Zoe Lofgren

October 2, 2002 4:31 PM

Zoe Lofgren figures it out. Rep. Rick Boucher is said to be next in line. Tara Sue is basing her campaign on it. Apple stands firm. How long till we see some Republicans jump on this? Is the situation hopeless?
posted by filchyboy (13 comments total)

"How long till we see some Republicans jump on this?"

When there's money in it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:32 PM on October 2, 2002

Keep in mind that given the brief time remaining for this congress and the work that remains to be done (budget), this is little more than a symbolic move. Nonetheless, it represents remarkable progress. It wasn't long ago that the DMCA issues were largely unknown, outside a small group if civil libertarians and I.P. specialists.
posted by chipr at 5:10 PM on October 2, 2002

For those of us who aren't American, why does Congress only have a brief time left?
posted by mckayc at 5:16 PM on October 2, 2002

tara sue looks rather like a rock star than a politician.

it's nice to see lofgren get on board. boucher's been well-known as pro-consumer regarding digital rights measures, and has even been interviewed on slashdot. but i don't know if too many other politicians are eager to get involved.

mckayc:

For those of us who aren't American, why does Congress only have a brief time left?

congress convenes because (i believe) its representitives need to be campaign for the november reelections. and also, it's about harvest time i think. (back when lots of congressmen had to do things like that.)

tangentially, but does anyone remember a tv show that johnny rotten used to do for VH-1? they didn't make many episodes, but the show was hysterical. i saw an episode where rotten went on tour throughout the US visiting political party conferences and so forth prior to the election. besides masterfully allowing most involved appear like asses on television, i remember one republican candidate tell johnny that "what's wrong with napster, anyway? i'm with for the little guy. there's a lot of votes in that." (paraphrased quite heavily from memory.)
posted by moz at 5:19 PM on October 2, 2002

Apple's stance is further interesting in view of Steve Jobs' OTHER company .... PIXAR!

If any of these tech companies are "in bed" with Hollywood, it'd be Apple via Mr. Jobs... so his stance is all that more reassuring because he himself "should" have a vested interest in the rights to his movies...
posted by acutetype at 5:20 PM on October 2, 2002

When Hollings bill was making the rounds, most Republican leaders voiced their concern or outright objection to the restrictions espoused in the bill.

OTOH, the majority of democrats seemed to be firmly behind it. For the only time in my life, I was actually happy there was a republican majority in the house.

As a mostly Democratic voter, it is nice to be reminded every now and then, that either party will happily sell out yr rights. The only difference between them is the type of buyers they'll entertain.
posted by pandaharma at 5:50 PM on October 2, 2002

For those of us who aren't American, why does Congress only have a brief time left?
jebus is coming, and he's really pissed.
posted by quonsar at 6:21 PM on October 2, 2002

Frits's Hitlist does a brilliant job of skewering the DMCA on a daily basis.

I can't recall a piece of legislation that better demonstrates how corporate $$ have corrupted congress...
posted by Fupped Duck at 6:22 PM on October 2, 2002

mckayc - The current congressional session ends in December. When January comes, a new congress will be seated. (U.S. Congressmember terms are two years, so half the seats go up for election each year.)

When the new session starts, the calendar is wiped and everything begins anew. What Lofgren may be doing is trying to gauge support for DMCA-rollback/consumer-rights legislation in the next session.
posted by chipr at 6:30 PM on October 2, 2002

If I had a penchant for ignoring Apple's history of being Silicon Valley's perennial corporate dumbass, I'd say that Apple had figured out that 1) Rosen and Valenti would largely ignore them because they have less than 10% of the market and 2) once Sam and Suzy Consumer in Muncie, Indiana actually have Palladium and [insert lameass Intel marketing term for DRM user-screw here] explained to them in plain language, without being dipped in a bucket full of the the misdirection and marketing doublespeak of "Trustworthy Computing," they'll be clamoring for a machine that isn't designed on the principle that equity in information is for Los Angelinos alone, i.e. an iMac. Oh, yeah, and since 2a) DRM schemes are counter to how American consumers have treated intellectual property since American consumers have roamed the earth, Apple will be in the position of not having compromised their core technology when DRM finally takes its well-deserved, inevitable, dirt nap. Raise your hand if you remember DivX. Anyone. Anyone at all.

Of course, Apple is, in fact, Silicon Valley's perennial corporate dumbass. So who knows?
posted by Vetinari at 7:21 PM on October 2, 2002

There can be a powerful momentum behind this legislation so long as it is founded in a willingness to identify and then impose a reasonable scheme for the protection of intellectual property during a limited lifetime of such rights, which respects consumer rights in media they've legitimately acquired and which does put significant barriers in from the operation and development of technology.

So long as the anti DRM / DMCA movement appears to choose other premises, such as "information wants to free" or an alleged, but in actual fact non-existant, right to be utterly free and unfettered in one's use of technology which has the capability to infringe upon intellectual property rights, it will get nowhere. Media, software and entertainment are among America's principal industries, and other forms of intellectual property (pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, aviation innovations) are also critical to the economy. They simply cannot be left to wither before an assault of piracy, however benignly intended.
posted by MattD at 7:28 PM on October 2, 2002

Not to sound too cynical
1. Future television sets sold in the United States must include digital receivers that may include anti-piracy technology. Nevermind people who have already shelled out thousands of $ will either spend more money to view content or have to throw those expensive products into the landfill. Pretty cool how the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group did an end around Congress.
2. A DVD recordable standard still hasn't been decided.
3. Microsoft is fighting against formally legalized DRM because it would prevent MS from making money on *their* DRM solutions.
4. The IP industry is framing the debate. Notice how memes of "piracy" and "digital 'rights' management" guide the perception of the debate's participants.
5. Intellectual property is rapidly evolving to legal protections akin to physical property. They clearly are seperate things and reading letters from our Founding Fathers demonstrates this. See "Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture" by Gregory S Alexander.
posted by infowar at 8:10 PM on October 2, 2002

the republicans have pretty much always been against DRM, etc. In fact, it's promotion is largly a democrat thing

Morons.
posted by delmoi at 12:22 AM on October 3, 2002