• On GameSpot: So-called 'Halo killer' gets 23 to life
August 23, 2008 6:09 PM PDT

Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

by Declan McCullagh

By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP.

That's probably okay with Barack Obama: Biden likely got the nod because of his foreign policy knowledge. The Delaware politician is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee who voted for the war in Iraq, and is reasonably well-known nationally after his presidential campaigns in 1988 and 2008.

Copyright
But back to the Delaware senator's tech record. After taking over the Foreign Relations committee, Biden became a staunch ally of Hollywood and the recording industry in their efforts to expand copyright law. He sponsored a bill in 2002 that would have make it a federal felony to trick certain types of devices into playing unauthorized music or executing unapproved computer programs. Biden's bill was backed by content companies including News Corp. but eventually died after Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay, and Yahoo lobbied against it.

Biden

Sen. Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, whose anti-encryption legislation was responsible for the creation of PGP.

(Credit: Biden.senate.gov)

A few months later, Biden signed a letter that urged the Justice Department "to prosecute individuals who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over peer-to-peer networks." Critics of this approach said that the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and not taxpayers, should pay for their own lawsuits.

Last year, Biden sponsored an RIAA-backed bill called the Perform Act aimed at restricting Americans' ability to record and play back individual songs from satellite and Internet radio services. (The RIAA sued XM Satellite Radio over precisely this point.)

All of which meant that nobody in Washington was surprised when Biden was one of only four U.S. senators invited to a champagne reception in celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the RIAA, and the Business Software Alliance. (Photos are here.)

Now, it's true that few Americans will cast their votes in November based on what the vice presidential candidate thinks of copyright law. But these pro-copyright views don't exactly jibe with what Obama has promised; he's pledged to "update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated." These are code words for taking a more pro-EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) than pro-MPAA approach.

Unfortunately, Biden has steadfastly refused to answer questions on the topic. We asked him 10 tech-related questions, including whether he'd support rewriting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of our 2008 Technology Voters' guide. Biden would not answer (we did hear back from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Ron Paul).

In our 2006 Technology Voters' Guide, which ranked Senate votes from July 1998 through May 2005, Biden received a mere 37.5 percent score because of his support for Internet filters in schools and libraries and occasional support for Internet taxes.

Privacy, the FBI, and PGP
On privacy, Biden's record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, which the EFF says he was "persuaded" to do by the FBI. A second Biden bill was called the Violent Crime Control Act. Both were staunchly anti-encryption, with this identical language:

It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.

Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys. The book Electronic Privacy Papers describes Biden's bill as representing the FBI's visible effort to restrict encryption technology, which was taking place in concert with the National Security Agency's parallel, but less visible efforts. (Biden was no foe of the NSA. He once described now-retired NSA director Bobby Ray Inman as the "single most competent man in the government.")

Biden's bill -- and the threat of encryption being outlawed -- is what spurred Phil Zimmermann to write PGP, thereby kicking off a historic debate about export controls, national security, and privacy. Zimmermann, who's now busy developing Zfone, says it was Biden's legislation "that led me to publish PGP electronically for free that year, shortly before the measure was defeated after vigorous protest by civil libertarians and industry groups."

While neither of Biden's pair of bills became law, they did foreshadow the FBI's pro-wiretapping, anti-encryption legislative strategy that followed -- and demonstrated that the Delaware senator was willing to be a reliable ally of law enforcement on the topic. (They also previewed the FBI's legislative proposal later that decade for banning encryption products such as SSH or PGP without government backdoors, which was approved by one House of Representatives committee but never came to a vote in the Senate.)

"Joe Biden made his second attempt to introduce such legislation" in the form of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was also known as the Digital Telephony law, according to an account in Wired magazine. Biden at the time was chairman of the relevant committee; he co-sponsored the Senate version and dutifully secured a successful floor vote on it less than two months after it was introduced. CALEA became law in October 1994, and is still bedeviling privacy advocates: the FBI recently managed to extend its requirements to Internet service providers.

CALEA represented one step in the FBI and NSA's attempts to restrict encryption without backdoors. In a top-secret memo to members of President George H.W. Bush's administration including Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and CIA director Robert Gates, one White House official wrote: "Justice should go ahead now to seek a legislative fix to the digital telephony problem, and all parties should prepare to follow through on the encryption problem in about a year. Success with digital telephony will lock in one major objective; we will have a beachhead we can exploit for the encryption fix; and the encryption access options can be developed more thoroughly in the meantime."

There's another reason why Biden's legislative tactics in the CALEA scrum amount to more than a mere a footnote in Internet history. They're what led to the creation of the Center for Democracy and Technology -- and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's simultaneous implosion and soul-searching.

EFF staffers Jerry Berman and Danny Weitzner chose to work with Biden on cutting a deal and altering the bill in hopes of obtaining privacy concessions. It may have helped, but it also left the EFF in the uncomfortable position of leaving its imprimatur on Biden's FBI-backed wiretapping law universally loathed by privacy advocates. The debacle ended with internal turmoil, Berman and Weitzner leaving the group and taking their corporate backers to form CDT, and a chastened EFF that quietly packed its bags and moved to its current home in San Francisco. (Weitzner, who was responsible for a censorship controversy last year, became a formal Obama campaign surrogate.)

"Anti-terror" legislation
The next year, months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of "terrorism" that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detection of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode "constitutional and statutory due process protections" and would "authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations."

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill," he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as "the Democratic Party's de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism."

Biden's chronology is not accurate: the bombing took place in April 1995 and his bill had been introduced in February 1995. But it's true that Biden's proposal probably helped to lay the groundwork for the Bush administration's Patriot Act.

In 1996, Biden voted to keep intact an ostensibly anti-illegal immigration bill that outlined what the Real ID Act would become almost a decade later. The bill would create a national worker identification registry; Biden voted to kill an Abraham-Feingold amendment that would have replaced the registry with stronger enforcement. According to an analysis by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the underlying bill would have required "states to place Social Security numbers on drivers licenses and to obtain fingerprints or some other form of biometric identification for licenses."

Along with most of his colleagues in the Congress -- including Sen. John McCain but not Rep. Ron Paul -- Biden voted for the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (which was part of a larger spending bill). Obama voted for the bill containing the Real ID Act, but wasn't in the U.S. Senate in 2001 when the original Patriot Act vote took place.

Patriot Act
In the Senate debate over the Patriot Act in October 2001, Biden once again allied himself closely with the FBI. The Justice Department favorably quotes Biden on its Web site as saying: "The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists."

The problem is that Biden's claim was simply false -- which he should have known after a decade of experience lending his name to wiretapping bills on behalf of the FBI. As CDT explains in a rebuttal to Biden: "The Justice Department had the ability to use wiretaps, including roving taps, in criminal investigations of terrorism, just as in other criminal investigations, long before the Patriot Act."

But Biden's views had become markedly less FBI-friendly by April 2007, six years later. By then, the debate over wiretapping had become sharply partisan, pitting Democrats seeking to embarrass President Bush against Republicans aiming to defend the administration at nearly any cost. In addition, Biden had announced his presidential candidacy three months earlier and was courting liberal activists dismayed by the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping.

That month, Biden slammed the "president's illegal wiretapping program that allows intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on the conversations of Americans without a judge's approval or congressional authorization or oversight." He took aim at Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for allowing the FBI to "flagrantly misuse National Security Letters" -- even though it was the Patriot Act that greatly expanded their use without also expanding internal safeguards and oversight as well.

Biden did vote against a FISA bill with retroactive immunity for any telecommunications provider that illegally opened its network to the National Security Agency; Obama didn't. Both agreed to renew the Patriot Act in March 2006, a move that pro-privacy Democrats including Ron Wyden and Russ Feingold opposed. The ACLU said the renewal "fails to correct the most flawed provisions" of the original Patriot Act. (Biden does do well on the ACLU's congressional scorecard.)

"Baby-food bombs"
The ACLU also had been at odds with Biden over his efforts to censor bomb-making information on the Internet. One day after a bomb in Saudi Arabia killed several U.S. servicemen and virtually flattened a military base, Biden pushed to make posting bomb-making information on the Internet a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in jail, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

"I think most Americans would be absolutely shocked if they knew what kind of bone-chilling information is making its way over the Internet," he told the Senate. "You can access detailed, explicit instructions on how to make and detonate pipe bombs, light-bulb bombs, and even -- if you can believe it -- baby-food bombs."

Biden didn't get exactly what he wanted -- at least not right away. His proposal was swapped in the final law for one requiring the attorney general to investigate "the extent to which the First Amendment protects such material and its private and commercial distribution." The report was duly produced, concluding that the proposal "can withstand constitutional muster in most, if not all, of its possible applications, if such legislation is slightly modified."

It was. Biden and co-sponsor Dianne Feinstein introduced their bill again the following year. Biden pitched it as an anti-terror measure, saying in a floor debate that numerous terrorists "have been found in possession of bomb-making manuals and Internet bomb-making information." He added: "What is even worse is that some of these instructions are geared toward kids. They tell kids that all the ingredients they need are right in their parents' kitchen or laundry cabinets."

Biden's proposal became law in 1997. It didn't amount to much: four years after its enactment, there had been only one conviction. And instead of being used to snare a dangerous member of Al Qaeda, the law was used to lock up a 20-year old anarchist Webmaster who was sentenced to one year in prison for posting information about Molotov cocktails and "Drano bombs" on his Web site, Raisethefist.com.

Today there are over 10,000 hits on Google for the phrase, in quotes, "Drano bomb." One is a video that lists the necessary ingredients and shows some self-described rednecks blowing up small plastic bottles in their yard. Then there's the U.S. Army's Improvised Munitions Handbook with instructions on making far more deadly compounds, including methyl nitrate dynamite, mortars, grenades, and C-4 plastic explosive -- which free speech activists placed online as an in-your-face response to the Biden-Feinstein bill.

Peer-to-peer networks
Since then, Biden has switched from complaining about Internet baby-food bombs to taking aim at peer-to-peer networks. He held one Foreign Relations committee hearing in February 2002 titled "Theft of American Intellectual Property" and invited executives from the Justice Department, RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft to speak. Not one Internet company, P2P network, or consumer group was invited to testify.

