Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

U.S. to Get New IP Czar

Posted by timothy on Wed Nov 24, 2004 09:07 AM
from the czar-job-crisis-nearly-over dept.
tetraminoe writes "Reuters is reporting that Congress's latest spending bill provides for the creation of a federal copyright enforcement czar. According to the article, 'Under the program, the president can appoint a copyright law enforcement officer whose job is to coordinate law enforcement efforts aimed at stopping international copyright infringement and to oversee a federal umbrella agency responsible for administering intellectual property law.' It also gives $2 million to the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLAC), created in the '90s and never funded. NIPLAC will work to protect American IP overseas and oversee enforcement."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] DOJ Doesn't Like the Idea of A Copyright Czar 215 comments
sconeu writes "Seems as if the DOJ is not particularly happy about HR 4729, the 'Copyright Czar' bill. The Deputy AG told Congress that the current structure works quite effectively. 'Panel members also expressed concern over Section 104 of the bill, which would allow a copyright owner to collect statutory damages for each copyrighted work that is stolen. Detractors fear that this provision could result in protracted lawsuits ... Section 104, however, would penalize criminals on a per-song basis, so if someone pirated a motion picture soundtrack that had songs from 12 different artists, the pirate would be charged with 12 separate offenses and be subject to exorbitant fees.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: PRO-IP and PIRATE Acts Fused Into New Bill 324 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have just sponsored a new bill, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, which would combine the worst parts of the PRO-IP Act and the PIRATE Act. The basic idea is pretty simple: expand the Federal government to create something like the Department of Homeland Security for IP. The Copyright Czar then polices the internet and clogs the courts with thousands of civil lawsuits against individual infringers so the RIAA doesn't have to. Feel free to contact your representatives with your feelings about this bill. Right now, they believe the bill (PDF) will 'protect jobs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:09AM (#10908525)
    ...is version 6. But knowing the government, I doubt it.
      • by Trizor (797662) <trizor@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 24 2004, @12:36PM (#10910280)
        More like the entire political system. Corporations have gotten so close to politicians that the interest conflict is worse than the Cold War. We need to separate corporation and state, and church and state, because religion is weeding its way back in.
  • Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by btwIANAL (763061) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:10AM (#10908530)
    I am just glad they found a cause better than education to give money to. I was affraid my kids might get an educaion. Everyone knows we cant have that.
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

      by finkployd (12902) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:14AM (#10908576) Homepage
      I am just glad they found a cause better than education to give money to. I was affraid my kids might get an educaion.

      They are getting an education in how government operates and where its priorities are.

      Copyright law, as intended, has certainly jumped the shark and needs to be completely re-writen or eliminated (which, while not ideal would be a better situation than we are heading toward)

      Finkployd
      • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hype7 (239530) <emptyskiesNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:49AM (#10908864) Journal
        They are getting an education in how government operates and where its priorities are.


        Copyright law, as intended, has certainly jumped the shark and needs to be completely re-writen or eliminated (which, while not ideal would be a better situation than we are heading toward)


        You'd have thought the lawsuits would have done that [theregister.co.uk] for most of the kids.

        Maybe it's me, but the US seems to be heading down a deeper and deeper spiral, with the Government losing sight of the fact it exists for the people, by the people. Instead, it's for the corps, by the corps. Even wars are seen in economic terms.

        Until all the political donations by artificial entities are eliminated, things are going to get a lot worse.

        -- james
        • Historical note (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Lifewish (724999) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @12:23PM (#10910082) Homepage Journal
          Read some Machiavelli. Wars have historically almost always been seen in economical and political terms. At the moment, the US is powerful enough and self-confident enough not to worry about the political, hence the economic factors will tend to take precedence.
        • by Atario (673917) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @03:12PM (#10911946) Homepage
          You hit the nail on the head. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" became "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations" bit by bit as corporate personhood [wikipedia.org] became the norm in the US. Since corporations are immortal and made of the labor of many people, however, they have a distinct advantage over the rest of us poor slobs.
    • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

      The government controls money.
      The government controls the military.
      The government controls the law.
      The government controls the prisons.

      I dunno.. somehow, I don't feel comfortable with the government also controlling the schools.
      • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's a meazley $2 million.

        I'm gonna call BS on that right now. The low dollar cost projects SETI, PBS, and NEA have been favorite points of attack for the dems and pubes in their little budget battles for years - any government funding of this sort of philosophical project is an endorsement of it by the recognized rules of engagement.

  • by mordors9 (665662) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:11AM (#10908548)
    I feel so much better knowing my tax money is going to help fund the enforcement efforts of the RIAA and MPAA. Obviously that is much more important than the fact our borders are wide open, that security screeners at the airport are more concerned about searching 78 year old black men and 18 year old young ladies than some more obvious candidates. Sorry for the rant.
    • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Safety Cap (253500) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:17AM (#10908610) Homepage Journal
      Obviously that is much more important than the fact our borders are wide open, that security screeners at the airport are more concerned about searching 78 year old black men and 18 year old young ladies than some more obvious candidates.
      Airport and border security have always been a joke. The point of the TSA is to con you into thinking you're "safe" so you'll go about your life instead of cowering in fear.
      I feel so much better knowing my tax money is going to help fund the enforcement efforts of the RIAA and MPAA.

      As for being the enforcement arm of the *AA, this country's core creed is "the protection of capital" even to the point of propping up failed business models (hey, it works for Amtrak and the Big Three Airlines). Ignore that at your peril.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

        by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:27AM (#10908692) Homepage
        Airport and border security have always been a joke. The point of the TSA is to con you into thinking you're "safe" so you'll go about your life instead of cowering in fear.

        Shhh, don't say that too loud.

        Do you want the population to hear you undermining our system of security? Every time you criticize our leaders and the safeguards they have put in place to keep you and me safe... you help the terrorists win.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        I think we do have a problem in trying to maintain businesses indefinitely, and many times we blatantly reference the size and age of the businesses as arguments as to why they should be helped. If a business is ailing, let it die. Procuring money and maintaining failed business models creates a very perverse and greedy economy that is no longer based on trade.
    • Read again. This isn't just movies and music. It's knock off goods posing as real goods. Such as purses, and physical CDs and DVDs. Nothing is mentioned about the internet. This should also include fake Games, computer equipment and many other things posing as real (Official) ones.
  • big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SubtleNuance (184325) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:11AM (#10908549) Journal
    Im sure the war on CopyrightAbuse will be as affective as the War on Drugs and the The War on Terra.
    • Highly effective. Why, millions of dollars have already been diverted away from valuable programs like our pathetically underfunded education system, so it must be working. Otherwise why waste the money, right? I mean, with all of the students turning to drugs and violence because they're the intellectual inferior of an H1-B immigrant from Calcutta who barely speaks english, then the war on drugs and terror must be tremendously effective to have any sort of net gain.

      Trust your government: they're here t
    • Re:big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ratamacue (593855) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @10:34AM (#10909229)
      Effective as in creating the first prerequisite for organized crime (a black market), providing justification for more expansion of government powers? Or effective as in fostering hatred and resent around the world, providing justification for more expansion of government powers? If government is lucky, it will be both.

      Any way you look at it, government wins, at the expense of the individual.

      Ending or "winning" the war on drugs, or the war on terror, or poverty, or copyright abuse, is the last thing government wants to do. These programs are set up not to succeed, but to provide a steady stream of revenue and justification for expansion of government powers.

    • The rights and liberties of American citizens saw the greatest curtailment in generations over those two wars. I'm afraid you're right.
  • by The I Shing (700142) * on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:12AM (#10908554) Journal
    Why do I get the idea that this new IP czar isn't going to be concerning himself much with corporations abusing copyright law to silence their critics and prevent parody and satire being made about their property?

    And is he going to work toward finding a middle ground between fair use and IP protection? I have my doubts.
  • Imagine! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tkrotchko (124118) * on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:13AM (#10908558) Homepage
    Its comforting to know that a government agency will be responsible for ensuring the MPAA and RIAA are profitable.

    And we get to pay for it both on the enforcement and higher prices caused by inefficient distribution systems.

    What a warm way to start this holiday.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:13AM (#10908561) Homepage Journal
    Now we'll finally stop screwing around like a bunch of liberals, and invade Russia to stop their theft of honest American labor. Once we've got them whipped, it's on to China! The Czar rides again!
  • The real question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nametaken (610866) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:13AM (#10908565)
    Will they also be responsible for sifting through and cutting short spurious IP claims?
  • I for one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ravenspear (756059) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:15AM (#10908581)
    welcome our new Gov. enforcing, brutally regulating, fiercely punishing, justice mutilating, freedom curtailing, property upholding, paradigm shattering, useless blathering IP overlords.
  • Why NIPLAC? (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Dodger (10689) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:16AM (#10908594) Homepage
    I guess NIPLECC was too close for comfort. :-)

    D.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:16AM (#10908603)
    ... the copyright industry lacks sufficient funds to sue infringers on their own. Poor Disney. Poor Sony. Poor Universal. These guys really need a break!

