To: "Col. Harry S. Bachstein" 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Status: O
X-Status: 

Three cheers for Phyllis Schafley.

John Knight




---"Col. Harry S. Bachstein"  wrote:
>
> From: Scott Laughlin 
> Subject: IP: H.R. 2281: Internet Copyright Infringement Liability
>   Clarification Act.
> 
> 
> Everyone;
> 
> Below is a column written by Phyllis Schlafly which is posted on The
Drudge
> Report about another attempt to muzzle the internet community.
> 
> This all may be Joseph Farah and WorldNetDaily's and certainly Matt
Drudge's
> and the Drudge Report fault.  These guys are now just too good at
what they
> do -- and they have become too influential for the Elites to just
ignore
> them and hope they go away.  Witness the resent success of the Online
> Conservative Community the last 3 weeks.  The retraction of CNN's
'Tailwind'
> story and the postponement of EO 13083 (maybe even the resignation of
> McCurry?) would not have happened without the watchdog liberty
groups online.
> 
> Congratulations everyone! You are making a difference! And the
Elites are
> feeling threatened. (To give credit where credit is due, I first saw
> coverage of EO 13083 on Forest Glen Durland's web site:
> http://www.uhuh.com/. nice job Forest! Which was then posted to the
Ignition
> Point list server)  
> 
> However this only means that the Elites are going to take more
drastic and
> devious methods to muzzle the internet and reduce individual freedom
such as
> the bill described in the column below (witness as well all the
recent gun
> grabbing attempts/legislation).  
> 
> I am convinced that they are acting prematurely (or is it too late?)
and
> that their actions will convince an even greater number of people to
wake up
> to the fact that our liberties are under assault.
> 
> Scott 
> 
> ****************************************
> 
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
> 
> >PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
> >July 21, 1998
> >
> >When asked by reporters whether she favors curbs on the Internet,
which has
> >played a key role in breaking the news about the president's
scandals,
> >Hillary Rodham Clinton ominously replied: ''We are all going to
have to
> >rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these
competing values.'' 
> >
> >According to a Reuters dispatch, she went on to deplore the fact
that the
> >Internet lacks ''any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
function.'' 
> >
> >The now famous appearance of Matt Drudge at the National Press Club
showed
> >that Hillary Clinton is not alone in attacking the notion that a
Web site,
> >such as the Drudge Report, without any supervisory editor, can
compete with
> >established news sources. The copyright bill now racing through
Congress,
> >H.R. 2281, appears to emanate out of this same mind-set that we
should
> >rethink our laws about freedom of the Internet. 
> >
> >Copyrights are, of course, a good thing. But the lobbyists for
Hollywood,
> >cable, software and publishing industries are exploiting temporary
confusion
> >on Capitol Hill over high-tech issues. 
> >
> >The problem is the changes to copyright law contained in H.R.
2281's main
> >sections, the WIPO Copyright Treaties Implementation Act and the
Internet
> >Copyright Infringement Liability Clarification Act. H.R. 2281 has
many
> >provisions that are unacceptable in a free society. 
> >
> >H.R. 2281 sets up a procedure that effectively turns Internet service
> >providers into gatekeepers. A competitor, asserting that you are
infringing
> >his copyright, can demand that your service provider delete your
Web site,
> >file or link. 
> >
> >H.R. 2281 makes it almost sure that your service provider will
punch the
> >delete button, no matter how insubstantial or frivolous the
complaint. The
> >bill reads: ''A service provider shall not be liable for monetary
relief ...
> >for infringement ... if the provider ... responds expeditiously to
remove or
> >disable the reference or link upon notification of claimed
infringement.'' 
> >
> >It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, when a service
> >provider receives an intimidating letter on legal letterhead
demanding X,
> >and he knows that if he expeditiously does X, he is immune from a
lawsuit,
> >most service providers will do X. And, presto, your Web site, file
or link
> >the private property of the future is taken from you without due
process. 
> >
> >H.R. 2281 enables a bully (a corporation or special interest lobby)
to
> >eliminate future Drudges and others by merely intimidating the
Internet
> >service provider. Neither a court order nor even a registered
copyright is
> >necessary for a competitor to demand removal of material from the
Internet. 
> >
> >The advocates of H.R. 2281 assert that the bill is designed to
prohibit
> >''black box'' descramblers for cable TV, but the language of the
bill goes
> >far beyond this excuse. The bill will allow seizure of your
computer or VCR
> >without advance notice and without any finding of wrongdoing. 
> >
> >This bill imposes prison sentences of up to five years if a federal
court
> >determines that you were using a computer, VCR or Web site contrary
to the
> >rights of a copyright owner. H.R. 2281 empowers a federal judge to
order the
> >seizure of your personal computer or VCR without any finding of
wrongdoing,
> >even in the absence of any pending criminal prosecution. 
> >
> >A proposed change to allow for 72-hour advance notice was rejected,
even
> >though prior notice of a deprivation of property is a
constitutional right
> >of due process. It could take you years of litigation to get your
computer
> >returned, and meanwhile your business is ruined just because of an
alleged
> >copyright infringement. 
> >
> >We've heard a lot of rhetoric from free marketeers who want to
prohibit
> >taxes on the Internet but, as bad as taxes are, they impose only a
marginal
> >cost. H.R. 2281 would empower federal judges, and even your business
> >competitors, to force a seizure of your property without any
finding of guilt. 
> >
> >The bill provides for a replacement of seized property, but only
under
> >certain conditions and only after the damage has already been done. 
> >
> >Microsoft, Time Warner, Hollywood and the publishing industry, the
chief
> >backers of H.R. 2281, should be able to protect themselves against
> >unauthorized users without new legislation. Big corporations should
not be
> >permitted to use federal prosecutors and judges, spending taxpayer
dollars,
> >to defend corporate interests against competitors. 
> >
> >As Silicon Valley engineers know, the computer industry was
developed by the
> >use of reverse engineering of competitors' products for the purpose
of
> >copying interfaces and discovering unpatented features. The
Internet itself
> >is built on widespread copying and unfettered competition, with
enormous
> >benefit to the public. 
> >
> >H.R. 2281 includes an exemption for reverse engineering, but it is
limited
> >to having a ''sole purpose'' of engineering ''necessary'' for
> >interoperability. That is so narrow that it is almost meaningless,
and a
> >competitor faces five years in jail if the court disagrees about the
> >necessity or if the engineer could have learned the same
information through
> >a different, perhaps costlier, means. 
> >
> >Congress will be making an enormous mistake if it empowers federal
judges
> >and gatekeepers to control the Internet. Reports are moved when
> >circumstances warrant
> >(c)DRUDGE REPORT 1998 
> >
> >NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is
> >distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior
> >interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
> >educational purposes only. 
> >-----------------------
> 
> 
> Yours for Liberty;
> 
> /s/ G. Scott Laughlin
> 
> "I, for one, want to go on record as favoring chaos. Nothing is more
> precious to me than my freedom. And the Constitution of the United
States
> says no government authority has the right to take it away. I have
nothing
> but contempt for politicians who believe they have the right and the
power
> to turn this country into a police state for any reason." --Joseph
Farah,
> column of July 17, 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> COL. HARRY S. BACHSTEIN
> http://members.aol.com/bach11/adventurer.htm
> "Man is not my Ultimate Judge."
> **************************************************/
> NEW! The Colonel has joined STEELHORSE MAGAZINE    / 
> http://www.steelhorsemag.com                                        
          /
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


From nate_sklaroff@cmagroup.com Fri Jul 24 16:58:12 1998
>From nate_sklaroff@cmagroup.com  Fri Jul 24 16:58:12 1998
Received: from mg1.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.11])
	by pony-1.mail.digex.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA03937
	for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
	by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA08042
	for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:58:08 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from email.cmagroup.com ([206.247.5.11])
	by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26371
	for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 14:57:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: