In answer to Shadow Mom's query:
How do we persuade the Supreme Court, Tom? E-mail? Phone calls? Or do we just have to let the big guns slug this one out?

Tom says:
The purpose of our information campaign is to support the gathering tsunami force of the "coaliton of the willing." The "piling on" of the Communications Policy Coalition (all NoCal technology firms, policy groups, academics, scientists and librarians) make this a new game, and one that will cement the Betacam case for eternity. This is foolish of the RIAA, whose legal representation truly honors the name of their God (Mammon) "MICKEY MOUSE."

This ain't a case for Lessig. This is Fred's baby all the way. He will go down in history books for this one.

What do we do? That's simple. This has nothing to do with contacting your congressional representatives, and is the reason why the Framers built-in the protection of the three branches of governance. Congress has been bribed in a way that recalls the Gilded Era of McKinley and Mark Hanna.

Bill Gates made a fundamental mistake in assuming that the judge in the Microsoft case (Thomas Penfield Jackson) and the prosecutor (David Boise) could never learn anything about computer software! Such arrogance.

We're looking at a steep learning curve for the elderly Supremes, but hopefully their young staffers will be computer-adept. This will result in an outpouring of amicus briefs. I won't have any of my usual complaints this time around, that judges need to take in scientific advice from experts.

What do we do? Agitate! Spread the word. Stay cognizant of what the ACLU, Public Knowledge, CDT and EFF are doing. Join the mailing lists. Certainly you'll want to donate to EFF, but you need to help Dmusic and Boycott-RIAA first. Let's get serious with our Christmas gift campaign of Boycott merchandise. For your friendsters, family and extended network, "Buy the gift that endures!" Boycott bumper strickers.

I agree with awher about the need to resist and deface the obnoxious posters that are sprouting above campus xerox machines. I had a lunch with Fred in May and he agreed that the time was right to finish the "Know Your Fair Use In Copyrights" pamphlet for schools, to counteract the asnine MPAA corporate-funded propaganda effort. I can fantasize such a Fair Use poster to go above xerox machines. Tear down the other one. The ugly and unclean Evil One. Tear it down.

Take heart, folks. The RIAA and MPAA are getting their asses kicked up and down the basketball court, in every venue they approach. Those who have made tenative alliances with the Beast have walked into a firestorm of public backlash. Think about the way Adobe had to back down in the Dmitry case and Professor Felten's brave defiance. Think about the eating shit and public humiliation the BSA endured, when they had to disavow their own INDUCE ACT, and in the process publicly threw Orrin Hatch to the wolves. Same thing happened to the Hollings Act. Congressmen need to learn that being seen with RIAA lobbyists is like a small case of leprosy. No amount of soap and scrubbing will erase the stench.

James Love at CDT has coordinated a NGO revolt that has upended the corporate backroom deals of WIPO and the WTT. A new day of progressive thought has taken root in the treaty organizations that is revolutionary. And it is based on real considerations of scentific cooperation, compassionate debates of drug patentlaw, open communications policy and sincere respect for the folk/cultural eco-system.

Hurt the corporations in the checkbook. Don't buy their shit and let them know why! College administrators that cooperate with the RIAA and MPAA must be confronted rudely with the financial consequences of their treachery. Give them the full-court Nike treatment. Back 'em down.


"Don't They Know It's Christmas?" Now for the second year anniversary, we'll mount the "Don't Buy Music-Buy Something Useful That Kids Want" campaign.

G R E A T article Tom.

I could not agree more.

Don't buy CRAP from the RIAA for XMAS.

As a Canadian I have been watching events unfold as this issue makes its way throught various attempts by the Entertainment Industry to impose its will through the legislative process in the American policitcal system.

I have to commend the folks involved with Boycott RIAA for your efforts in raising the public profile of this issue, and pointing out the selfserving hypocrisy
of the Entertainment Industry and their proxy RIAA.