Afterwards, Sharman Networks (which distributes Kazaa) wrote a letter to Biden complaining about "one-sided and unsubstantiated attacks" on P2P networks. It said: "We are deeply offended by the gratuitous accusations made against Kazaa by witnesses before the committee, including ludicrous attempts to associate an extremely beneficial, next-generation software program with organized criminal gangs and even terrorist organizations."

Biden returned to the business of targeting P2P networks this year. In April, he proposed spending $1 billion in U.S. tax dollars so police can monitor peer-to-peer networks for illegal activity. He made that suggestion after a Wyoming cop demonstrated a proof-of-concept program called "Operation Fairplay" at a hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee.

A month later, the Senate Judiciary committee approved a Biden-sponsored bill that would spend over $1 billion on policing illegal Internet activity, mostly child pornography. It has the dubious virtue of being at least partially redundant: One section would "prohibit the broadcast of live images of child abuse," even though the Justice Department has experienced no problems in securing guilty pleas for underage Webcamming. (The bill has not been voted on by the full Senate.)

Online sales of Robitussin
Around the same time, Biden introduced his self-described Biden Crime Bill of 2007. One section expands electronic surveillance law to permit police wiretaps in "crimes dangerous to the life, limb, and well-being of minor children." Another takes aim at Internet-based telemedicine and online pharmacies, saying that physicians must have conducted "at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient" to prescribe medicine.

Another prohibits selling a product containing dextromethorphan -- including Robitussin, Sucrets, Dayquil, and Vicks -- "to an individual under the age of 18 years, including any such sale using the Internet." It gives the Justice Department six months to come up with regulations, which include when retailers should be fined for shipping cough suppressants to children. (Biden is a longtime drug warrior; he authored the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act that the Bush administration used to shut down benefit concerts.)

Net neutrality
On Net neutrality, Biden has sounded skeptical. In 2006, he indicated that no preemptive laws were necessary because if violations do happen, such a public outcry will develop that "the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House." Obama, on the other hand, has been a strong supporter of handing pre-emptive regulatory authority to the Federal Communications Commission.

Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.

Click for complete coverage
advertisement
 
Business supplies and services can get expensive. Get smart spending tips and learn about new cost-saving opportunities for your business
Recent posts from Politics and Law
Going rogue? Palin bans gadgets, reporters from speech
Europe getting 'Internet freedom' law
Fiorina's first act as senator: Merge California and Nevada
Congress may require ISPs to block fraud sites
New York antitrust suit accuses Intel of bribery
Report: Oracle not yielding to EU with Sun buy
Spring Design seeks injunction barring Nook sales
Barnes & Noble hit with suit over Nook
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (101 Comments)
by Fred_Mane August 23, 2008 7:07 PM PDT
Thanks for the info, however after watching ridiculous lawsuits against children, basically all privacy rights stripped under the guise of the so-called Patriot-Act, and our government basically do whatever they pleased after September 11, all under Republican watch, I think I'll take my chances.

Funny how so many odd media outlets are so vocal this year against the Democrats. And from reading his articles, it's quite clear McCullagh is just another Republican lackey passing his political views off as "legitimate" press. They really placed their moles well this year. Our country is as bad off as it's ever been and you're trying to persuade people against Biden because...well he's against Limewire and AnyDVD gosh darnit!

