possibly presidents are open to understanding just how sweeping that law is. The may lead to change and rewriting of the law.

Let's hope so at least.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?