stories filed under: "politics"
Are U.S. Educators On The Wrong Side Of The Copyright War?
from the sharing-information-is-a-good-thing... dept
Last month, the entertainment industry (with the help of Senator Harry Reid) slipped a nice little amendment into the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which funds colleges and universities as well as students. The amendment would require universities block p2p file sharing or lose funding. A number of universities complained (reasonably) about the expense involved in doing so, but some are arguing that it's about time that universities got away from just the cost argument and stood against this on principle. John points us to an argument for why universities should be fighting back against copyright maximalism, noting that, of all places, universities should recognize the benefits of a freer flow of information, and how trying to artificially limit information only leads to problems. The author notes that the high price of college textbooks should be example number one of how copyright can hinder the educational purpose of a university by artificially driving up the price. Of course, these days it seems like too many of the myths from the entertainment industry have been accepted as fact -- so it seems unlikely that universities will stand up against dangerous copyright practices any time soon.Filed Under: congress, copyright, p2p, piracy, politics, universities
Companies: congress
Nobody's Hunting Over The Internet, But Dammit, We Gotta Make It Illegal
from the proactive-legislation-the-best-kind dept
The uproar over online hunting has far outpaced its actual practice. It would appear that there's only been one such site in the US, which wasn't even up for very long in 2004, but the push to put laws in place that ban internet hunting has remained strong. The WSJ has caught on, noting that lobbyists led by the Humane Society are still convincing legislators that legally enshrined bans are needed. Thirty-three states now have bans on the practice (up from 25 back in February), and Congress is considering a national ban -- despite the fact that nobody's doing it. One state rep in Delaware asserts that online hunting "would have the potential to make terrorism easier," though it would appear the reporter didn't ask her to explain exactly why, and that she doesn't "want to give ideas to people." So, instead, she's sponsored a bill drawing attention to an activity that nobody's really bothering with anyway. Makes perfect sense. Furthermore, one of the Congressional sponsors of the nationwide ban said he'd never heard of internet hunting until the Humane Society brought it to his attention. He says he wondered "who would do something like this?" As it turns out, nobody, really.Filed Under: congress, internet hunting, politics
Companies: humane society
Anti-Anti-Muni Bills Take Hold In Congress
from the 'bout-time dept
Efforts by incumbent telcos to stifle municipalities' attempts to roll out municipal broadband projects may not get the press they did a few years back, but the carriers are still at it, trying to get state legislatures to pass laws banning or hamstringing muni broadband. This week, though, a bill was introduced in the house that would prevent states from passing such laws. It follows similar legislation that was introduced in the Senate, and appears to already have a broad base of support -- but given the power of the telco lobby in Washington, we won't count the eggs before they've hatched.Why Do Elections Officials Always Seem To Side With E-Voting Companies Over Voter Concerns?
from the vote-here-and-let-us-know dept
For years, every time yet another report would come out about e-voting vulnerabilities, we'd quickly see responses from elections officials defending the e-voting systems. It wasn't a surprise to hear the e-voting manufacturers defend their machines, but why would elections officials almost always take the side of the e-voting manufacturers over various computer security experts and the very voters whose votes they're supposed to be protecting? There are some obvious possibilities, such as embarrassment over buying faulty machines or (more likely) fear at the cost of replacing those machines. However, Tim Lee points to a potentially more troublesome reason: many elections officials move in and out of jobs for the e-voting companies before and after their state jobs. Conflict of interest? Apparently it's just politics as usual.Filed Under: corruption, e-voting, politics
Bloggers Could Get The Same Protections As Journalists, As Long As They're In It For The Money
from the splitting-hairs dept
There have been a number of cases in which it's been argued that bloggers and other independent writers don't deserve the same legal protection as "real" journalists, with a notable example being Apple's lawsuits to force some sites to reveal their sources of some leaked product info. While Apple won the first round, an appeals court overturned the decision, saying that state shield laws (which protect journalists from such suits) are "intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news," regardless of whether the person doing the gathering and dissemination is called a journalist or something else. A Congressional committee has now approved a federal shield law that would protect anyone who gets "financial gain or livelihood" from their journalistic pursuits, regardless of affiliation. If the measure's approved and signed into law (which seems unlikely given the Bush administration's opposition to it), it would extend protection to bloggers, so long as they were trying to make money from their online efforts. Obviously that's a pretty wide standard, and one that most bloggers could easily live up to by getting some form of advertising, or at least attempting to get some, on their sites. Some legislators say it's far too broad, but a bigger question would seem to be why financial gain is the sole criteria. Certainly there are plenty of people who write blogs or create other online media in a professional or moneymaking capacity, but there are plenty of others who aren't in it for the money. Just because someone isn't looking to make money from their online work shouldn't automatically mean they don't deserve the protection of shield laws.Filed Under: congress, first amendment, politics