I'm voting to keep my house, be able to fuel my car without taking out a second mortgage, make a call without worrying if the NSA is snooping, and stop having our young men die overseas for...what exactly are we sending soldiers over there to die for again??? Oh yeah, all those stockpiled WMD's we still haven't located seven years after the fact. Maybe they're being hidden by the same guys who really murdered OJ's wife...
Reply to this comment
by ballmerisanape August 25, 2008 6:58 AM PDT
Remember who has controlled congress for the last 8 years...
by Gromit801 August 25, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
Bush had a rubber stamp congress for most of his infamous terms as president. Every last bloody thing you see wrong with the economy today, the war, all of it, was from a foundation built by the republicans.
by Republican4Obama August 31, 2008 8:21 PM PDT
Well stated, Fred. We can't afford to worry about ancillary issues when so much is at stake in this election. The Bush-McCain folks have hijacked this nation, her constitution, economy... everything. I think I can live with a vice president who disagrees with me about Limewire and mix tapes to get a leader like Obama into office before the country goes completely down the drain. The alternative is a 73 year old man and his running mate who was the mayor of a tiny town in Alaska? Brilliant. This RIAA thing is a smokescreen issue concocted by another one of my terribly misguided fellow Republicans to attract the "youth vote." Problem is, young tech kids are smarter than this. Wake up, Republicans. The party is not what it used to be.
by humanssssss August 23, 2008 7:11 PM PDT
Biden is more government. Scary. This guy will increase the already overcrowded prison population. With Obama voting yes on FISA and Biden pro-government growth, the free market is going socialist. The more the government puts its hands in the free market, the more the free market sinks. This has been proven over and over again.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis August 24, 2008 12:29 AM PDT
Wrong. The fact is that when there has been MORE regulation of the 'free market', the free market has done BETTER than when it's been 'hands off'.... or have you not been watching for the past 8 YEARS, you idiot!
I swear...... some people just should NOT be allowed to live on this planet, they are stupider than anything. Humanssssss qualifies.
by mikefarrace August 24, 2008 1:11 PM PDT
Could you share a couple examples of the over and over again proof you cite? Seems to me the "free market" has been more in evidence over the last eight years than at any time in recent memory. The only things that haven't sunk are the number of soldiers and civilians killed, the compensation of executives, the deficit, the price of oil, the trade imbalance, the number of foreclosures and the number of people around the world who think are leaders are fools. "Socialist" is the buzzword conservatives use to scare normal people, when the truth is some of our most effective institutions, like Medicare and Social Security, have helped millions upon millions of citizens lead better lives, and my guess is that you will benefit from these yourself if you don't already. It isn't "more" or "less" government (though I am sure you are perfectly content to have a simple answer to everything) that is important. It's the "why" and "how" that count.
by notinman August 24, 2008 2:00 PM PDT
I don't understand how a lot of fiscal conservatives are predicting that Obama's going to be the end of the "free market" as if the past 8 years didn't happen.
We're suffering a severe economic downturn fueled largely by a housing crisis that resulted from a lack of government regulation. In fact, many "free market" economists are complaining about the government bailing out Bear Stearns and Freddie and Fannie, and then wondering why, in the same breath, nobody thought to regulate hedge funds and lending companies.
by georgiarat August 23, 2008 7:24 PM PDT
I too am voting to keep my house. Taxes by our Democratic legislature are killing me and if the Democrats get Congress and the Presidency bye bye house because I will not be able to afford one any longer. Guess they can nationalize housing along with health, energy, etc. so they can claim to help the poor. We will become a radical socialist state and look how much freedom Russia, China and other states have from government intrusion on privacy. The Internet will be destroyed as we know it and forget about net neutrality with Biden around. The media will be controlled either because they agree with Obama or through the fairness doctrine that is anything but fair. Union elections will be held in the open so the thugs can beat up anyone brave enough to vote against the union.

They will bring change but that change will come at a steep price that most don't comprehend.
Reply to this comment
by mrzonker August 23, 2008 9:26 PM PDT
Taxes are how the government pays the bills. No taxes means no pallets of US cash being shipped to Iraq, no boated homeland security agencies, etc. Which I can do without. But it also means a huge national debt, a weaker dollar (read high oil prices), less scientific research funding to keep us leading in the world economy, and lots of other things that keep the US from looking like rural Mexico or sub Saharan Africa. Taxes aren't the problem, and a quick look around the rest of the world shows that high taxes and high standard of living go together just fine, if there's a competent government to keep the books and make good decisions. The last eight years have been dismal there, so I'll take my chances with the democrats.
by ProDemocracy August 23, 2008 9:59 PM PDT
I hate to burst your Bubble (and it seems to be a big one), but Republicans are NO DIFFERENT. Do you not recall the RECORD 5.5 Trillion deficit UNDER Bush alone. Do you not recall the 25 percent inflation and RECORD LOW DOLLAR we are experiencing. This means prices for everything are HIGH and what you can buy with your dollar is LOW. You ask why? Well when you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Otherwise, you got inflation. Don't blame the Democrats for that. Every Republican President (Regan, Bush, Bush Sr) has tossed this country into RECORD deficits by borrowing money. Democrats tax now and pay now. Both waste money like its going out of style, but I'd rather we pay our bills as we go along, versus borrowing. Call me Naive.

As per socialism, hate to burst your bubble again. Do you pay the full price of your child to go to school? Nope, other tax payers do. Your child's education is socialized by people who have kids and those who don't. Do taxes stay ONLY within the city you live. IE my money NEVER leaves and ONLY funds the roads in my city, my police force, and my fire department. Nope. Hate to give you a rude awakening but our money gets spread around the country on road projects and the federal highway programs, etc. Has your city ever needed to call for help from another department? Those city's residents had their money SPENT to help your city. That's more socialism. Here's the big one, do you enjoy eating safe food and have inspections? Well guess what, your money is spent to have the FDA oversee Food and Drug safety. Would you rather your taxes not ensure the quality of items you receive? If you want to do away with social programs:

1) Don't send your child to school unless you pay 100 percent of the cost of his / her education

2) Pay the full cost to maintain roads

3) Pay for using Hospitals, as Hospitals and medical research are tax payer subsidized.

4) Expect police or emergency help from other jurisdictions.

The list goes on.
by starkruzr August 24, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
"Taxes by our Democratic legislature?" LOLWUT? Bush pushed through enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country and taxes have simply not gone up. How are YOU getting "killed" by taxes?

The middle class has been steadily shrinking thanks to Bush's tax cuts. That needs to stop NOW if we are to have any hope of rescuing the economy.
by notinman August 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
That's strange logic. The greatest attacks on our civil liberties, remeniscent of the Chinese and Russian governments, were pushed by the Bush administration. The Democratic legislature's fault is only that they were afraid to fight back (or more complicit than that, in many cases).
But it's not high taxes that have the country and economy screwed up right now, it's the fact that they've cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans at a time when government spending is, by anyone's account, totally out of control. And so, so much of that "government spending" is coming from Bush's war.
by jskrenes August 26, 2008 5:49 AM PDT
You know, the funny thing about the kool-aid drinkers on the left is that they say that Bush's tax cuts were only for the rich, yet I'm not rich and they helped me. And when the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich, my taxes go up, and I don't get benefits from government programs commiserate to my higher taxes.

Thankfully, BHO and the Dems aren't raising taxes. They're just "restoring" them to pre-Bush years. Good news people, your taxes aren't being raised, just restored!
by helassen1 August 27, 2008 9:53 AM PDT
StarKruzr: The rich have it easy huh? You sure?.... http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf
by jabailo August 23, 2008 7:28 PM PDT
It's time that being "pro technology" not equate to being pro-theft. While some would have you believe that violating copyright is a sacred right of hackers, I would make an equal argument -- that many, if not most people are being horribly cheated because of lack of copyright! Example: Google -- it makes all the money on selling access to other people's content, but the providers of that content don't make anywhere near the money. There are thousands of "text workers" poring out billions in value each day, and they never receive compensation. The Internet is ultimately a network of writers and thinkers -- yet is it is the "land owners" not the "tenants" who get 99% of the reward.

Technologies to insure that those who create, get paid, would benefit almost all.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis August 24, 2008 12:31 AM PDT
No, it would not benefit 'almost all' and it is NEVER going to happen. Everything is crackable.

Here is how you truly get customers: make a product, make it cheap, and charge a REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR IT!

For the past 15 year or so........ the RIAA, MPAA, etc. have NOT BEEN DOING THAT (bolded and underlined three times if that worked on here!)!

Idiot again, posting when he does not know what he is talking about.
by nachurboy August 24, 2008 8:56 AM PDT
@Lerianis

"Here is how you truly get customers: make a product, make it cheap, and charge a REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR IT!

It's tough to beat free. I agree, producer's margins are way too high, but you're not going to replace piracy with lower prices, unless it's given away.

The fact that anything can be cracked isn't what's causing piracy either. It's the fact that it's easily distributable and readily available for free that's create the massive increase in piracy. Prior to the Internet and Napster, you had to know where to find software, such as BBS', and after the Internet, usenet. These aren't your click-away locations for downloading like it is today.

Open digital communications has opened the door to digital distribution, which has changed how digital products are consumed. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world hasn't figured out that plastic discs isn't how they're going to make money, which is why they're fighting these stupid fights.
by lordmorgul August 26, 2008 3:36 PM PDT
"Example: Google -- it makes all the money on selling access to other people's content, but the providers of that content don't make anywhere near the money."

Clearly you know very little about what Google does, how the company makes money, and internet economics. Google does not sell access to content (searches are free? or did you not notice), they catalog and locate content. They make money from advertising, something that people do when they want to sell their own content and need people to FIND in order to do just that. Google also has other services that are not "someone else's content", such as Google Calendar and GMail, which are huge successes... because they deliver usable cloud computing applications.

The "text workers" you claim are not making any money have many opportunities to make money if they choose to open their eyes and take advantage of ad campaigns, paid reviews, and company blogs.
by Update_Victim September 1, 2008 12:04 PM PDT
Pro technology and "pro theft" are not and never have equated.

What has happened is that the Congress urged onward by "Big Business", has changed the clearly stated intent of the Constitution to encourage "Invention" and "Useful Arts" by granting a LIMITED TIME monopoly to the author or inventor into a very long term legal real property tool for the restriction of knowledge that can be bought and sold and instead of promoting invention and "useful arts", has legalized removal of information on which to base improvements from the database of world knowledge and has allowed knowledge to be locked up in the safes of one company.

The constitutionally stated reason for the existence of copyright and patents, promotion of invention and useful arts, has been corrupted into a means of prevention of innovation.

The times originally set for these "intellectual properties" was long enough for the originator to recoup costs and a fair profit. Congress should have shortened the time limits to keep them in line with this intent. Instead, the Congress, which was at the time a majority of Democrats and Liberals, effectively made them permanent. Innovation has been forced from the United States. They have given to copyright holders and patent holders that which any laborer can never have. permanent income from one job well done, or poorly done, but with a patent locking up the very idea.

A good case can be made that patents and copyrights are in reality "Theft from Humanity".

Joe Biden has long supported this theft of knowledge and rights from the citizens of this country including the right of personal privacy. While he, as Vice President, would only have the right to vote in the case of a tie, he would certainly have great influence on the Senate and especially on senators of his own party. A Republican President presiding over a country with a Democrat Congress should only be accountable for the way in which he administers the laws passed by the Congress. Congress should be held accountable for the actual laws.
by i_am_still_wade August 23, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
How much power does a VP have? He only casts the tiebreaker in the Senate and is second in line should the President not finish his term. Really, he is just a powerless figurehead.
Reply to this comment
by Spimby August 23, 2008 10:48 PM PDT
Tell that to :
John Tyler
Chester A Arthur
Calvin Coolidge
Millard Fillmore
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S Truman
Gerald R Ford
Andrew Johnson
Lyndon B Johnson

Lyndon Johnson, btw, was just the figurehead VP who got the US deep into the Vietnam war. But he was just a figurehead.
by sherbisness August 24, 2008 1:22 AM PDT
Excuse me, that is a hell of alot of power, many presidents have not finished their term. In the case of Obama-Biden, Biden will have alot of influence because of his experience, Obama idolizes him, I have seen this in many photographs. Of course once Obama has enough experience, he can do whatever he wants, and that includes replacing Biden, if Biden becomes too vocal and problematic.
by no_way_back August 24, 2008 6:28 AM PDT
Two words: "DICK CHENEY"
by The_Decider August 24, 2008 10:00 AM PDT
Tiebreaker will not be a big deal in the foreseeable future since there will be large democratic gains in both the house and the Senate. I don't know if it will be as large as they had in 1964 when they were able to pass all the civil rights legislation, but it will be a strong majority.

If Obama wins, maybe they will be able to get something done. Whether that is a positive or negative, time will tell.
by Granfalloon August 24, 2008 10:15 AM PDT
He and his Vice Presidential Action Rangers also protect the space-time continuum. Read the Constitution, people!
by ballmerisanape August 25, 2008 7:00 AM PDT
If that were true... why were Democrats so up in arms over Dick Cheney?
by mabamford August 23, 2008 7:56 PM PDT
for a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 300 pages long see
campusactivism.org
click on home
click on forum
scroll down to FBI WATCH
Watch the YOUTUBE documentary video called THE GUILTY MEN for the best evidence linking Vice president Johnson and FBI Director Hoover to the assassination of President Kennedy
Reply to this comment
by limefan913 August 23, 2008 8:26 PM PDT
To those who don't like Biden as a Senator, look at it this way: if Obama wins, Biden is out of the Senate.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider August 24, 2008 10:01 AM PDT
Actually, VP is Senate president.
by lordmorgul August 26, 2008 3:38 PM PDT
"To those who don't like Biden as a Senator, look at it this way: if Obama wins, Biden is out of the Senate."

No... Biden would remain in the Senate as Vice President and would possibly cast the most important vote (tie breaker) of any Senator there.
by keith_w August 28, 2008 8:57 AM PDT
Did you forget that as V.P. Biden would be President of the Senate?
by lunarsight September 1, 2008 3:51 PM PDT
Lime - True, but could he potentially do even greater damage as VP?
by lithuanian98 August 23, 2008 9:15 PM PDT
How about keep Biden out all together? I hate to say this, because I was going to vote for Bob Barr, but now I have to vote for McCain just to keep Obama/Biden out of the oval office. You want to live in a socialist state then move to one, but don't turn this country into one.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis August 24, 2008 12:33 AM PDT
Hey, our 'non-socialist' state is not very good right now, and frankly.... there is no country in this entire WORLD that is a true communist or socialist state.... "WHAT ABOUT CHINA!", I am sure you are going to whine.

China isn't a communist state. It is an ELITIST state, the exact opposite of a socialist state, actually.
by nachurboy August 24, 2008 9:08 AM PDT
China is also a corrupt state in the guise of Communism. Cronyism at it's worst. Their whole Capitalism tryst is so that their leaders and their party buddies can profit off the billion laborers. But hey, the US has been doing that the past decade so why not China? Look at Russia. They're the same as well.

If you want a true capitalistic state, you need to create one. The US is not a capitalistic state. Between Democrats and Republicans, you have either socialism towards the people and socialism towards the rich. In either case, the elites always prosper. If you look up capitalism, you'll see even under Republican control that the US is not the case. Why else would you have a governmental body giving tax payer money away to corporations? If that's not socialism, I don't know what is.

The US government gave up capitalism a long time ago when they created the federal reserve and treasury. These institutions both created socialism for business, which is not laissez faire.
by JadedGamer August 25, 2008 2:49 AM PDT
Practically the only "real" communist state exists in fiction: It is called the Federation of Planets in Star Trek. Money has been abolished, everyone have their needs covered by matter replicators and everyone contributes to society according to its needs.

China and Russia/Soviet Union both basically took feudalism and crossed out that word writing "communism" in its stead. Read up on how many followers of Lenin had their dreams shattered when the promised socialist paradise was replaced with a paranoid police state. Not the same thing at all.
by JCPayne August 23, 2008 9:19 PM PDT
LOL... Americans have two parties that are practically the same... The Republicans are all corrupt--- and they're practically bought and sold everyday by anyone with a fist full of money... And now the Democrats are doing the same.. (ABOVE the amount which the Clintons are usually bought and sold for.)
Reply to this comment
by JCPayne August 23, 2008 9:21 PM PDT
Anyway the USA needs to hurry up and just declare itself bankrupt like Russia.... The USA doesn't want to pay their taxes to pay off their national debt so they just need to put the lipstick on the pig and just admit their country is financially broke.... They've gone the way of the Soviet Union... Ohhh well time for the next empire.... here comes China....
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis August 24, 2008 12:36 AM PDT
The problem isn't that we don't want to pay taxes to pay off our national debt. The problem is that the regular American citizen is tired of the super-wealthy (that top 10%) not doing their part and paying their fair share of taxes. They should be being taxed at about 80%-90%..... unless they reinvest their money (which, contrary to popular belief, they do NOT do) in new businesses and old businesses.

As to China being the next empire...... HA HA HA HA HA! What world are you living in? China isn't an 'empire'...... it's a disgrace.
by ProDemocracy August 23, 2008 10:00 PM PDT
test
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo August 23, 2008 11:11 PM PDT
Other than "looking presidential" he is a hypocrite. He voted AGAINST GW1...and FOR GW2 !!! And on video said McCain is a good guy and he would be honored to be his Vice Presidential choice. He , like OBAMA is nothing more than a talker/celebrity.
With his money you would think he could afford Minoxidil ?
Reply to this comment
by masonx August 25, 2008 9:19 AM PDT
Are you talking about Mc Cain?
by bytet August 24, 2008 8:47 AM PDT
After a quick read I do not find a political agenda on the author's part. it seemed like he merely presented the record. It speaks for itself. If someone who considers themselves liberal are dismayed by this information perhaps they should re-think thier support for the "liberal" party, I know I am.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider August 24, 2008 10:05 AM PDT
What you need to do is do some real thinking.

No candidate is going to do everything you like.

There is no real difference between the two parties. We have a one party system that pretends to be a two party state so they can keep the populace divided and arguing about insignificant matters.
by DaveW43 August 24, 2008 9:56 AM PDT
"Biden likely got the nod because of his foreign policy knowledge. "

Gee! Ya Think! Like they say "No S*&#, Sherlock". That's the ONLY reason he was picked. As for your long diatribe on Biden's "technology record", it doesn't matter now. Not sure how much you remember from your grade school classes on American Govt, but the VP does not have power to draft legislation, veto bills, or much power at all. The only time he's relevant is when there is a tie in the Senate, or the President dies or becomes incapacitated, or some foreign head of state dies and the US needs representation at the funeral

Add to that, the average American voter could give a crap about a candidate's position on technology. Only the insulated pointy-heads in Silicon Valley think it matters. IT DOESN'T. The majority of the voting public doesn't even consider what a candidates technology positions are before punching the ballot. If there as a place lower than "last on the list", that's where technology would lay on the priority list.

So, I'm not sure why you even bothered writing this. Biden is not running for President. So, Biden's past voting records are now irrelevant. Now, Obammessiah's voting record: that is very relevant.
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider August 24, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
For someone who likes to argue relevancy, you sure or irrelevant. Obammessiah? Give me a break!
by wzrobin August 27, 2008 8:53 AM PDT
"Add to that, the average American voter could give a crap about a candidate's position on technology. Only the insulated pointy-heads in Silicon Valley think it matters. IT DOESN'T. The majority of the voting public doesn't even consider what a candidates technology positions are before punching the ballot. If there as a place lower than "last on the list", that's where technology would lay on the priority list."

While I agree that the average voter isn't knowledgable about the tech issues, and the votes that affect it... your assessment that the issues don't matter are extremely ignorant. CNET is actually the place to write about these issue to be read by the people who do care about it, like myself.

Will his horrible record for on individual rights, privacy, technology, and the awful BAPCPA make a difference in who gets elected? Probably not. But I can say it makes a big, big difference in my opinion of the Obama/Biden ticket.

I'm about as mainstream as you can get from a right/left perspective (obviously not from a tech perspective), and Biden is the one of the absolute worst VP canidates he could have picked... it has completely undermined my belief in his own statements about a lot of issues I am interested in, because his VP candidate is THE anti-tech guy, anti-free speech guy.
by DaveW43 August 24, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
meant to write: "are NOT relevant"
Reply to this comment
by baldwintm August 24, 2008 10:04 AM PDT
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Reply to this comment
by sulsa76 September 3, 2008 8:03 AM PDT
From the article you just linked to:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

And your point is?
by funchords August 24, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
My God, Declan -- that was fast and thorough! Great job!

I don't think anyone on the left or right thinks that Copyright holders should have no rights or that state security or law-enforcement shouldn't have public powers of observation without a court order and even invasive powers of observation with a court order. So those things about Biden's past don't bother me. Your article pursuades me that we all should be paying attention to how much influence that the Music, Movie, and Pharmaceutical companies have -- they outspend EFF on outreach to legislators and voters many times over (and pass the cost of that lobbying onto us in higher consumer costs).

