Who Are the Tech-Friendly Candidates?

February 6, 2008 -

Last week, GamePolitics reported on Yahoo! Games' recap of where the major presidential candidates stand on video game issues.

Cnet's Declan McCullagh has now penned an insightful article which outlines how the top candidates view some critical technology issues. While not game-specific, some of these issues will certainly affect gamers in a significant way. Writes McCullagh:
 

Who would be the most tech-friendly president?

The short answer: it depends. Do you like the idea of Net neutrality so much that you'd hand the Federal Communications Commission the authority to levy open-ended Internet regulations? Do you support pro-fair use changes to copyright law, which many programmers and computer scientists do--but which practically all software and video game companies oppose?


McCullagh sought the candidates' positions on seven key tech issues: Net neutrality legislation; Telecom spying immunity; DMCA fair use reform; Supports Real ID Act; ISP data retention required; Permanent Net-tax ban; and Increased H1-B visas.

Of these, Net neutrality and DMCA fair use reform are probably of the most immediate interest to gamers, so we'll look at those.

On Net neutrality, the question posed to the candidates was:
 

Congress has considered Net neutrality legislation, but it never became law. Do you support the legislation that was re-introduced in 2007 (S 215), which gives the FCC the power to punish "discriminatory" conduct by broadband providers?


Those strongly in favor of Net neutrality: Clinton, Obama
Those opposed: McCain, Paul
"Maybe": Huckabee
Ducked question: Romney

On DMCA fair use reform, the question posed to the candidates was:
 

The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's section restricting the "circumvention" of copy protection measures is supported by many copyright holders but has been criticized by some technologists as hindering innovation. Would you support changing the DMCA to permit Americans to make a single backup copy of a DVD, Blu-ray Disc DVD, HD DVD, or video game disc they have legally purchased?


Those probably in favor: Obama, Paul
Ducked question: Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton

Read McCullagh's full article here...

Comments

Am I the only one here who supported Edwards, or wishes the Dem ticket will be Obama/Edwards (since the two don't have much bad blood in them)?

@warotter

She did WHAT?! She condemned Don Imus and helped the team 'through the healing process'. That really is political BS at it's upmost finest. Listen if you can be deeply hurt by a not-eve-remotely serious joke when the person who said it apologised repeatedly, one wonders how the hell you are tough enough to handle sports.

Please tell me Barack didn't do the same thing.

How about Obama and Ron paul as his VP =^^=

the world would implode from the awesomeness!

I just looked it up and Barack also condemned Imus . . . crap. Oh well, stuff like that usually don't get the president involved.

Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck 08'

Of course Hillary Clinton ducked the DMCA question; her husband signed the damn thing into law in the FIRST place.

oh how I hope Obama wins if he doesn't then im voting for Kratos

As a Republican, I'll obviously be putting my vote towards McCain. However, if I was a Democrat, I can say right now that I'd rather see Obama in office; I'm strongly opposed towards Hillary's "nanny-state" policy... sounds more like communism to me, it does.

I see a lot of Republicans talking about the nanny state. I just have a simple reminder that NCLBA put the feds in charge of our school, oddly enough without sufficient fed funding. They also made it legal to wiretap any phone call they see fit without a warrant. Currently, they are trying to make sure any Telco participating in illegal wiretapping has retroactive immunity. Not to mention a 6 year record of spending no Democrat could match.

Just saying, maybe you shouldn't go throwing terms like communism and nanny around if you're just as guilty. Both parties want to run our lives, just different parts. Republicans want to run our sex lives and legislate morality in all sorts of ways, and dems want more control over our money and economy.

I do get a good chuckle out of a person denouncing big government out of one side of their mouth, then praising Republicans out the other.

Obama cant win. He's got a free pass from the press so far, but that would change if he's the nominee, and he'll be savaged by the republicans. Theyre staying quiet for now in hopes that he'll be the nominee and then they can unload on him.

Also if you look at the polls of who votes for Obama in the primaries, its all blacks and upper class liberals. These are voters that any democrat already has; Hillary would get these voters in a genral election too. But Hillarys voters (hispanics, blue collar white democrats, older democrats) could vote for McCain.

This is why people support Hillary. They dont think she's that great, but they know, contrary to what you hear in the media, that she is much more likely to win a general eleciton. And with the supreme court on the line (up to 3 nominations for the next president), this is extremely important for civl liberties and for video games. Although Hillary demagogues video games, she is very likely to nominate judges with a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

That is how Id run for Office too. Id criticise video games (to get votes) and then nominate judges that would protect free expression for them. Thats how politics work.

@Gray17:
I find it hard to believe Microsoft supports Net Neutrality (that website you left said it does). They want monthly payment for everything (such as playing online when you already have internet i.e. Xbox Live & PC Live) and are major copyrighters. They are trying to shut down other companies so there is no competition.

@Tricause

That'd be because Net Neutrality is about ISPs that own the physical network cables, and Microsoft isn't an ISP that owns a bunch of physical network cables. It's to Microsoft's disadvantage if, say, Comcast was legally allowed to charge their customers ten dollars extra if they wanted to reach Microsoft's website at anything resembling a decent speed, and charge Microsoft a thousand dollars extra for Comcast's subscribers to be able to reach Microsoft's website at all.