  • by Le Marteau (206396) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:21AM (#10908636) Homepage Journal
    'Czar'? Weren't czar's, like, emperors who had ultimate rule in a non-free society?

    Is that what it's come down to in 21st century America? 'Czar's?

    At least the US gubment is going out in the open about it. No more of this pussy footing about the real intent here: screw freedom. Drug Czars, IP Czars, what next?

    • by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:51AM (#10908877) Homepage Journal
      IIRC czar was the Russian word for Ceasar. The ceasar of Rome ruled a republic (most of the time). Although the balance of power continually shifted, ceasar was not "the ultimate rule in a non-free society." Elected senators wrote laws.
      • by Mant (578427) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @10:33AM (#10909227) Homepage

        You're a little of base there.

        Originally Caesar was Julius Caesar's name, nothing more. It was later taken by his grand-nephew, Octavius the first Emperor, and later became a title.

        This [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia article has some info.

        You seem to be thinking of Consuls, the highest executive office in the Roman republic. The Caesers after Julius where Emperors, and ruled an empire, not a replublic.

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @10:00AM (#10908949)
      > 'Czar'? Weren't czar's, like, emperors who had ultimate rule in a non-free society?
      >
      >Is that what it's come down to in 21st century America? 'Czar's?
      >
      >At least the US gubment is going out in the open about it. No more of this pussy footing about the real intent here: screw freedom. Drug Czars, IP Czars, what next?

      In Tsarist Russia, Soviet Russia came next.

      You know the grand experiment in freedom has ended when Yakov Smirnoff jokes start sounding like a cross between Cold War era history textbooks and tonight's evening news.

    • It's marketing. "Czar" just sounds so much more "secret spy movie star" than "program director". Just like "war on terror" sounds much more righteous than "military conquest".
  • by petersam (754644) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:25AM (#10908672)
    Now the creation of someone to coordinate the United States' efforts to enforce international copyright law would be a good thing; who here thinks that its a good thing that you can buy "Oceans 12" or "Half Life 2" on the streets of Hong Kong today for 50 cents? With the WTO making the rules these days and our jobs being outsourced, I'm all for leveling the playing field and making sure that US companies and artists get compensated for their work.

    The bad news is that the other posters are right - this czar will probably focus more on coordinating the RIAA/MPAA legal fights and forcing computer makers to build in DRM so that I can't even legally backup copies of my own CDs/DVDs/etc.

    It frustrates me to see people who *share* content getting more persecuted/prosecuted than those who try to profit from stolen content - the real pirates.

    • Now the creation of someone to coordinate the United States' efforts to enforce international copyright law would be a good thing; who here thinks that its a good thing that you can buy "Oceans 12" or "Half Life 2" on the streets of Hong Kong today for 50 cents?

      I think that there should be only two precepts of international copyright law: 1) National treatment, i.e. that you treat foreigners the same as one's own people, and 2) Avoidance of conflicts so that obtaining a copyright in one place doesn't prec
    • I do (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "who here thinks that its a good thing that you can buy "Oceans 12" or "Half Life 2" on the streets of Hong Kong today for 50 cents?"

      Piracy is the only check we have on the price of games, movies, and CD's.

      CD prices have dropped recently. Why? Because the competition (i.e. "free") forced it down.

      There is a myth that if there was perfect copy protection, prices would decrease because of "less losses from piracy".

      In fact, prices go up in this situation, because there is no competition.

      I view a small a
  • by CheeseTroll (696413) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:27AM (#10908691)
    How about "Drug Fuhrer"?
    "Education Pharoah"?
    "Emperor of Homeland Security"?
  • by FunWithHeadlines (644929) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:27AM (#10908694) Homepage
    "While congressional aides said there was a lot of support for the program, its inclusion still raised some eyebrows as there have been questions about the government's involvement in protecting a private, for-profit enterprise. A recent congressional attempt to approve legislation known as the "Pirate Act," which would allow the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits, was turned back over complaints that it would advance Hollywood's interest at taxpayer expense.

    "This isn't the Pirate Act, but I think the taxpayers would be surprised that there's money being spent for copyright enforcement when terrorists and criminals still roam the streets," said Gigi Sohn, president of the nonprofit fair-use advocacy group Public Knowledge. "When every dollar is being counted for education, health care and homeland security, it seems like a strange priority."

    Indeed, it's funny how certain industries always seem to get government help when they need it. Must be nice. "Lesse, my business is suffering because of competitors who won't play by my rules. I could try to out market them, or out produce them, or enforce my own rules, or, wait a minute! I know! I'll just cut a check to my congresscritter and get them to do my job for me! Whee! Ain't America grand!"

