Biden's Bias?
With Joe Biden tapped to be Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate, the Delaware senator's voting record is being re-examined with a whole new slew of priorities. Among them is Biden's record with respects to technology and consumer advocacy, which some say sports a conspicuous tilt toward big business and big government.
When it comes to copyright issues, net neutrality, P2P networks, wiretapping, and digital privacy, Biden has historically stood with the establishment - backing the RIAA, the FBI, and looking skeptically on many issues dealing with internet rights.
Biden's 2002 bill that would have made felons out of those who executed certain unapproved computer programs or played unauthorized music was backed by content companies but killed by Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay and Yahoo. Biden didn't stop there:
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.
Further complicating matters for the VP hopeful is his "steadfast" refusal to discuss his technological viewpoints, including his occasional support for internet taxation. There's a lot more going on here than one post can summarize, but CNet's Declan McCullagh has excellent in-depth analysis of the voting record of the man who might very well be our next Vice President.
Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record [CNet]
tiny dancer
Posted to Hot Stuff, Miscellany on 26 August 2008
· Comments (17)
Other stuff like this: barack obama, internet tax, joe biden, p2p, riaa, voting record
Name: Dave
It's good to have a reminder now and then that Democrats are often corporate whores too. There really is no party who can reliably be trusted to back individual liberties over the whims of industry, so you might as well declare that issue a wash and vote based on other ones.
For me, the needle still falls on the blue side of the meter, but for other people, who knows.
Seriously, Tiny, thanks so much for posting this. Not being one to frequent techie blogs but caring nonetheless about these issues, I'm happy to have been told this. I'm voting Obama anyway, of course, but I wouldn't have known unless you gave us a heads up.
Things like this make me love you guys.
John McCain is also a corporate slave too.
We need our own political action committee. So we could breed our own politicians.
I am not pleased with this year's section of presidential candidates.
It would also seem that Biden is a little too chummy with the credit card industry.
"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.)"
No sir, I don't like him. Anyone who supports the RIAA is bad, very bad.
I agree with Brandon, anyone with the back pocket of the RIAA is untrustworthy, but then it's just a tradition in the US that running mates are grossly useless/nameless.
McCain is also a stooge, but then so is/was Obama, Hilary, Gore, Bush, Kennedy, Bush snr, Carter, Ford, Reagan etc.
The point is all politicians are corrupted, trough snouting, in it for themselves sycophantic bastards, the trick is finding the bastard who agrees the most with your standpoint.
Not just the politicians, but the lobbyists too, and some of them in our own backyard. Hilary Rosen was the head of the RIAA during the worst of the Napster freakout, and left that job to head up the HRC. (A job she got apparently because of her partner at the time. She has, thankfully, been replaced.)
Still, assuming that this VP isn't going to run the country, and given the Obama campaign's Net-savvy nature (and indeed reliance), I'm not too worried that Biden would influence things much in this regard. Hell, it's probably better to get him out of the Senate.
This is one of the issues that has always put me at odds with most of my Gay peers. The Democrats, while being slightly more gay-friendly, have been responsible for the most repressive laws on technology. Unfortunately that hasn't been well understood by the non-geek culture. I've had some very awkward moments trying to explain my position to some enraged queen when someone outs me as anti-Democrat at gatherings.
Bill Clinton signed the DMCA, not Bush. I could never vote for a democrat. Obviously I couldn't vote for a Republican, but in my mind the DMCA is just as bad as all of the Medieval horseshit Conservatives are up to.
I wouldn't worry too much about those kinds of people, the average queen wouldn't even be able to spell vote, let alone have one worth the paper it's printed on.
Follow who you want, if you agree with the Republicans, vote for them, it isn't like voting for the BNP here in the UK, as the Reps aren't racist and evil, contrary to popular belief.
As an actual question, I would like to see some hard figures on Democrats on the gay rights front, are blue states more likely to be supportive, would those states be supportive anyway, etc etc..
I'm a cynic and can't help feel they all shouldercharge for the pink vote, but rarely deliver on their promises.
Please don't think I'm being partisan, but historically the Democratic party hasn't exactly endeared themselves to the interactive entertainment industry... or the music industry, or the film industry.
Several (un)successful attempts to dissuade the creative community from publishing and creating socially unacceptable media fell on deaf ears throughout the late-80s and early 90s. Anyone here remember the countless congressional hearings during the whole Mortal Kombat/Night Trap days with Lieberman and Company?
Historically this hasn't changed, to the point that the most significant name attached to the ridiculous Hot Coffee scandal was none other than Hillary Clinton. I don't ordinarily side with the conservatives, but at least they learned their lesson after taking on film and comics in the 50s.
Biden was a TERRIBLE, AWFUL choice for Obama in so many ways it makes my head dizzy!! never thought I'd say this, but as long as he doesn't goof it up, I'll prolly go with McCain this time around.
Even if Joe Biden leans towards repressive laws in technology, is it not a better choice to elect the Obama/Biden ticket to office over Mccain? Under another Republican term, gay and woman rights will possibly suffer, younger conservative justices could be place into the Supreme Court, and America might pick fights with Iran and Russia. Research into alternative forms of energy could also be placed on the sidelines as well.
I am not saying that a Democratic term will perform all of what they are promising to this country. But you have to consider what a Republican term might carry out.
If a slew of repressive technology laws do get passed under the Democrats, then ,like matt in california suggested, it is up to the people to oppose it, and put politicians in office who will combat it. Seeing as how multiple internet users share music with multiple others, it would be difficult to pass laws that bar such action. There would definitely be a big reaction that lawmakers would have to acknowledge before writing their rules in stone.
And yes, I do appreciate posts such as these. I do not know too much about Biden as a politician, so it is always good to see where these people stand on certain issues whatever their political affinity. All signs point to blue for me.
Very good things to keep in mind.
I'm still definitely voting for Obama/Biden, because despite that I disagree on some things, they are still LIGHT YEARS beyond the homophobic, war-mongoring, anti-health care McSame, and whatever rightwing bigot he picks as his running mate (not to mention the backward fascists he would almost certainly put on the Supreme Court!).
Hopefully we will have Biden as our VP and we'll have the opportunity to discuss these issues with him.
...or we'll get McCain and have so many more serious social problems that things like net neutrality will be the least of our concerns.
one thing that i realized today, after the attempted assasination on Obama, is that in electing obama, we may very well be voting in Biden... without even noticing it. It may be a conspiracy theory, but its something Obama, and Biden surely thought about..
I'm with you, Eshto.
AliceKK: And no one's thinking that about McCain (re: his yet-to-be-named VP), who is 72 and won't fully disclose his medical records? It's got to be a consideration every election, but sadly especially this election, on both sides.
As for blue states being more supportive, look at the states that recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions: All of New England, the West Coast, NY, NJ, Maryland, DC. (Yes, RI and NY only recognize those performed out-of-state, but still.) The least blue of those? New Hampshire. And it's been decidedly blue-ish since 2004. I can't think of a better measure of "more supportive" than equal treatment under the (local) law.
Voting for McCain is essentially voting for a third Bush term at this point, so if this is enough to make you for for another warmongering twit that has no clue how reality works, then by all means empower the party that has made demonizing gay people their MO and vote for him. I just hope that when that next anti-gay rights law gets passed in your state because of Republicans still being in power, you can look at yourself in the mirror. I certainly wouldn't be able to.
"LOOK AT MY RHETORIC, I TAKE INCONSEQUENTIAL THINGS TALKED OF ON THE INTERNETS PERSONALLY."
Although that is the level I expected this to denegrate too as people mentioned they'd vote Republican, like Tory voters here in the UK.
Who people vote for is none of your business, and your bludgeoning of them with issues will not change their opinions.
Discuss by all means, but forcing your beliefs [exactly what you and others are doing, for the record] changes nobodies opinions.
A lot of people should look themselves in their own mirrors and realise they're [almost] as intolerant as those they seek to throw out of office.
You cannot force opinions to change, they either will or won't, and I doubt been bullied by rhetoric will make them change their minds.
Stating your opinions in public makes them everyone else's business, Neo, and open for criticism. Freedom of speech is no one-way street.
Along those same lines, don't pretend you would walk into a gay bar or community center saying "the average queen wouldn't even know how to spell vote, let alone have one worth the paper it's printed on" unless you were looking for a fight.