In short, Net Neutrality favors everyone except big telecoms, and Microsoft, along with the other big companies listed aren't big telecoms. So of course Microsoft would favor it, despite their general anti-competitive bent. They already pay a princely sum for the bandwidth needed to ensure that their customers can reach their web presence unhindered. They don't want every telecom extracting a pound of flesh from them on top of that.

@monkeypeaches

Mickey Mouse/Goofy is better =p

Why do I personally hate Hillary? Four words....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

That says everything I loathe about her in a nutshell. It should speak volumes to every gamer here on whether or not to vote for her. And dammit, despite the numbers, I hope everyone realizes that this crazy windbag shouldn't be president before it's too late... not because she's a woman, but because she's a woman who doesn't necessarily have the best agendas in mind.

Broken Scope
I disagree once in office he has no choice but to walk the middle, and "they" would be a better choice than the brain eating zombie lords from the reapers and dims.....

Ron Paul would be for Net Neutrality as it would allow freedom for internet users. This article is pretty much wrong considering this fact. Anything that constitutes a violation of individual freedom Paul is against and not having Net Neutrality is one of those violations.

This just in, Mitt Romney is dropping out.

MAX FOR PRESIDENT!

...okay, i'm Canadian. But I think that America should be allowed to make that personal copy. If I could vote I would go Obama right now...
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightOh, no problem! Just wanted to let you know that it's what we're discussing. By all means, join in!10/02/2014 - 11:36am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, No problem. In juicy conversations, key points of discussion get pushed off quickly.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoA rather scary censorship. I have known too many people and small companies destroyed by such pressure, so this unnerves me at a pretty personal level.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoMy bad, I always have trouble working out what is going on in shoutbox10/02/2014 - 11:34am
Papa MidnightTo a point stated earlier, it very much is a form of indirect censorship. Rather than engage in rhetoric and debate, one side has instead chosen to cut-off opposing viewpoints at the knees and silence them via destroying their means of income.10/02/2014 - 11:28am
Papa MidnightNeeneko: the topic of Intel's dropping of Gamasutra is indeed part of this very ongoing conversation.10/02/2014 - 11:26am
NeenekoThis can't be good... http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/10/02/1558213/intel-drops-gamasutra-sponsorship-over-controversial-editorials10/02/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenAnd there's also the consideration that the fact that a former IGN editor was one of the people who worked on the game's localization may be unknown (although in this specific case, probably not. Drakes been very visible at events IGN covers).10/02/2014 - 11:24am
Papa MidnightAlso, let's face it: people seem to believe that a conflict of interest can yield only positive coverage. Who is to say that Audrey Drake did not leave on bad terms with IGN (with several bridges burned in their wake)? That could yield negative coverage.10/02/2014 - 11:23am
Papa MidnightThat's a fair question, and it's where things get difficult. While Jose Otero may not have any cause to show favor, Jose's editor may, as may the senior editor (and anyone else involved in the process before it reaches publication).10/02/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenWould such disclosure still be required if Fantasy Life were reviewed by Jose Otero, who wasn't hired by IGN until sometime after Drake left?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
Papa MidnightIn that case, a disclosure might be in order. The problem, of course, is applying it on a case-by-case basis; As EZK said, what's the cut-off?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
E. Zachary KnightAndrew, a disclosure would probably be in order as she likely still has a strong relationship with IGN staff. My follow up question would be "What is the statute of limitations on such a requirement?"10/02/2014 - 11:09am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, my hyperbole was intended to illustrate the difference and similarity between direct censorship and indirect censorship.10/02/2014 - 11:07am
Andrew EisenOpen Question: Former IGN Nintendo editor Audrey Drake now works in the Nintendo Treehouse. Do you think it's important for IGN to disclose this fact in the review of Fantasy Life, a game she worked on? Should IGN recuse itself from reviewing the game?10/02/2014 - 11:07am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My thoughts on disclosure: http://gamepolitics.com/2014/09/25/what-your-gamergate-wish-list#comment-29598710/02/2014 - 11:02am
Sleaker@EZK - using hyperbole is a bit silly. I'm asking a serious question. Where's the line on disclosure as relates to journalistic involvement in the culture they report on?10/02/2014 - 10:59am
E. Zachary KnightSo a journalist reporting on general gaming news mentions a specific developer and their game involved in said news, and it is suddenly some nefarious conspiracy to hide a conflict of interest. I think someone is reaching for validation.10/02/2014 - 10:53am
Andrew EisenYes, imagine anyone insisting that two utterences of the phrase "Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn" wasn't influenced by something happening in the future!10/02/2014 - 10:52am
Sleaker@Pap Midnight - So wouldn't it be any journalist writing about general gaming culture would need to disclose any and all links/ties to said general gaming culture to be ethical? Also @EZK to use you're own methodology, I'm still curious on the question10/02/2014 - 10:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician