|
Grex > Agora41 > #13: Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 19 new of 43 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 43:
| 
Mar 31 16:00 UTC 2002 |
Another place you can go to voice your opinion, interestingly enough,
is the Senate Judiciary Committee's website. See
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cfm
The several dozen messages posted there are OVERWHELMINGLY against
the CBDTPA.
Reportedly, the committee chair, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, is opposed
to this legistlation and intends to block it. Good for him. Folks
may remember that he was one of the strongest congressional voices in
opposition to the Communications Decency Act a few years ago. It's
good to know that there are still legislators in Washington who are
looking out for the public interest, not just special interests.
|
polygon
|
|
response 26 of 43:
|
Mar 31 16:39 UTC 2002 |
Patrick Leahy was the first Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate from
Vermont. I am happier than ever that I was able to contribute to his
first Senate campaign.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 27 of 43:
|
Mar 31 17:23 UTC 2002 |
Leahy actually understands technology, or at least his staffers do.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 43:
|
Mar 31 18:01 UTC 2002 |
And what's more, he seems to take his oath of office, to uphold
the Constitution, seriously.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 29 of 43:
|
Mar 31 19:10 UTC 2002 |
Can this be brought to a new technology freedom of speech
argument. My PC is a different type of printing press. Be it
used to paper print something I write, or used to publish a
web-page for the Internet or CD-R. I would still be self publishing.
Probably at a greater cost in comparative dollars to what Ben
Franklin spent on his printing press. At the time the Constitution
was authored a printing press could be used for lawful purposes,
or used for illegal uses. I am sure then, someone was probably
ripping [off] Poor Richard's Almanac, but the individual copyright
holder had to take action against that person.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 30 of 43:
|
Mar 31 19:57 UTC 2002 |
There is a freedom of speech argument, but the copyright-related arguments
may be easier to make.
|
cschmid
|
|
response 31 of 43:
|
Apr 4 18:07 UTC 2002 |
Internet services that allow filtering services should be used for
people who need it like families that work all the time and don't have
time to watch over there kids the only problem is that the people may
be able to "hack" it. we need to find a software based filter the only
problem with "WebkeysProwler" is that it only works with Internet
explorer
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 43:
|
Apr 4 18:36 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 43:
|
Apr 4 23:30 UTC 2002 |
We need software that removes the writings of drooling morons from the
'net.
|
jazz
|
|
response 34 of 43:
|
Apr 10 23:51 UTC 2002 |
Some good news:
http://rtnews.globetechnology.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate/C/200204
10/
gt?tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory_Tech.html&cf=globetechnology/tech-config
-neutral&slug=gt&date=20020410&archive=RTGAM&site=Technology
(sorry about the URL there, you'll have to take the CRs out)
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 43:
|
Apr 11 02:03 UTC 2002 |
My browser is resistant to that. Care to give us a *hint* what it's about?
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 43:
|
Apr 11 02:11 UTC 2002 |
Never mind, I just went to http://rtnews.globetechnology.com and
clicked on the obvious link. Reuters story: "Copyright bill
universally rejected." Apparently the opposition is well-
organized, sizeable, and is being heard.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 37 of 43:
|
Apr 11 04:18 UTC 2002 |
Sounds like the bill's probably dead in the water. I wonder whether it was
ever expected to pass, or whether it was just an opening move to make us more
accepting of lesser (but still annoying) measures.
|
other
|
|
response 38 of 43:
|
Apr 11 10:55 UTC 2002 |
Isn't any legislative gambit of the former variety necessarily also one
of the latter?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 39 of 43:
|
Apr 11 14:20 UTC 2002 |
What?
|
jazz
|
|
response 40 of 43:
|
Apr 11 18:51 UTC 2002 |
There's no way to post the story's URL without it running over 80
characters, unfortunately.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 43:
|
Apr 11 20:50 UTC 2002 |
Well, you could put up a tiny little webpage with that URL and then post the
more reasonable URL for the tiny webpage.
|
remmers
|
|
response 42 of 43:
|
Apr 12 01:44 UTC 2002 |
Pointers to pointers are fun. Not sure if my students agree.
|
tsty
|
|
response 43 of 43:
|
Apr 23 01:34 UTC 2002 |
actually all it takes to use thet 3-line url is 3 events of copy-n-paste.
|