[olug] congressman Terry needs more attention

Sat Nov 5 03:45:40 UTC 2005

 What a lovely form letter you have there, Mr. Linder. Shall we all take 
a day off and picket his office before the weather gets too nasty? Next 
Thursday?

Daniel Linder wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>[This is quite long -- if you want the government to tell you what you can
>do with your recordings of CSI and the West Wing, then just hit the delete
>button now.  Otherwise, read on... -Dan]
>
>
> On Fri,
>November 4, 2005 17:05, Neal Rauhauser wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Congress is at it again - more attempts at welfare for MPAA and
>>    
>>
>RIAA
>
>  
>
>>members. Our very own congressman Terry is one of the people behind
>>    
>>
>this:
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>>(Link
>>    
>>
>to site)
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>>An email counts as one voter, a call counts as ten, and a faxed or
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>mailed letter counts as a hundred. Don't be a sissy - take the time
>>    
>>
>to
>
>  
>
>>write a letter and fax it to him.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>I called Mr. Terrys' office a few weeks ago when this first came around --
>check the OLUG archives for the e-mail I wrote up about it.
>
>
>
>I received a letter from him stating his position, and why he felt it was
>in the best interest of
>Nebraska.  I'll type it
>in here -- assume any typographical errors are mine.  
>
>
>
>- - - - Beginning of letter - - -
>
>Dear Mr. Linder:
>
>
>
>  Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to a
>broadcast flag.  I appreciate the opportunity to learn your
>views.
>
>
>
>  In Congress, there is bipartisan support for the broadcast flag as
>a way to protect individual copyrights and intellectual property
>rights.  While the broadcast flag might not be the best way to
>protect content sent over the air, it can at least prevent unauthorized
>use and redistribution.  As you may know, a federal appeals court has
>ruled that the Federal Communications Commission may adopt a rule for
>broadcast flag if Congress permits it.
>
>
>
>  I am also a proponent of innovation and feel that there are ways
>the FCC can revive the broadcast flag ruling without hindering
>innovation.  The purpose of the broadcast flag is not to regulate
>content that you as a consumer may wish to copy or enjoy within your
>personal at-home network.  It is intended to protect the owners of
>that content from illegal copying and redistribution.  I have
>supported the idea of a broadcast flag to protect illegal distribution of
>copyrighted material and believe the FCC has the authority to establish
>rules governing how this technology should work.  Failure to protect
>this content may result in program producers not licensing their DTV
>programs for digital broadcast distribution.  For these reasons, I
>believe the FCC should continue to work on this important issue.
>
>
>
>  Thank you again for contacting me.  Feel free to do so again
>on this or any other issue that is important to you.
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Lee Terry
>
>Your Representative in Congress
>
>- - - - End of letter - - -
>
>
>
>My notes:
>
>1: His stationary letter head states that he is on the subcommittee
>“Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection”, and
>“Telecommunications and the Internet.” 
>When you write him, let him know that you are extremely interested
>in how this bill will further “Consumer Protection” –
>the benefits to “Commerce and Trade” are easy to see. 
>
>2: He states, “Failure to protect this content
>may result in program producers not licensing their DTV programs for
>digital broadcast distribution.”  So Mr.
>Terry is implying that when the government mandated “totally
>digital” world arrives within the next 10 years, if the producers
>don’t have this flag they will just quit making shows to sell us
>stuff and take up gardening and poetry reading?
> 
>3: Imagine a time in the not-so-distant future where
>the broadcast flag (and subsequent flags that the producers convince
>Congress to push through) are in place.  This
>will mean that the ability of you and I (the “Open Source
>Programmers and Users”) will have ABSOLUTLY ZERO LEGAL CONNECTIVITY into the broadcast
>world.  To comply with this, all software will
>have to come “sealed” and only run on “trusted”
>hardware (i.e. DRM : Digital Restriction Management). 
>Trusted not by us,
>the consumer who paid for the piece of hardware/software, but trusted by
>the TV producers to only
>display on other trusted devices so that some non-trustworthy piece of
>equipment (say a computer running *shudder* Linux) running a non-trustworthy piece of
>software (Gimp, Kino, or Cinelerra) will be either disabled or fed a low
>resolution feed.  Our kids who want to help
>produce and edit a school theatre DVD or their garage bands CD will be
>forced to use these “low res” AV captures – they
>won’t be able to download the full resolution DV camera output to
>their computer (unless of course it is running Microsoft Windows and
>Microsoft MovieMaker).
> 
>Thankfully the “Buggy Whip” political
>action committee wasn’t in force, otherwise Henry Ford would have
>had a hard time getting his cars on the road legally.
>
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>- - - - -
>
>"Wait for that wisest of all counselors, time." -- Pericles
>
>"I do not fear computer, I fear the lack of them." -- Isaac
>Asimov
>
>GPG fingerprint:6FFD DB94 7B96 0FD8 EADF 2EE0 B2B0 CC47 4FDE 9B68
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQFDbCeisrDMR0/em2gRApUUAJ9L8s55WXfVw8ycY/tSRAn7AAwe0ACfQ5BS
>TP7hxMcmlp0nsrmqGYgwmis=
>=4UWz
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>OLUG mailing list
>OLUG at olug.org
>http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
>
>  
>