Its heartening to see the mounting opposition to the efforts of this financially powerfull organization to buy legislation favourable to their ecconomic interest.

From what I've seen Tom Barger is absolutely correct in his chacterization of the Bribing of Congress. Fortunately it seems your policitcal system offers a counter balance to the affects of one arm of goverment being bought and paid for.

Please don't perceive this as a slight against your polictical system, as I can take no comfort, that ours is any less flawed.

As I understand these issues are now being considered by a committe headed by our Minister of Canadian Heritage Liza Fulla, (at the request of our Prime Minister Paul Martin), but thus far this has been a non public under taking, flying under the Radar so to speak. I trust that in their considerations they will note the battle that is being fought in the US.

Kept up the good work, and hopefully your victories will show the way, as this battle is fought in other venues. My one regret is that there doesn't seem to be a similar organization here in Canada.

Thank you so much...and welcome aboard.

With the CRIA, ARIA, and other versions in various countries, we are all in this together!

great artical tom , makes you want to go kick some riaa ass

Good article but I don't believe I saw the answer to the question that began it: How do we persuade the Supreme Court?

MadMax2003

Hi fellow Canadian!

You mentioned that we don't have a similar organization like this in Canada..that's interesting, because I have never even thought of that....I've just considered Boycott as THE International Hyway, as there are people here from around the globe....Japan, England, Australia to name a few.

I'm pretty certain that our ministers of culture, heritage, etc, will be watching whats going on in the US...

Sometimes, lax is good, which is how Canada comes across so often...

Hard to persuade people like Scalia who says that sexual orgies need to be encouraged...
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2376134
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent speeches have ventured into some surprising territory, with the staunchly conservative father of nine joking about sexual orgies.

Scalia is known for a biting humor and is entertaining on the talk circuit and on the bench during the court's argument sessions.

He raised some eyebrows with a speech this week at Harvard University, however, with a comment about the number of people needed for group sex and the jest that "sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

He made a similar remark in a speech Sept. 20 in Washington, to chuckles from the crowd at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, while making the point that judges can have personal moral judgments. It is not judges' role to impose them on citizens, he said.

"Let me make it clear that the problem I am addressing is not the social evil of the judicial dispositions I have described. I accept, for the sake of argument, for example, that sexual orgies eliminate social tension and ought to be encouraged," Scalia said with a smile."

Maybe if they played independent music at orgies, Scalia would like it better!

Remember that Scalia fought the Freedom of Information Act
http://www.thememoryhole.org/foi/scalia_foia.htm
"In his earlier role as head legal counsel at the Department of Justice, Antonin Scalia actively worked to curtail and defang the Freedom of Information Act.

The Freedom of Information Act gives us the power to pry documents from federal agencies and the military. For all its flaws and inadequacies, it's still an inspired piece of legislation that has shone some light on governmental activities.

The FOIA was passed in 1966. It became apparent that the law was fairly toothless and bureaucrats were hell-bent on ignoring it, so in 1974 Congress passed major amendments to enforce the Act. This seriously beefed-up version of FOIA was vetoed by President Ford, but Congress overrode him.

As the 1974 amendments were wending through Congress, high-ranking officials at several agencies were scared to death. In CIA documents uncovered in the National Archives by DC-area researcher Michael Ravnitzky, we see that the CIA was dead-set against the strengthening of the Act.

These documents reveal another player who was actively opposing the new amendments: Antonin Scalia. At the time, he was the Justice Department's Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel. In 1986, he would become a Supreme Court Justice.

If this tireless champion of government secrecy and unaccountability had gotten his way, the FOIA wouldn't have been given any muscle. The original, limp version probably never would have given us revealing documents from inside the FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, IRS, EPA, and a hundred other agencies and offices. Uncountable investigative news stories would've never been written or broadcast. And we'd know even less about our government's activites than we do now."