Political Gamesmanship In XM-Sirius Merger Rolls On
from the the-fun-never-ends dept
While comments filed with the FCC in support of the merger of satellite radio companies XM and Sirius outnumber those opposing it by nearly a four to one margin, they're not seen by many people to carry the same influence as those arguing against the merger. For instance, more than 70 Congressmen have told the heads of the FCC, DOJ and FTC that they should block the merger, and as stock pundit Jim Cramer points out, this has little to do with anything other than legislators' self-interest, since they don't want to upset local broadcasters in their constituencies. He adds that since XM and Sirius are up against such powerful opposition, they've had to go for broke, by announcing pricing plans that, if the merger's approved, could slice their average per-subscriber revenue. The plans offer consumers the ability to choose channels on an a la carte basis -- a move that looks like it's designed to appeal to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, for whom indecent programming is always an issue. At the outset of the merger announcement, Martin said that XM and Sirius would have to show that "consumers would clearly be better off with both more choice and affordable prices" before the FCC would approve the deal. These new plans would appear to deliver consumers more choices and control over the content they receive, and do so at lower prices. But it's still hard to see that being enough to overcome politicians' objections, fueled by the National Association of Broadcasters' clout.Filed Under: congress, doj, fcc, ftc, mergers, politics, satellite radio
Companies: nab, sirius, xm
Law Would Tell Universities To Do The RIAA's Bidding, Or Lose Funding
from the not-your-place dept
The RIAA has consistently complained that there should be laws forcing colleges and universities to stop students sharing unauthorized music on their computer networks, and its extensive lobbying efforts have seen legislators in the past to "drop the hammer" on schools that don't comply to the RIAA's wishes. That hammer came a step closer to being dropped, as reader Blake writes in to let us know: an amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which funds colleges and universities and the students who attend them, was introduced this week, and it would cut funding from schools that didn't install technology to try and block P2P file-sharing on their networks. It looks like the amendment got yanked following university complaints, but its introduction highlights the ridiculous amount of clout the RIAA carries in Washington (an amount it seeks to further increase). The RIAA's attempts to abuse the legal system roll on, and now it's attempting to pervert the legislative process and American higher education as well. It isn't the job of colleges and universities to do the RIAA's dirty work, and the government shouldn't be forcing them to do it, either.Inventors And Patent Attorneys Sue USPTO Over Supposedly Unqualified Appointment
from the good-or-bad? dept
Nick writes "Looks like a group of patent lawyers and inventors are suing the US Secretary of Commerce to block the appointment of an "unqualified" person to the spot of Deputy Director of the USPTO, claiming its an abuse of the Secretary's discretion. There are two ways to look at this: either it's a noble attempt to ensure the right people are in place to oversee the patent and trademark office and to keep out political hacks, or (as Techdirt might see it) an attempt by patent people to keep their business protected from outsiders. Whether or not this person's appointment should be blocked based on her background as a legislative adviser on IP issues seems debatable, but she apparently has never drafted a patent or trademark application before, which allegedly doesn't jive with the requirement that the Deputy Director have 'professional experience and background in patent or trademark law.' The suit does ask the District Court in DC to clarify exactly what qualifies as patent or trademark background, so maybe some good will come out of it. But it also begs the question: is the backlog and confusion in the patent office the result of bad management there or the result of a community of insulated patent specialists that want to assert their importance in the new info economy?"Nick's analysis is pretty thorough, so there's not much for us to add. We have no doubt that there have been some bad appointees to the USPTO, but it's not clear this lawsuit is the way to go about fixing these problems. The people bringing the lawsuit definitely do note the rise in bad patents being granted, though it's hard to blame that on an appointee from two months ago. This does highlight that this particular appointment does seem more politically motivated than based on real knowledge and experience with the patent system -- but it's not at all clear how having a patent attorney who has experience drafting patents would necessarily make the system any better. In fact, just as it has been a problem for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, those who come out of a background of being patent attorneys tend to favor more patents, rather than better patents (not always true, but there's enough evidence suggesting that it's pretty common). Since the goal of the USPTO should be to foster innovation, shouldn't the criteria not be experience with patents and trademarks, but experience with actual innovation and the economic impact of innovation?