    Maybe that's why the article began this way:

    "Buried inside the massive $388 billion spending bill Congress approved last weekend is a program that creates a federal copyright enforcement czar. "

    Yeah, better not let this one see too much of the light of day. Just bury it in the spending bill that has to pass.

  • by plinius (714075) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:34AM (#10908743)
    For those of you who don't know, there REALLY IS an international conspiracy to limit people's freedoms. Globalization according to the WTO/IMF/WorldBank is not about giving cellphones to Eskimos, it's about preventing sick people from getting patented drugs at a penny less than the Corporations allows. Things get really scary when you look at GATS VI.4, which creates a non-democratic Panel that will have veto power of parliaments, the US Congress, everything. It's real and it's very, very bad -- unless you hate freedom.
  • WIPO? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by isa-kuruption (317695) <<ten.noitpuruk> <ta> <noitpuruk>> on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:36AM (#10908767) Homepage
    I guess this is a national version of WIPO? Would NIPLAC deal directly with WIPO?

    I work for a company that has been attempting to "clean up" some fraudulent sites who use our copyrighted name to spam and sell "vi\[ag)(ra" and "c[]el3br1x" via email, www popups, etc. We, as a company, have delt with WIPO on many occasions since it seems a lot of the domain owners are in Asian nations (like China). Our efforts have been mediocre at best (it's been 6 months of chasing registrars and new registered owners to just live up to the WIPO ruling).

    Anyway, I wonder if we could use the gov't power of NIPLAC to assist us in obtaining these domain names. That would definately assist us in dealing with ICANN and their "approved" registrars, at the very least.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:40AM (#10908789) Homepage Journal
    its nice to know that all the terrorists have been eradicated so they are no longer a concern.

    Its nice to know that there are no more starving children in the country, or neglected. or abused.

    All other *real* crime has been removed from our land.. so now we can waste resources on meaningless things like this.. and have the feds invade farther into our lives, what should be civil issues?

    Don't we all just feel so much safer now?
  • by pherris (314792) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:45AM (#10908826) Homepage Journal
    Look at the position of "Drug Czar" and picture the same tactics used for IP enforcement: prison and "rehabilitation". How about if you violate an IP law you lose the ability to get a federally backed college student loan.

    The private prison industry is growing and to sustain that growth they need fresh meat. Any guesses who's on the menu?

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:52AM (#10908886) Homepage Journal
    ... is a single point of failure, one that can be bribed, could not be objective, could follow the pressures of RIAA/MPAA/etc instead of what is fair/freedom of speech/logic/etc, and will validate whatever atrocity is done in that matter ("the czar said so, bow and agree, or else.."). Even worse, will enforce the madness involved in IP/patents? where i can patent i.e. "thinking"?

    In the other hand, "international copyright infringements"... what about US infringements about international copyrights? US laws/view of the problem always seems to be "i am the right one, the other countries just copy what is done here" even when its not, same with the "fair trade" US definition (accept our products, lets see if I accept yours)

  • by Nohea (142708) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @10:24AM (#10909151)
    Criminal Penalties Suggested in S. 2560 are Anti-Consumer and Set Dangerous Precedent, Says ACU

    http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/040920.asp [conservative.org]
  • by mutterc (828335) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @12:29PM (#10910177)
    ... past which power will inexorably slide away from the people towards the corporations? Has it already been passed?

    If so, then everything we try to do to get consumer-friendly laws pass will be thwarted, and all we will be able to do is to watch as current trends move towards their logical conclusion, where there's a small number of ultra-rich corps/people, and the rest of the world lives like Bangladeshi farmers do today.

    Have a pleasant holiday!

    • ... past which power will inexorably slide away from the people towards the corporations? Has it already been passed?

      Possibly, but things have been worse than this before. The monopolists of the early 20th century USA were far worse than today's breed, and you're probably aware of the bloody awful lot the workers had in 19th century Britain.

      The great problem right now is that the corporations are beginning to surpass the governments in power. There are only a few countries in the world that are much we

  • by rwa2 (4391) * on Wednesday November 24 2004, @02:02PM (#10911197) Homepage Journal
    Much manufacturing is already outsourced. More software engineering is getting outsourced. What will be the most important thing that America contributes to the world market in the not-too-distant future?

    Distribution rights for copyrighted media and patent licenses!

    So all it will take for the US economy to collapse is basically the rest of the world deciding not to honor US IP. What a great thing it is to base our economy on.

    So the US just has to enforce their IP rights... I guess that's why we spend 15% of our budget on the military. At least it's less than what we spend on the Treasury department (presumably mostly on interest payments on the national debt)

    Numbers: (from a few years back, I ought to update this)
    http://hairball.bumba.net/~rwa2/misc/USbudg et/hist /US_Historical_budget,_1962_-_2008.html
    • by gcaseye6677 (694805) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:36AM (#10908762)
      Exactly. They've scared congress with enough tales of financial ruin that there will be even more heavy handed legislation and most importantly for them, federal enforcement. The civil copyright infringement remedies, which have traditionally relied on the owner for enforcement, have now been transferred to the taxpayers. But somehow I doubt the government would be nearly as responsive if some smalltime software developer asked for federal help to stop illegal distribution of his applications.
        • by Curunir_wolf (588405) <hholtNO@SPAMlizardslounge.org> on Wednesday November 24 2004, @05:35PM (#10913493) Homepage Journal
          Are you trying to imply that the RIAA is somehow not justified in its claims that downloaders on p2p services are hurting them?

          I'll imply it. In fact, I'll come right out and say it: The RIAA is not justified in its claims that downloaders on p2p services are hurting them. Primarily this is because their claims are overblown and are used by RIAA as the SOLE culprit in their revenue loss, when in fact it is only a small portion of the blame.

          Let me explain the simple math for you: if you have a choice between "paying" and "not paying" for music, which will you do? Speak for yourself. Since you seem to have no regard for the law, I suppose you will do anything you can get away with. Personally, I don't care for the crap the RIAA label put out these days, and I don't buy it, and I don't listen to it (other than occasionally on radio and tv, or at a bar - I do have friends and family).

          Artists (even bad ones) should have some way of being compensated, if that's what they care about. But the RIAA model of stealing from artists, controlling the broadcasters, and ripping off the public is old and dying and deserves no respect. And using the government to protect their dying business model is plain evil.

          So yess[sic], the RIAA has 100% legit claims of financial ruin.

          So, along with the airline industry, the auto industry, etc., etc., I suppose you think it's ok for MY tax dollars to be stolen from me (at gunpoint) to bail out the music industry? Well, then, fuck you.

    • by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday November 24 2004, @09:46AM (#10908839) Homepage Journal
      As mentioned repeatedly on slashdot, IP law is now critical to nerds. No one can write software and put it out there for the public to use without having to consider IP law (even deciding to put it in the public domain is a decision in IP law). Back in the day, when nerds were all in the basements and few people had a computer no one cared about IP. But with more than half of the US licensing software IP law is more and more a part of everyday lives. And if you're a nerd who programs or even just tinkers it's an important part of your hobby.

      You can personally choose to ignore it, but it's at your own expense. If you don't fight to keep IP laws fair you'll one day find it's illegal or too expensive to be a nerd.
    • Re:Plethora of Czars (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jalefkowit (101585) <<ten.ztiwokfelnosaj> <ta> <nosaj>> on Wednesday November 24 2004, @12:28PM (#10910150) Homepage
      There is more truth to this than you know.

      I've come to the conclusion that the primary function of these types of "Czars" is to do one thing -- generate B-roll. Actually solving energy/drug/homeland security/IP/etc. problems is beside the point.

      For those of you lucky enough to not have to deal with media on a regular basis, here's what I mean. When the TV types do a story on a subject, they typically build it by combining a tiny amount of actual news footage -- i.e. footage of something important happening -- with a larger amount of stock footage of people, places, and things that are related to the event in question.

      Example -- if you're watching a story about a bill passing Congress, there will usually be a part where you hear the reporter talking while you see a visual of the Capitol Building looking pretty in the springtime.

      That visual is "B-roll" -- stock footage that they can use over and over again, any time they need to do a story on a particular subject.

      So what does this have to do with Czars? Well, think about it. If a problem rises to a high enough level of prominence that the Executive Branch is supposed to start paying attention to it, the TV people are going to need some B-roll -- some visual shorthand -- to indicate that. And many times they're going to use footage of the President getting off a helicopter, walking across the White House lawn, etc. as that B-roll, while the reporter's voice-over explains that "the Department of Justice announced today that heroin claimed the lives of 500 more ghetto children last year..."

      No President wants his image associated with stuff like that -- it's bad media. So he appoints a "Czar". Now the TV types have new instant visual shorthand they can use, instead of the President. So now when they're looking for B-roll to put under narration like "Maps of secret U.S. nuclear facilities were found today in an Afghan cave", they can just reach for the footage of Tom Ridge looking constipated at the podium. And now people associate Tom Ridge with bad news about bearded killers, and not the President.