And of course, Scalia doesn't like what he says recorded...
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3686
"Scalia and His Speeches
A little-known federal statute should have protected journalists from having their recordings confiscated.

By Jane Kirtley
Jane Kirtley (kirtl001@tc.umn.edu) is the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota's School of Journalism and Mass Communications.

When he's not busy haranguing some hapless advocate from his perch on the U.S. Supreme Court bench, Justice Antonin Scalia likes to give speeches. But he expects to give them on his own terms. One is that he doesn't want any cameras or tape recorders on the premises.

Scalia's policy is longstanding. Apart from a few appearances on PBS, he's been camera-shy for most of his career. Whether he's speaking before schools, bar associations or civic groups, the rule is always the same. In March 2003, with exquisite irony, the City Club of Cleveland acceded to Scalia's demand that broadcast journalists, including C-SPAN, be barred from covering his acceptance of the club's "Citadel of Free Speech" award.

So it wasn't a big surprise when, before Scalia spoke at William Carey College in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, in early April, it was announced that video and audio recording would be prohibited. But somehow or other, no similar announcement was made when Scalia gave a second talk at Presbyterian Christian High School later that day (see Drop Cap, June/July).

In fact, school officials had sent Antoinette Konz, a reporter for the Hattiesburg American, a written invitation to cover Scalia's speech. When she arrived, she was seated in the front row, primed to listen to Scalia talk about the importance of the Constitution. Both she and Associated Press reporter Denise Grones were using recorders. Near the end of the speech, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube approached the two journalists and demanded the tapes. When the journalists demurred, the marshal grabbed the recorders and erased their contents. She later agreed to return them, but only after making sure that the 40 minutes memorializing Scalia's remarks had been recorded over.

The incident sparked a wave of outraged news reports, columns and editorials. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent angry letters of protest to Scalia and to the Justice Department. "

But, I shouldn't be so hard on the Supremes, since come November, they will have their hands full SELECTING the next President for us!

Yeah, Code, evidently the state of Florida will be the laughingstock of the country again, as Jeb and his gang have managed such miracles as no paper trail and attempting to disenfranchise people who forgot to check off a box on their voter registration forms--a box which was redundant anyway. In Broward County, the supervisor of elections has said they will throw out those forms as instructed by Secretary of State Glenda Hood. In Dade (I love it!!), they have said they will not toss them out. In other words, Florida--Nov. 2nd--another SNAFU.

How do we persuade the Supreme Court?

Sorry for this off topic question, but has anybody used the new Kazza Ghost which is supposed to hide your Ip address? I was wondering if they can realy do that because they (Kazza) requires your email and name to sign up for the free account.... thanks

"How do we persuade the Supreme Court? "

George, my point is simple..you do NOT persuade the Supreme Court. Since you asked that question twice, and apparently the article does, and no one has answered it, you deserved an answer to a reasonable question.

The people on the Supreme Court are basically there for life. You can't (you meaning the people), can't threaten to fire them. The Court is a conservative body at this point, and in some respects, SCALIA shows what kind of folks are on it. Scalia is against the freedom of information act, against people being able to record his speeches, and FOR group sexual orgies. There is something wrong with him, and I believe, with the Court. They "SELECTED" the guy who lost the popular vote to win, they SELECTED the shorter guy (80 % of candidates who get elected are the taller of the two main candidates..Bush was shorter than Gore)...and they have begun to justify their decisions by using foreign court precedents.

So, I think the answer is that one CANNOT persuade them, unless you have an outstanding legal argument you present to them "in camera".

My guess would be the only way we can make any difference at this point is to support Fred and EFF with a donation. Wouldn't hurt here, either, would it? Them people in Washington must be watchin' the internets purty close, jumpin' all over that silly wire thing, and that there draft that ain't gonna happen. Both of those stories were "explained" by the administration, and they were purty quick to jump on them, too, weren't they?
Seriously, whether we agree or disagree, it's probably a good thing we can't do much lobbying of our own with the Supremes. Even though we may not agree with this bunch, they should be above any public opinion--isn't it their job--their ONLY job--to protect and interpret the Constitution? And hasn't there been enough screwing around with that lately?