I hope everyone donates a little extra to the EFF this year.
Reply to this comment
by PaisanoRob August 24, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
In the CNET Technology Voter Guide, Biden ranks a poor 37.50%, but McCain is even worse at 31.25% (Obama is 50%; Clinton 33.33%).
Reply to this comment
by mikefarrace August 24, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
Decent story, really, though I think it assumes some things not in evidence, at least to people who respect creators of intellectual property. Number one, let's be honest about peer-to-peer. It enables the theft of intellectual property. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of free peer-to-peer, but these are marketing arguments, not legal ones. The real problem is not the users, per se, because 80% say they would pay (http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/06/study-80-percen.html). So, I think it is unfair to take Biden to task for generally doing what legislators are supposed to do, which is make fair laws. I also don't blame him for his views regarding trying to limit access to pornography to minors or the depiction of child pornography in any form. Personally, I believe a completely free Internet is the best Internet. However, I also personally think that pornographers do indeed market their goods without discretion or regard for protecting minors. What is the solution? It's a tough call, but clearly, in both cases -- the theft of intellectual property and the protection of minors -- any solution must involve enlightened industries which bring creative tactics to the table. And this, above all, has been lacking. I don't know much about the porn industry, but I do know the music industry is simply unable to deal with digital distribution in a way that does not require dialing back profits as digital leakage undermines their physical distribution networks. Even if they embrace digital file distribution as some have tried to do, they are still dealing with a confounding cannabilization of their intellectual assets. The fact that , with notable exceptions, record companies generally do not have a great track record of fairness with creators, does not help. Like virtually all international corporate companies, their executives receive too much compensation in good times and bad, their boards are incestuous and do not represent shareholders well, and they have no solution in front of them which solves the problem without the need for very long-term strategies which their corporate structures simply can't support. The result seems to be clear, artists will adapt, distribution companies will not. The point of all this is that artists who create the music in the first place will be more in charge, will make reasonable livings using a combination of performing and merchandise sales, and pre-recorded discs and download sales will just be a smaller piece of their income pie. In the end, artists will benefit from legislators who are not afraid to do the right thing -- protecting the rights of creators. Biden's attempts to expand copyright protection is based on doing the right thing. You might not like the prospect of losing all that free music, but what does that make you? I'm just sayin'.
Reply to this comment
by chash360 August 25, 2008 1:00 PM PDT
Intelectual Property theft? Come on, computers create the ability to steal IP, Copy machines create that ability, not just P2P. A pencil and paper, or just a plain old good memory creates the ability to steal IP. What protects it is prosecuting those that reproduce it for profit. You can go online now and look up all the details of any of 1000's of patents (IP). you can distribute that information freely. What you can not do is sell that information as your own, nor make products that make use of the information, without paying royalties or otherwise getting license to do so from the property owner.

All of these laws seem to boil down to nothing more than thought police. Real crimes happen in reality, and no amount of laws restricting communication or the free expression of ideas will prevent the actual crimes from happening. The actual crime does not occur on the wire.

If you post bomb making information on the internet, should that be a crime? Isnt physically making and using the bomb already outlawed? If we can not deter people from doing this with our current laws and legal system shouldn't we be addressing that, rather than trying to control thought and information (Information in physics, can not be restrained, and is not bound by physical laws, how can we expect to do that which nature can not do)

I prefer to still buy original packaged CD's for the music I listen to, but I wish that there was a way that once I buy it I could download or re-create the media for free because CD's get scratched, cracked, etc. but the MPAA and RIAA think they should get to charge full price for every media and medium, and device that might be able to replay, that copyrighted material, thats just plain greed. The answer to this situation is to include the copyright information into the medium/media itself, and registering the licensee (the consumer who buys it, like registering your warrentee) such that they can prove they have license to a legitimate copy if the question should arise. Not to restrict the devices, the media types and formats, or prevent electronic distribution or copy methods.
by mikefarrace August 24, 2008 1:01 PM PDT
By the way, to those who say the VP does not have any power, wake up. I'll give you two examples -- Dick Cheney and Lyndon Johnson. Cheney was probably the most powerful VP in history because his president was a lazy ***** who spent almost as much time vacationing as he did in Washington. Johnson, who was encouraged by Kennedy but ostracized by everyone else in the White House, took what was thought to be a token, nominal assignment heading up the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, and turned it into a wealth of major civil rights legislation (and this was before the assassination), going far further than even Kennedy envisioned. After the Russians went to space, Kennedy assigned Johnson the task of getting a man on the moon, not a small thing considering the era and what it would cost. Yet Johnson took his legislative rolodex and his famous negotiating chops to the house and senate, kicked ass and viola, a man on the moon. It's not the office that makes things happen, it's the skills of the person in the office. I need to believe and so therefore do believe that Biden will embrace Obama's vision and use his formidable skills to make things happen.
Reply to this comment
by sra12 August 25, 2008 11:26 AM PDT
A thoughtful, knowledgeable comment about a timely and well researched article. Good reading, for a change. Thanks.
by ralfthedog August 26, 2008 7:02 AM PDT
Other than the few inherent powers, the VP has no more and no less than any and all Executive Branch powers delegated by the President of the United States. The VP has the right to give a speech in the Senate. He has the right to break a tie in the Senate, and he has the right and legal obligation to ask the President how he is feeling every morning.

Other than that, the VP has the right to do what ever job the President decides to tell him to do including moping the floor or cleaning the bathroom.
by Update_Victim September 1, 2008 12:15 PM PDT
When you consider Obama's stated plans to greatly increase government control and supply of services, and then consider what would be required in the way of tax money to do so, this prospect is positively scary. We should also consider Obama's plans to reduce the size of the security force of this country, the U. S. Military Forces. It goes from scary to positively frightening.
Showing 1 of 3 pages (101 Comments)
advertisement

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

About Politics and Law

News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right