Thread: If this is an indication of the state of American politics...

I understand SCOTUS recognizes your right to vote in the US and have for 40 yrs. Unless I am mistaken you have either never lived here or haven't in a long time I'm not challenging that right in anyway here. What I am curious about is if you never had a fixed permanent address how do you get assigned a congressional district? If it doesnt apply to you do you know how it gets done?

Originally Posted by bigross86

...it's a wonder they get any work done at all.

On Wednesday I sent the two senators from NY and my congressman emails regarding PIPA/SOPA.

From Thursday on I received 3 emails from Senator Schumer including 2 identical "thank you for emailing me" emails, 3 from Senator Gillibrand including 2 identical "thank you for emailing me" emails, and 1 actual, succinct response from Congressman Bob Turner.

I'm impressed with my congressman, but what of the two senators?

I mean, if your staff can't even keep track of who you sent out emails to, how the bloody hell do you expect to be on top of things such as, I don't know, say, writing and passing laws?!

Someone, anyone, please tell me that there's a valid and logical reason behind this. Please?

They probably don't clear the 'auto reply' lists often enough. JAD might know, though I'm not sure how big email was last time he was deeply involved in this sort of stuff. In any case, I don't think you are chewing up too much of anybody's valuable time.

I'm sure they're inundated with emails.

Rosie, I use my dad's address, which is where I stay whenever I'm in the US, anyway.

BF, I know I'm not choosing up anyone's valuable time, but the large things are always made up of the smaller things. If 2 separate staffs can't even work their email program properly, sending me a thank you for emailing us, then a canned answer, then another thank you for emailing us, how can they keep track of more important things?

The answer I got was disturbing

Dear Mr. Jay Amundson:



Thank you for contacting me about legislation in Congress to address online piracy and consumer fraud. I value the correspondence I receive from fellow Wisconsinites, and welcome this opportunity to address your concerns.



Federal copyright law originates from the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Our modern copyright law protects original works by allocating certain rights to their creators for a specific amount of time. As our use of the Internet has continued to grow, the number of websites we use has grown exponentially. In recent years concerns have been raised about websites pirating original content or deceiving users with counterfeit products, and whether our copyright laws can still adequately protect creators right to their works and the safety and security of American consumers who wish to purchase them online.



American businesses lose billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs to online piracy and sales of counterfeit goods over the Internet. While U.S. law can reach domestic websites that sell illegal counterfeit products, law enforcement cannot pursue websites owned and operated by foreign entities with domain names registered outside the U.S. To address this problem, on May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011," S. 968. I am a co-sponsor of this bill, which is known as the PROTECT IP Act. Our bill made changes to a similar bill introduced in the 111th Congress that more narrowly target it to only the most seriously infringing foreign websites.



Under S. 968, the Attorney General would be authorized to file a civil action in court only against foreign based websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities" and have no significant use other than engaging in illegal activity such as streaming pirated movies and selling counterfeit consumer products and pharmaceuticals. The Attorney General is required to notify the registrant of the Internet domain name, providing due process and an opportunity for him or her to respond to the allegations. Only if a judge finds that a website is dedicated to infringing activities and harms U.S. consumers and intellectual property owners, the Attorney General would have the authority to serve the court order on third parties. Those third parties, such as Internet service providers, payment processors, online advertising networks, and search engines, would be required to take reasonable measures, if feasible, to stop doing business with and prevent access to that website. The bill includes safeguards, including the ability of website operators to challenge the Attorney General's allegations and petition the court to reconsider its order after removing the infringing content. On May 26, 2011, the Judiciary Committee approved S. 968 by a voice vote.



As you may have heard, on January 13, 2012, Senator Leahy announced that he plans to make major modifications to the bill in order to address concerns about the provision that permits the court to order third party Internet Service Providers to use the Domain Name System to block consumers from accessing foreign websites dedicated to illegal online infringement. We will be studying them to see how they square with the concerns we're hearing, and I look forward to working to improve the bill. Similar changes will also be examined in the House version of the PROTECT IP Act, H.R. 3261, the "Stop Online Piracy Act." Known as "SOPA", this bill is being considered by the House Judiciary Committee.



In an effort to promote a compromise on the legislation, on January 20, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] announced that he would postpone a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, originally scheduled for January 24.



As we work to find common ground and improve the PROTECT IP Act, please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for contacting me.




Sincerely,


Herb Kohl
United States Senator

Federal copyright law originates from the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Our modern copyright law protects original works by allocating certain rights to their creators for a specific amount of time.

Complete and total bullshit! Some more class notes. I'm actually impressed with this lecturer, I've used material from almost every single class with him to explain stuff about current events:

1710 - First copyright law enacted in England. Statue of Anne: all printed works will have 14 years of protection, plus 14 more years if the author is still alive and has requested them. All works from before 1710 receive a one time 21 year protection.

