1 Apr
2002
1 Apr
'02
5:55 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas H. Quebbeman [mailto:dquebbeman@acm.org]
Adam Schiff, another congressman from California, is
proposing
a similiar law. Adam has stated that he doesn't expect the law to
pass, but that its sole purpose is to gain leverage against the
high-tech industry regarding the copyright issue and in favor of
the entertainments industry.
In other words, they we'll all be sufficiently
scared that
we'll finally
give up some ground in the copyright issue. What ground is left
to give up? They've already lengthened the terms of protection
when they should have been shortening them.
What issue is there? If they don't like copyright as it was
originally defined, fine. Abolish it. That's fair, and everyone's
still on equal ground. :)
None of this "insert exception [a] into loophole [b]" crap.
Do I deserve extra protection because my work is easier to duplicate?
I think not.
To my way of thinking, that constitutes abuse of
process, and makes
Fritz Hollings and Adam Schiff not merely traitors, but
persona non grata.
I think Mr. Schiff ought to be required to reimburse the government
for the salaries (plus usage of buildings, etc) of all the people
whose time he wastes with his bill. That ought to be enough to spend
all the money that some companies are paying him for it, plus his own
salary, and make him get a job at McDonalds to make ends meet.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl
Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'