I just thought it was silly to start an article off with a question but never really answer it, that's all.

So your correct answer is C) we just have to let the big guns slug this one out.

I guess I don't understand why sending e-mails to a Senator is going to change something but that the Supreme Court wouldn't pay attention to a rationally framed argument of the facts.

And despite your extraterrestrial political characterization, Scalia is a Constitutional conservative as well, which means he seldom tries to read new spin into the law and is more intent on protecting what is there. This could actually be a problem for the RIAA.

Did we see this already?
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5388708.html


Geeks form political action committee

Three technology activists, including a Google product manager and an organizer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have formed a political action committee that aims to help pro-technology politicians and defeat the ones who want to expand copyright law.

Called IPac, the group is already planning to help out Democrat Brad Carson, who's in a tough race for the U.S. Senate in Oklahoma.

"Our main target is going to be the 2006 election, but during this election cycle, a few good opportunities came up," said IPac's Ren Bucholz, who manages EFF's grassroots activism network. In the last few years, Congress has been increasingly active on intellectual-property topics and is currently considering controversial bills to target file-trading users and products that could "induce" someone to violate copyright law.

Bucholz says that Carson has signed IPac's statement of principles, which says that "new intellectual-property laws threaten to stifle...freedoms and restrict public participation in science, art and political discourse." Carson is neck and neck with Republican Tom Coburn in a race to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Don Nickles.

IPac's other organizers are David Alpert, a "technical evangelism manager" at Google and host of Drinking Liberally, which is described on its Web site as an "informal, inclusive weekly Democratic drinking club," and Matt Stoller, a Washington, D.C.-based political consultant who helped organize blogger credentials at the Democratic National Convention. All three founders say their employers are not affiliated with IPac.

Will Rodger, director of public policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, applauded the idea of IPac. (CCIA runs a modest political action committee of its own.)

"Assuming that people aren't going to contribute to ours first, this looks like a great idea," Rodger said. "There are few issues of greater importance to the tech industry. But they're going to have to convince people on an issue that's really hard to understand."

Even though not one of the three organizers is a Republican, IPac plans to take a kind of free-market, libertarian view and be nonpartisan, its founders say. Its Web site, which asks visitors for contributions, endorses three Democrats and three Republicans.

i guess i know who i am voting for in Nov.

thanks Carla

"extraterrestrial political characterization"
George, if I somehow, subliminally indicated I thought Scalia is an alien or comes from some place outside earth ("extraterrestrial") then I apologize.

I know I did not overtly say he was an alien , did not use the word UFO, or extraterrestrial, so I'm not sure where this idea came from.

Quite to the contrary, I think Scalia is ALL TOO terrestrial, in that he represents to me, the WORST in humans, an intolerant, sexually depraved NeoCon who opposes individual freedom and an open government.

Thank you.

I don't think Scalia is from outer space. He just makes decisions that are "out there". I think he considers himself "above the law".

Why ronnie -- do you live in Oklahoma?

I thought Cary Sherman or Mitch Bainwol epitomized the worst in humans. Or George Bush.

Everyone in the government cannot be the AntiChrist.

Why not, George? They could all be different facets of the same horrible beast.

I have not communicated well enough I suppose. How do we influence the Supreme Court?

An unprecedented outpouring of amicus briefs. What I characterized as a "tsunami."

Now why would we think the elderly Supreme Court is not pre-disposed (in a conservative knee-jerk reflex) to protect corporate interests and expand the property ideals?

The Supremes denied Eldred. (I'll grant you this, it was a narrow interpretation. Concerning the congress having sole authority to decide trhe duration of copyrights.)

Amicus briefs from who, Tom?

yes I do, and im glad you posted that because i was unsure who to vote for ...