Copyright itself is the question of the right to make copies of existing works, and the protection is short due to the booksellers monopoly and consequent fear of monopolies.

1789 - US Constitution enacted and include the Statue of Ann for three things: Maps, sketching and books, also for 14 years on the condition that you have registered it at a copyright office. This is there to promote the sciences and practical arts. From 1790-1799 13,000 titles were published, 556 are registered at the copyright office. US Copyright law was only applicable for Americans, Dickens works were sold for a fraction of the price.

So why copyright at all?
1) To motivate people to publish their works instead of keeping them hidden.
2) Copyright laws expire so that others can base themselves on them and create new works based on existing material.

Thomas Jefferson and others were zealous over intellectual property. In 1813 he writes a letter lauding the concept of an idea. Unlike all other property, sharing an idea does not diminish the strength of that idea. That makes intellectual property copyrighted by nature. So, when do we award exclusivity? When the benefit of awarding exclusivity is higher than the embarrassment of awarding exclusivity.

Thomas McCulley in England comes to the same conclusion and in 1841 speaks before Parliament and offers 2 solutions to the problem of creative rights law: Patronage or copyright. 2 centuries of lobbying have changed and now every single piece of work is protected.

Walt Disney's Mickey mouse is based on Steamboat Willie, both created in 1928. Disney was so happy with this that he built his entire empire on free material like Grimm Brothers and more. Mickey Mouse alone has brought in $6 billion since 1928.

1831 - US decides to increase copyrights to 21+21=42. In 1909 they decide to once again increase copyright law from 28+28=56. 1976 copyright law is increased to 75 years.

1998 - Sonny Bono Act: copyrights are increased yet again, this time to 95 if the author is not alive, if the author is alive, the copyright extends throughout his entire lifetime + 70 years.

Eric Eldred asks how exactly this leads to advancement in the public sphere. Eldred was an html author, he would type up books whose copyrights had expired. He claimed that if the Constitution placed a limited amount of time on copyright and if congress keeps increasing, that's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court finally shoots it out of the water by 7-2. The minority opinion (by Stephen Breyer) says that the founding fathers were quite against monopolies. In 1909 when the rights were increased the second time, Congress stated that the rights were not meant to benefit the author, rather copyright was defined primarily for the benefit of the public.


Copyright laws change drastically when discussing them in the context of the web. Instead of a poster in a room, it's a .JPG on a screen. So what's changed? On the one hand, everything, since now it's available to everyone instead of a select few in the room.

Senator Schumer sent me yet another email repeating himself. I do think the man is getting quite senile...

January 18th I sent the emails. Just got yet another repeat from Senator Gillibrand...

At lest our MPs, and even Ministers, reply, although I sometimes disagree with what they do. It may help that I am a Party Member though.

BR,

if you want a reply,

1.) at the minimum, write a formal letter,
2.) if you want an answer fast, be wealthy and donate to said congresscritter...

for high media interest things like the SOPA, there's plenty of mail going around, so chances of you getting a response to an e-mail is between nil and zero.

Originally Posted by astralis

BR,

if you want a reply,

1.) at the minimum, write a formal letter,
2.) if you want an answer fast, be wealthy and donate to said congresscritter...

for high media interest things like the SOPA, there's plenty of mail going around, so chances of you getting a response to an e-mail is between nil and zero.

They do take in account those emails but I'd agree with you on the way to get a real response. Even in the age of 5 million dollar donors they at least will weigh public opinion against the votes big donor media buys guarentee. look at Florida. public opinon can be bought when you can outspend 4-1 because of big corporate, union or individual donors. Your opinon may matter less than it did two years ago but it still matters a bit. I am sure they still have to weigh public opinon against the media costs to change it in our information age.

That's the sad state of our democratic institutions. they are now for sale. Anyone who thinks a corporate or Union donor coughing up 500k is doing it on principle rather than the potential R.O.I. is nuts. Corporations donate solely to generate future profits and Unions to generate favorable treatment period. It diminishes all our votes when big donations can sway so many votes out of proportion to citizen views. Corporations and Unions aren't people.

That's not what concerns me. What upsets me is that I've gotten the same exact email, word for word, 3 and 4 times already. If a congressperson/senator and their staff can't control something as simple as checking off someone's name from an email list once they've responded, how can they possibly take care of bigger things, like laws?

BR,

What upsets me is that I've gotten the same exact email, word for word, 3 and 4 times already. If a congressperson/senator and their staff can't control something as simple as checking off someone's name from an email list once they've responded, how can they possibly take care of bigger things, like laws?

think about it from their POV-- why should they care about some anonymous person from the internet, who may or may not actually be one of their constituents/supporters?

unless you are politically valuable in some way-- whether through money or influence or power--, don't expect too much effort to be expended on your behalf. easiest way to get out the message is a form letter.

I don't have a problem with that either. I have a problem with receiving the same exact letter 4 times, the latest one being 2 weeks after the bill being discussed was frozen!